Jump to content

Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2009

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 88.252.207.174 (talk) at 14:22, 17 October 2008 (→Hadise.... Türkiye..... Turkey.....Eurovision 2009: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Ukraine and Macedonia confirmed participants

Despite some tabloid rumours,Macedonian MRT representatives have confirmed that withdrawl from ESC 2009 is not considered.Broadcaster have recently shown Eurovision Dance Contest,and was preparing for Junior Eurovision selection,and a huge Tose Proeski tribute to be broadcasted by the EBU network on the 5h October.

Link: http://esckaz.com/2008/

As result of this im removing the countries mentioned from the withdrawals table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.170.198.102 (talk) 10:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything about Macedonia or Ukraine in that link and how does any of this have to do with Ukraine? The only mention of it is in this section's header. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ESCKaz is one of the most reliable sites of the contest. It clearly says: Despite some tabloid rumours, Macedonian MRT representatives have confirmed that withdrawal from ESC 2009 is not considered. Broadcaster has recently shown Eurovision Dance Contest, is preparing to Junior Eurovision selection in September and a huge Tose Proeski tribute to be broadcasted by EBU network on 5th of October. They already are discussing format of national selection for ESC, and it will be certain in the early October. Ukraine has confirmed it's participation as well. Ukrainian broadcaster NTU has said to be currently considering the option for the televised preselection, the most likely option is that it will be similar to 2007 one, the dates are now being discussed. Several high profile artists already expressed their enterest to take part. However, if financing will be limited, broadcaster may still opt for internal selection, but withdrawal is "absolutely impossible". Zaqqq (talk) 17:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to disagree. The site is someones personal website from what I can tell. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't make it less reliable then? It's editor has the direct confirmation from the broadcasters, which is no different on how other ESC websites work and the information is trustworthy. Zaqqq (talk) 04:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oikotimes???

Is anyone else having problems getting to Oikotimes.com? have they shut down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.81.137.8 (talk) 21:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and it is killing me. I don't know when or if they will be back up again. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also had the same problem the other day but they were back later; hopefully it is just server issues. Camaron | Chris (talk) 21:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, you can get on?? Also, proofread the newsletter for me please, I want it out tonight :) Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could the other day again, but I could not yesterday, and I still cannot get on now. Camaron2 | Chris (talk) 11:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ITS BACK!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.81.137.8 (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tabels

Hi, i found in spanish wiki, one table for eurovision, in portuguese wiki, i have alredy out the table in de Eurovision 2008 and 2009. I'm where to ask you, if you don't wanna use this table?

Country Original Song Name Artist Seleccion Seleccion Date
English Translation Languages
 United Kingdom TBD TBD Eurovision: Your Decision 2009 TBD
TBD TBD

--João P. M. Lima (talk) 00:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not since it would be a lot of work to update all of the pages. The current table shows enough info for an overview without being too complicated. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 00:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Participants sections

Should we move the table, and add in all the confirmed participants, and rename the section "Participating countries" as on the 2008 page? Or is it still too early? Greekboy (talk) 22:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might make sense. Where did we get the idea to do the national selection stuff in the table by the way? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 00:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The national selection info and date is usually included in the table every year until they are over. And then they are taken out and replaced with other fields like points and stuff. It a so-so situation. I believe there is a guideline/rule about adding in info that will be eventually taken out in the final article. I am not sure on the exact name and such. Greekboy (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through last years discussion archives, and found the rule I was talking about was Wikipedia:Recentism. It was agreed last year that national selection information and dates should be taken out of the article completley, and written on the countries yearly pages. I am going to be be bold here and take out the info, and re-organize things. If anyone has any comments or problems please let me know here. Greekboy (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support that. Now we can put all confirmed into the table. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I moved most of it over. All that needs to be done now is to write a short paragraph about the withdrawing countries, and new coming countries above the table like in the 2008 article, but that can wait I guess. If anyone wants to do it, please feel free. Greekboy (talk) 16:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am overall quite happy with the move around but I have some disagreements, see below. I have already added more detail about withdrawals, but you can add more if you wish. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problems with your suggestions, especially about the withdrawals. Like I wrote above, it can be written in a paragraph above the table. I just didn't add more information to it at the time. Since it is now mentioned above the table, I took out the list/sub-section about it, and you seem to agree with that. Regarding the venue section, can I suggest incorporating the visual design of the contest in the future somehow together with the venue information? Just a suggestion. Greekboy (talk) 18:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite happy for the venue section to be tinkered around with as necessary in the future, I do think incorporating visual design with it makes sense. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawals and lead section re-visited

First I will quote what I said in September...

I have re-added the withdrawals section again, as I do not agree with its removal. First, the section is not redundant to the infobox - the infobox gives no mention on why Georgia withdrew, which is not very helpful to the reader. Second, although it is happening both in this article and the 2008 article, per WP:LEAD, the lead section should only overview the article, it should not contain exclusive details of information. So I would also oppose moving all details of Georgia's withdrawal to the lead section. A quick mention can be given, but not everything. Yes the withdrawals section is rather short as there is only one withdrawal at the moment, but more can be added in the future and this article is not currently suffering from length problems. Camaron | Chris (talk) 10:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I have re-written the lead to be more compliant with WP:LEAD. The original lead was functioning more like a miscellaneous section and had to much detail of certain topics such as the host (I have now given this its own section) and no mention of some other topics such as participants. The lead is quite short now at only a mid size paragraph, though that this is probably quite close to what it should be at the current article size. As the article gets longer, the lead can get bigger. Camaron | Chris (talk) 10:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The first bit about withdrawals still applies now, the reasons for withdrawal are historical information but I have now integrated them into the participants section so there is no need for the withdrawals section. The lead part still applies as well, it is a summary not the miscellaneous section to put stuff that does that does not fit into any other section. It should be aimed for this article to comply with guidelines such as WP:LEAD, merging sections with it does not do that. I am aware that in previous years venue information was in the lead and dominated it, this is to be frank wrong, and I would rather adopt correct practices now rather than later. The lead section is a little short now, but this can be resolved in ways other than merging sections. I hope to correct ESC 2008 eventually to solve this issue there as well. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usually there are no refs in the lead. Do we have them because that information is not discussed in detail below? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It should in theory be possible to not use citations in the lead as the content there should be mostly drawn from the rest of the article, which should already be cited. The guideline says on the issue: Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. ... The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. Contentious material about living persons must be cited every time, regardless of the level of generality. I am under the impression this means that articles can have either most references repeated in the lead, or have few or none there, with the topic type and editors consensus determining which way to go. In this case I do not really mind if the citations are there or not. Browsing round featured articles there seems to be a mix, Trafford hardly has any citations in the lead, while Subarachnoid hemorrhage has quite a few. For Eurovision they should not be particularly necessary, citations in the main article body are usually sufficient. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland

What are Ireland doing next year? They aren't mentioned anywhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.40.178 (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of ESCKaz

After taking a good look at ESCKaz, I am wondering if its a reliable source. At the top of the page its reads "by Andy Mikheev". Seems to be his personal website. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This started to be used a while back, though I have never investigated the website much. After reviewing WP:RS and the website itself, I do not think this is reliable. While it is not a pure blog (which certainly should not be used for sourcing) and is instead presented as news site, the small print at the bottom of [1] suggests it only has one author and hence probably does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy as required per guidelines. Some further comments suggesting that everything is the personal opinion of the author, are even more concerning. I think it would be beneficial if this was not used as a source on Wikipedia. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Greekboy said that it won an award for "most reliable eurovision website" or something like that, but I'm not sure that that makes it appropriate for wiki. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. Not most reliable. While investigating the site myself the other day, it mentions that it won "Eurvision Hero" award from some other site, but in terms of reliability to wikipedia, I don't think it qualifies for the reasons stated by Chris. And of course these awards mean nothing. :p Greekboy (talk) 23:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the plus side however, the external links in the stories link to the official websites of the networks where there is a lot of information that we are missing. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 00:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ESCKAZ is one of the few sites that can offer reliable information from the former CIS countries. News that is often copied and pasted to other less reliable sites. One thing it certainly doesn't have currency with is rumour and gossip. That Oikotimes and ESCToday are amongst those who often use the material (the latter with credit, the former rarely so), I think regarding it as unreliable is a rather blinkered thing to do. The site has been nominated for Millenial and Eurowebby awards and almost always ranks as the most reliable in polls of users. I think you'd be hard pushed to find a site that is more dedicated to the news and not self promotion. On a lega footing, the site owner and main editor is a legal expert, something that is vital to understand the somewhat convuluted systems employed in this part of the world. To see it as anything other than pristine and a shining example is foolhardy andsuggests a private agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.126.53.118 (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only agenda is ensuring Wikipedia articles follow established policies and guidelines such as WP:V and WP:RS. Positive feedback and award nominations alone does not make website reliable, and being a lawyer may count a bit for legal articles, but I don't see how this means very much for Eurovision articles with a few exceptions; in addition for any of these to count there should be reliable source based evidence that they are true. Of primary concern is that the website only has one author, which means content on there is possibly self-published and hence is usually not acceptable per WP:SPS, there are a few exceptions but I don't see how this site meets them. Oikotimes and ESCToday may use content from the site, but their website set-up means they will likely oversight/check material before they re-publish it, making it more reliable. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can only tell you how it looks. ESCKaz is a reliable source of information, something you can establish by looking at older articles and verifying that the information they claimed at publication was later proven to be correct. 'Opinion' is not an issue surely with 'news' and given this is the Eurovision Song Contest, where broadcasters in the CIS zones tend to play their cards rather close to their chests, I think the site has proven to be entirely trustworthy. Given Wiki's own failings on all things Eurovision, I felt it only fair to point out the plus sides of a site that tends not to flock with the others and on the whole proves to be the source of news rather than the one who reproduces it (with or WITHOUT any fact checking). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.126.53.118 (talk) 20:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, if we "fail at all things Eurovision" why don't you step up and help out since that is all that we are doing. We can't always keep up with all of the random things that people add. Whether the site is reliable in the end or not, it does not pass the qualifications that Wikipedia has set for reliable sources. There are links to reliable sources on ESCKaz however, so obtaining information from those sources is allowed. Also, I have no idea what "CIS" is. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think CIS refers to Commonwealth of Independent States. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is accepted that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source, that is why use of other clearly reliable sources is such an issue. WP:RS says it its nutshell: Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for *fact-checking* and accuracy. It may have some reputation for accuracy, but I am not happy over the latter issue with no real case being made on how the source gets past WP:SPS. One thing that has not been mentioned is that sourcing requirements for information on living persons, which include some Eurovision information, is even stricter and I am very confident that ESCKaz would not pass, as explained at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank heavens for Wikipedia then, eh :) On a more serious note, I have grave concernes about ESCKaz. Whilst I accept it is probably the only site with constant and often incredibly detailed news about the eastern European entries, it is effectively a blog. And blogs fail WP:RS. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ESCKaz is currently the most comprehensive site on Junior Eurovision and Dance Eurovision, even much more than their official sites are. You hardly can find anything more reliable than it on ESC as well, especially considering how many false rumours often appear on other sites and how many articles from ESCKaz are illegaly reprinted on other sites. Being a one-editor website doesn't make it less reliable, especially as it's editor has direct contact with most of participating broadcasters. It uses the big team of correspondents to report live, in fact their team in Belgrade was about of 10 editors, I recall, accredited as press P and not fans F or fan-press PF. Is hiring of number of editors what makes source more reliable and Wiki worthy? As it is 1. reliable, 2. accurate, 3. created by "expert in the field" it complies with WP:RS just fine. Also, I recall that ESCKaz is base of the official OGAE Rest of the World club. I do not even realise from what of sudden this talk appeared, citing ESCKaz has been at Wikipedia for years, as site celebrates 7 years of existense this year. If some Wikipedia editor is stuck to some sites, it doesn't make other sites less reliable. If we're speaking on Wikipedia guidance, the first to drop out from it should be Oikotimes, as it clearly goes below "reliable and accurate" source, it's articles are either reprinted from elsewhere, and then we should cite original sources, or are pure gossip. Sorry, but the phrase "oversight/check material before they re-publish it, making it more reliable" seem to make no sense to me at all, I can not see how you can make material more reliable by copy-pasting it to the tabloid resource whose editor knows less on topic than the original author. Zaqqq (talk) 03:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does to me, as many publishers check their sources accuracy over before publishing them, and that is clearly what WP:RS demands - it is not usually just copy and pasting. One person alone is never perfect, and more people reviewing is logically more reliable, and how this site passes WP:SPS still has not been shown in evidence. There have been a lot of outside policy/guideline practices occurring with Eurovision articles, and perhaps everything needs (and is) being reviewed. I don't know huge amounts about Oikotimes, so I will leave it to others that know more, perhaps which needs to be reviewed as well. No source is perfect though, which is why as many different sources need to be used as possible in an article. Camaron2 | Chris (talk) 12:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will reiterate that ESCKaz does have links to the broadcaster's website where the information is obtained, so sourcing the information from the original source is fine. (ex Cyprus confirmed...with confirmed being a link to the CyBC website where the source is). Also note that what is said about Macedonia and Ukraine is unsourced; ESCKaz has no link to where the information came from. When a final decision is publicly released (meaning we can find it more than one place) then they can move to confirmed. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 12:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ESCKaz mostly operates on direct contact with broadcasters, that is the reason, why they are very reliable and accurate, so when it doesn't mention source, that means news came directly from the broadcasters. What you were using as source of possible "withdrawal" from these countries also comes from NONOFFICIAL sources, which reliability can not be confirmed. I do not see what is the difference then. It's either we accept information from non-official sites as ESCToday or ESCKaz, or we do not accept it at all, which also will be fine. But to accept information from such poor source as Oikotimes is and not accept it from the site that has proven to be reliable and accurate seems top of being ridiculous for me.Zaqqq (talk) 14:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sources do not need to be official to be reliable, and as explained in WP:RS there is a difference between some non-official sources and others in their reliability. I am also not seen any strong evidence that ESCKaz has been proven to be reliable and accurate, user testimony alone does not prove it, but I will assume for now that it is probably accurate for the sake of dispute. Stephen is right that ESCKaz should be useful for finding other source outlets, regardless of it is reliable itself or not. If ESCKaz is getting information from broadcasters (rather than being based on the authors opinion, which is a WP:OR issue) then the broadcasters themselves should be publishing such information and ESCKaz should be sourcing it, so that can be used instead and using ESCKaz should not be necessary. As I have already said diversification is important, if multiple sources say something and there are no sourcing conflicts (ie other sources don't claim otherwise), then including something in the article can be more strongly justified. Camaron2 | Chris (talk) 14:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you exactly list why Oikotimes can be used as source and ESCKaz can not? Zaqqq (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it could, as I said earlier: There have been a lot of outside policy/guideline practices occurring with Eurovision articles, and perhaps everything needs (and is) being reviewed. I don't know huge amounts about Oikotimes, so I will leave it to others that know more, perhaps which needs to be reviewed as well. I have never actually used Oikotimes as a source in articles personally, but I might do more research and give an opinion. Do you have a view on this Stephen? Camaron2 | Chris (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have yet to find an error on Oikotimes, but usually check out who or what their source is before I use the story for a ref. No offense, but ESCKaz does not look like a very presentable site like Oikotimes and ESCToday; its just a bunch of info pasted on a page. ESCKaz is the same thing as a random person calling the network and getting information; how do we verify that? I think using the site as a library for other sources would be a better choice than to ref ESCKaz itself. There are only 85 [2] refs to the site, most of which are for the Dance Contest, which is not very well covered by both Oiko and ESCToday. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oikotimes has a couple different editors, and their articles are usually backed up/check by outside sources. When they do post "Rumors", they go under a rumor section and not the main news section. I haven't read this argument in full, but from what I can tell, ESCKaz is only a 1 editor website which is a big "no-no". Greekboy (talk) 16:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still, there has been no proof in discussion given that ESCKaz fails to comply with reliability standarts and Wikipedia guidance. I have noted already, that on my understanding it fully complies with WP:RS and WP:SPS as it has proven it's reliability and is run by very much known expert in the field, who has been consulting different Eurovision delegations for years. The only two reason, you've suggested are the number of editors (again, ESCKaz is using editors when they are necessary, like Eurovision Week) and design of the site, which can not be decisive in terms of reliability of sources. Unless more users join the discussion and proves me wrong, I suggest to keep using ESCKaz as one of primary reliable sources of all things Eurovision, which it is, as most of the Eurovision news are really primarily published there and then illegally copied by other sites. If only 5 of us, 2 pro 3 contra will keep discussion, I see no use in it. Zaqqq (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think you are getting this the wrong around, according to policy under WP:BURDEN it is those that add information that have the burden of providing reliable citations, not those that challenge it. In the spirit of this policy, the evidence and consensus of reliability needs to be shown for it to be widely accepted. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(<--) Not that its a vote, but you are the only one for the site. I could make my own site and post eurovision info that is always right, but that doesnt make it appropriate for wikipedia. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not alone, someone from 80.126.53.118 (talk agreed with my points too, and there are only 3 of you contra. You definitely can do this, but whether you will be able to get any exclusive information on your site makes major difference. If you're able to get exclusive first hand information from the broadcasters and prove your information is reliable, then your site will be very much welcomed source. Zaqqq (talk) 17:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not supposed to be a vote, but if lack of numbers are really an issue requests can be filed for further opinions to be made from other independent Wikipedia editors. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The choice is, does Wiki want the information to be accurate or pander to less reliable 'multi-person' fan sites. None of the fan sites are official, just having more fans work on them doesn't mean there is any fact checking. It is little wonder that Wiki has a fading reputation from the heyday when it was regarded as accurate. Instead of quoting policy, why not try to make the information accurate. You cannot apply a rigid set of policy documents to something that is basically a creative element and light entertainment. This is where Wikipedia fails at the most fundamental level. My last contribution, since I realise I'll not convince you and since it leaves Wiki as people's last port of call for accurate Eurovision information - which is probably fine as the fan sites work at this and Wiki doesn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.126.53.118 (talk) 06:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This should not turn into a debate over fundamentals of Wikipedia, no discussion on this talk page is going to change them. Next, WP:RS is a guideline that is quite loose in places which is why we have these debates, not a rigid policy. They however reflect community consensus and all editors are generally expected to follow them for all articles. You suggest that we should make the information accurate, well that is exactly what people here are trying to do but that is not that simple - there are varying opinions on what is accurate and how to achieve accuracy. As for Wikipedia being "people's last port of call for accurate Eurovision information", well editors try hard, but there will always be a minority that hold that opinion whatever is done, that is unlikely to be news to me or many others. Camaron2 | Chris (talk) 12:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hadise.... Türkiye..... Turkey.....Eurovision 2009

== Hadise ==http://bp0.blogger.com/_OG62oIrnrsA/SFOk3pgVu6I/AAAAAAAAEQU/5Wij5t2VC04/s400/20080613_160237_859_HADISE%2520-KAPAK.jpg

She will participate ın 2009 Eurovision Song Contest for Türkiye(Turkey).I think.this is %99,9999999...She has got beatiful and strong voice and song.and She is Turkish of course...go Hadise go Turkey.Türkiye... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.227.209.254 (talk) 23:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As much as we would like to take your word for it, let's wait until it is published somewhere. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

but last week Hadise talked about thıs ın a Turkish television. she would lıke to go eurovisiion 2009.and if she will be able to participate Eurovision 2009,she will be very glad.so ıf TRT(Turkish Rodio Television)is stupid,they won't send Hadise.but ıt is imposible.she wiil participate.ok?and you will see this soon.

It won't hurt to wait a little bit. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 00:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

look my friend?are you English?ı dont understand you,ok? ı will wait,anyway I'm thinking to go Hadise in Eurovision.because TRT explained 2 days ago.and they made definite.thay chose Şebnem Ferah or Hadise.but Şebnem Ferah wouldn't go Eurovision.so Hadise absolutely will go.Do you understand?No matter what, Hadise has started dreaming about the Eurovision Song Contest 2009. "If I would take part – I am a perfectionist – then the performance should be incredibly. Besides that, the song would have to be extremely good. So we'd have to spend a lot of time on it". said Hadise.She is belgıum sınger but She is Turkish and of course she wıll represent for Türkiye.Turkey.she said —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.227.206.212 (talk) 07:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2009&oldid=245896836"