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 58.178.124.3 (talk) at 09:36, 5 April 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Armenia artist selection

As far as I can see the Azeria Press Agency is a reliable source and the claims it makes are worth noting; in particular I doubt it would make hoax claims of happenings in the Turkish Parliament, which are quite significant. I am moving details of this to the entry article, but I will accept leaving the table here as saying TBD as the broadcaster does not appear to have confirmed the claimed selection. Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was the reason I removed System of a Down from the article; because the broadcaster hadn't announced that they were sending System of a Down. I suggest we make a 'rule' and stick to it that in an event of an internal selection (which is going to be the case for eight countries this year) only add their participants into the article if that certain singer/act has been announced to represent that country in 2009. - Diggiloo (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well most sourcing in articles should rely on secondary sources (i.e. ESCToday, Oikotimes), rather than primary sources (i.e. the broadcasters) per WP:V#Reliable sources, though both can be used. I am happy to be on the safe side and leave it as TBD at present as no other reliable source (that I know of) has said System of the Down is going to Moscow, and none have said the broadcaster has confirmed it. However, if multiple numbers of reliable secondary sources say xyz is confirmed then that is enough to add it, a direct announcement from the broadcaster is helpful but it is not strictly necessary per WP:V. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish song title

What should we label the Turkish song title as? I've put it as 'Düm Tek Tek', 'Crazy for You' and some other names. In the song presentation the song title wasn't announced, for some reason. I've labeled it as 'Düm Tek Tek' as we've got more sources at the moment that say it's 'Düm Tek Tek' than other names. -Diggiloo (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The song article seems to explain that the title is onomatapoeic, like we need any more of that in Eurovision :) doktorb wordsdeeds 14:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working to get rid of the "Hadise song" disambiguation because we don't need it. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please express your opinions at the talk page of the song for moving it to an appropriate title. --Turkish Flame ☎ 18:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article currently says in hidden comments: "Crazy for You is NOT the English translation of the song", yet at Düm Tek Tek it says at the intro of the article "also known by its English name "Crazy for You"". Which is correct? Camaron | Chris (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the culprit for both :O "Crazy for You" seems to be an alternate name for the song, but not the official, hence "also known by". There is a difference between English title and translation that seems to be the problem. Since "Dum Tek Tek" seems to be a sound, it cannot be translated into another language (read the article) and therefore has no "translation" while it does have an "english title". Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see, that now makes sense to me. Camaron | Chris (talk) 09:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TRT say the song's name is 'Düm Tek Tek/Crazy for you..' in one of their articles, which I showed to Grk1011/Stephen the other day, but i've since lost the link. Being so we should (really) go by what the broadcaster calls the song, once I find the article we should call the song Düm Tek Tek/Crazy for you..? -Diggiloo (talk) 11:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After all this, I would prefer at least two sources for the name, preferably both by TRT on diff days and such. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Back to Diggiloo's comment, I have also lost the link, I definitely saw it being titles "Düm Tek Tek/Crazy for You". ńăŧħăń - ŧăłķ 21:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found a link for a news story about the song. This article from TRT seems to support only "Düm Tek Tek". Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Kaas?

It could be very good if she will represent France in the ESC, but there are only rumors and no confirmed sources...--87.6.176.27 (talk) 14:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess its confirmed now... Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The source given says she is only in negotiations, no final decision has been made. A think we should wait a few days until a press release with a final decision (as claimed in the source) comes out. Hence, I have removed her as confirmed for now. Camaron | Chris (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its a little confusing the way the articles are worded. The one on ESCToday was titled something like she might, but then the body is worded like she is going to. I say we wait until the broadcaster confirms. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theme

I see the new theme has been reveled, but yet it is not mentioned anywhere in the article. I would add it myself, but I do not know much about it. I will try to search for information. Greekboy (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a visual design section, with some information I found, but it needs to be expanded. Who ever has more information, please add. Greekboy (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Map of semi finals

The map that someone created showing the countries participating and voting in each semi final is wrong as UK, Spain and Germany are suppose to vote in Semi Finl 1. but it says otherwise —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.81.184 (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The captions are correct, but have been mixed up. Red = SF1, Blue - SF2, however this is reversed for the voters and really should be changed. Also the map is slapped in the participating countries section, but focuses more on the Semi-finals. -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 22:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that Blue should not generally be used to color in countries on the map, as blue is generally used to represent bodies of water. :p Greekboy (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greece and Cyprus in the same semi final? We sure? doktorb wordsdeeds 15:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. http://www.eurovision.tv/page/news?id=1857 -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 16:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well there goes the "want to split up neighbours who want to vote for each other" plan then, eh? doktorb wordsdeeds 16:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was a bit surprised as well, but good for Greece and Cyprus! :p Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. There were still countries from the same pot together last year too. Greekboy (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Protection

This page needs to be semi-protected to prevent random people from altering information to their liking. This always happens during the national final season. Evilperson 20 (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i agree because of people like us wooohooooo wooot wooot lolk rofl XD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.15.155 (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is too bad yet, and some IPs make some constructive edits to the page. Close to the final and just after semi-protection might be necessary but we are still some months away from that yet. In any case, per WP:SEMI pages should not be protected for vandalism which has not yet occurred. There have certainly been a few cases of vandalism on this page, but I don't think it is out of control enough yet to justify semi-protection. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Song selection dates

Ok, I don't want to be a complete hypocrite, but I was thinking maybe we can include the selection dates for each entry. I still don't support the new column, but say for Greece, since the only thing left is the song to pick, we put in the song column (18 February 2009) to denote that it will be chosen on that date. Any thoughts? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually don't mind it, as long as it is sourced I'm sure it will be fine, just clicking on the less than 43 participating countries can take a lot of time. -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 20:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Selection season is almost over. I'm not sure it is worth it to get into this with even more sourcing. I don't know though. Greekboy (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the point in bothering now as songs have been chosen already and such.. -Diggiloo (talk) 11:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources in Table

I know I have asked this before, but do we honestly need so many sources in the table for everything? This is an overview page, I don't think the song, singer, or language needs to be sourced (after it is chosen) unless it is disputed. (like the language for example) Greekboy (talk) 00:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's only an overview table and the sources can be found on the pages of each country. There are way too much sources in this article. Is it really necessary to have 3 sources for every country (1 of Estoday, 1 of Oikotimes and 1 of Eurovision.tv) when the news of the 3 sources are the same? Danoples (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I say remove every source except Eurovision.tv. Mike H. Fierce! 09:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good, assuming there is a eurovision.tv source for each. I feel that its better to have one to back yourself up than none at all. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 13:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article should be able to stand on its own in meeting WP:V, but it can do this with much less sources than it has now. Only disputable information actually needs to be sourced, this does not apply to a lot of the song languages. Citing more than once for one piece of info is not particularly necessary either (unless something is particularly controversial), though there is no rule I know against it, it just takes up space. Camaron | Chris (talk) 10:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be a firm outcome to this, but I was bold and took out the sources for the languages at least. I left some of the controversial, or potentially controversial ones in, including ones for songs that have not yet been chosen. I think the next step is to take out the artist and song sources unless controversial. Any further input would be appreciated. Greekboy (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree that no sourcing is needed as a table acts an overview, unless an item is controversial of course. Also there is no need for double sourcing, with the exception of disputed/controversial entries. Imperatore (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I took out the double sources a few days ago and left the eurovision.tv refs, I guess we can give this reduced source thing a chance. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After reading these comments, I was bold and took out the non-controversial sources. Sorry for hitting minor edit by accident. :p Greekboy (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

from georgian song-"we don't wanna put in"

When this song won the eurovision 2009 in georgia, many people told that georgia will be discvalip. pls tell me if is it tru? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.139.169.129 (talk) 09:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2009 may answer your question - it looks like last year's conflict in South Ossetia led to Georgia pulling out from the contents, then re-entering after Russia game top marks to Georgia in a different content. There are, apparently, calls for Georgia to boycott (that is, to pull out of the contest again) the contest, but whether this will happen is not yet clear. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 09:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yes but this song isn't about Putin, this is only simple song and nothing is thre aboute the georgien-russien conflict.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.139.169.129 (talk) 10:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the article I referenced above doesn't say anything about the song being political - it simply says that political tensions between Georgia and Russia led to Georgia withdrawing from the contest. If the article doesn't answer your question I don't know what to suggest - Wikipedia:Reference desk maybe? (Incidentally, that is probably a better venue anyway - talk pages like this are really for discussing how to improve their associated articles). Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 10:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who are those broadcasters?

Under "Voting", it says "In response to some broadcasters' continued complaints about politically charged, neighbourly and diaspora voting" - who are those broadcasters? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjessen (talk • contribs) 12:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli song title

I'm sure we all have our own opinions on how the Israeli song title should be written, but I can we agree on one title for the song, instead of, like, four different ones. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that it is official on eurovision.tv, I think we are safe. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Song Translation

I have listed the turkish song translation as 'Boom Bang Bang'. Even though this isn't a translation but an equivalent, it's the nearest we'll get to a translation. It has been removed a number of times by a certain user and I think there should be a consensus on it being mentioned in the article. -Diggiloo (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the name of the song is a sound rather than a word or sentence, etc, there is no "translation". However, there would be an "equivalent" as the source provides us. Boom Bang Bang seems like a good fit and I think it doesn't hurt to have it. When you think about it, a translation is basically an equivalent. It says the same thing in a way greater understood; I feel that Boom Bang Bang does this for Dum Tek Tek. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer it not to have a translation personally as it is a drum beat, as stated in the actual article here. I agree with the statement that a translation is an "equivalent" in English, but I don't agree with translating the Turkish drum beat names into English, it just seems stupid in my opinion. ńăŧħăń - ŧăłķ 22:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We could use a note that will say its an equivalent. It would be a little stupid if it linked to a page that said it had no translation lol. But I think its inclusion will help the reader realize that it isn't just a foreign name; they will be able to identify it as a sound. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what I just said on MSN. You can't really translate the sound a Turkish drum makes - I would agree to writing something that means people can identify the words "Düm Tek Tek" as a drum beat however. I've bolded Stephen's statement there about identifying it as a sound as it is the best option for all parties involved. ńăŧħăń - ŧăłķ 22:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best solution is to list it as "Boom Bang Bang" with a note next to it stating that there is no direct translation to it, as it is a sound a Turkish drum makes. I was bold and added it with a note. If anyone has any objections, please feel free to take it out. Greekboy (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Object. If the sound is onomatopoeic then it cannot be translated! The sound of this drum, in Turkish, from where the song is from, is Dum Tek Tek. That is its sound. There can be no translation, only "equivilance", which is what the source says (and that is NOT an official translation site, for one). doktorb wordsdeeds 19:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's why it will be a note that its not a translation, only an equivalent. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly why there is a note next to "Boom Bang Bang". If you click on it, it says that "Düm Tek Tek" is the sound that a drum makes, thus there is no direct or official translation for it. "Boom Bang Bang" is simply the English equivalent.". Greekboy (talk) 21:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a reliable source and therefore cannot be listed. The note recognizes that the phrase is not in the English language and that explanation will suffice. Until an official source states that the sound can have this equivalent phrase in English, this should not be listed. Also I'd like to add that no consensus on this issue has been reached as several people have objected to this in the discussion above so no agreement has been made. Evilperson 20 (talk) 22:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who has qualified the Turkish song translation to be Boom Bang Bang? I have not seen this anywhere and the source provided is unreliable. As far as I'm concerned there is no translation to the title. The reasoning provided to support "Boom Bang Bang" could support a number of English variants. This should be removed and left with no translation. Evilperson 20 (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have discussed this before and I suggest you take a look a few sections up. The source is the where the translation came from and I have problems with the sites reliability, though it's not the best. Without a translation, we are showing that somehow Dum Tek Tek is an English phrase or saying, which it most definitely is not. I am going to reinstate Boom bang bang for now. The chain of events goes discussion, then action. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the note that is written and referred to beside the current translation is enough of an explanation. There is no need to find equivalent terms especially when they have not been provided with an official source. There is simply no translation and therefore there should be a hyphen as in other counties with the note beside it that explains the situation. Evilperson 20 (talk) 16:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you noticed, but none of the songs have "official" sources for their translations. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that those songs can be translated. "Dum Tek Tek" is a sound and slapping on an irrelevant equivalent phrase with no source is an issue. The translations for the other songs have been more or less confirmed on official sources.Evilperson 20 (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dum Tek Tek is the only translation with a source, whether you approve of its reliability or not. There has not been any reason to doubt its accuracy, so it stands. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No...Dum Tek Tek has no translation therefore you can't source something that doesn't exist. An equivalent phrase that someone has put on a website is not official and it can be doubted since clearly that information is written from someones individual perspective. If what you're saying is put into action, I can go and source any information from any website and write about it on wikipedia. But besides that, I don't understand what the misunderstanding is here. Dum Tek Tek is unable to be translated because no such thing exists and equivalent phrases are needless; the note will suffice. Evilperson 20 (talk) 07:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The note is enough, there is no translation therefore just a note next to the hyphen is enough to explain it. ńăŧħăń - ŧăłķ 23:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is fine as it is, there is no clear translation so a hyphen is appropriate, with a note stating what a source thinks the alternate sound is. If it is reliable there is no reason to exclude it, and if alternate suggestions on English equivalent sounds are found they can be added as well. There is no requirement it needs to be official, in fact Wikipedia articles are supposed to built on secondary sources (often third party) per WP:V. Camaron | Chris (talk) 09:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Language issues

This article is being effected like last years with disputes over languages. The Bosnia and Herzegovina entry is currently marked as in Serbian and is sourced as it is controversial per WP:V. I have removed the following note which was inserted when changing the song language back to Bosnian, although the source saying otherwise was left??:

<!-- Please stop changing the language for Bosnia and Herzegovina. If you understand the bosnian language, then you will know that the songtext is in bosnian. There is a mistake in the reference. -->

There are several problems with this:

  1. Determining disputed article content by personal views made from listening to a song without sources is a type of original research.
  2. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia functions by verifiability not truth. Hence content in articles should reflect what sources actually say.
  3. WP:BURDEN makes clear that those adding content are obliged to find sources which back up their views, one source has been provided for Serbian, I have seen none for Bosnia and Herzegovina which show this source given was a mistake.

Hence, I have gone along with the existing source for now, though I overall don't really mind which one is used, as long as it used appropriately within policy. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As both languages (Serbian and Bosnian) are very alike, I'd put the language as Bosnian as the band is from Bosnia & Herzegovina. I will ask around though to see if it's Bosnian or Serbian though :) -Diggiloo (talk) 23:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the language articles the languages appear to be mostly, perhaps almost entirely, the same, this appears to be dominantly a political issue. I am sympathetic to the idea of just having all the languages to local dialect e.g. Bosnia to Bosnian, Croatia to Croatian, if it resolves the issue as it is logical, as in the wider context it is clear sources disagree on this issue. Camaron | Chris (talk) 17:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd put the language as Bosnian as the band is from Bosnia & Herzegovina - That doesn't make sense, Bosnian is the language of the Bosniaks, not the language of Bosnia and Hercegovina. BiH has three official languages. --androl (talk) 13:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The source currently used does not make sense. It makes a comparison between Serbian and Bosnian, and comes to the correct conclusion that the language in the song is not Serbian, but then jumps to the conclusion that the song actually is in a third language, Croatian. Without any better sources there is no reason to dispute that the song is in the local dialect for Sarajevo, Bosnian. 83.227.38.65 (talk) 13:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There have been two different sources so far, and numerous IPs have cheerfully ignored both and changed the text to whatever their personal version of the truth is. The current reference is an attempt to address the issues that various IP editors apparently had with the esctoday reference. I suspect that the best solution may simply be to semi-protect the page in order to force discussion here? Frankly I don't care what the article says, just so long as the text matches the reference. Alternatively I could just decide that the song is actually sung in Te Reo Māori...! Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 13:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here are two sources supporting that the song is in Bosnian (though the differences are minimal), a newspaper [1] and the homepage of a web-radio station [2]. Neither one is in English. The newspapers short statement translated into English says "The group from Sarajevo, "Regina", performed "Bistra Voda" in the Bosnian language...". 83.227.38.76 (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Source 1 and source 2 - repeating them because when I clicked on them I came back to this page ;-)
I ran the first one through an online translation tool and got this - it looks to me that the reference is fine. If no one objects I'm going to add this in in the next hour or so. To be honest, this seems to be such a contentious issue that I think multiple references are a good idea, so I'll add this reference to the existing one, and in the meantime I'll run your second reference through a translator. Cheers! This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 18:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that works. Someone had put all three languages so I just changed it to Serbo-Croatian for the time being because according to the article, it seems to be the general term to refer to all three languages. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Serbo-Croatian language is not a language of communication, but an academic phrase, that phrase is used by those supporting brotherhood and unity policy and has nothing to do with reality. In fact the Republic of Serbia was the last country to drop the official nature of that language of the Yugoslavs (now found in rare numbers), Serbia changed its official language from the greater nationalistic Serbo-Croatian to just Serbian in 2006. This is why it is unacceptable to use Serbo-Croatian as a general term and as the term describing languages in this era. -- Imbris (talk) 02:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have anything constructive to add to the discussion? Maybe an alternative? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You should preach me about being constructive? The only way is to list in alphabetical order Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian. Bosnia and Herzegovina is a multicultural society, so nobody should mind the full list of its official languages. -- Imbris (talk) 03:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It will not be sung in a selection of languages. According to the above we have found that Bosnian is what it is considered to be sung in. Please provide a source that specifically says it is sung in all of those. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your negative approach is vibrant, stop playing the role of defender of great unity, you know what I mean (Dzole said it best). See Differences between standard Croatian, Serbian and Bosnian. -- Imbris (talk) 03:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe we can do exactly that, unless a reference can be found that says it is sung in more than one language - what we claim in the article needs to be verifiable, i.e. it needs to be supported by one or more reference and not be the product of original reserach. Frankly I'm beginning to understand why eurovision.tv make no mention of the language: here, here or here. At this point I'm going to suggest that we list the language as "disputed, a Serbo-croat language" and provide references previously used to support Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian with a footnote explaining that sources disagree and no official statement has yet been issued. I don't think that this will end the removal/replacement of cited text, but we can deal with that if and when it occurs. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 09:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) I've asked for some wider input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina#Eurovision Song Contest 2009. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 10:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The list should rather be left blank instead of your proposal "disputed, a Serbo-Croatian language". Also in previous ESCs the entry was in the Official languages of the Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian. So what is the problem on listing the three. -- Imbris (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that we can't cite a reference that lists all three. Obviously if such a reference could be found that would be great.
Why do you feel that the entry should be left blank? I'm not necessarily saying I disagree, I'm just curious as to why you think it's a good solution.
Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 21:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cite the Constitution of the country, in Bosnia and Herzegovina there is no contest, but a hand picked selection based on the decisions of the few. In BiH everything must be writen three times.
Blank is better than OR, and it would be pure OR to list extinct languages like Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian language. The blank field would lead people to even more questions, and that would be good (in my book).
That blank field could have a reference towards the Constitution of the country and to all other reliable sources that claim the language of the song.
Imbris (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've misunderstood me. I'm not saying that the article should state the language is Serbo-Croatian; I'm saying that it could say "a Serbo-Croatian language", i.e. a language that has it's roots in the common language (I'm open to suggestions on how to rephrase that if the term "Serbo-Croatian" isn't appropriate). I'm not suggesting any WP:OR - the references thus far provided are all for different languages derived from a common ancestor - I'm suggesting we acknowledge this, and list the ancestor instead of trying to decide which of the competing candidates (Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian) should be listed.
Citing the BiH constition would not be OK: we need to cite something that informs the reader what language the song is sung in, not leave the reader interpreting the constitution and potentially arriving at a very confused conclusion (e.g. "is the song sung simultaneously in three languages? Or are all three languages represented in the song?")
Whatever decision we reach, some sort of foot note does seem like the logical way forward - this issue is clearly confusing, and we need to make some attempt to explain the confusion to the reader.
Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 22:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have understood you perfectly, you want the name of a non-exsisting language to be written with a slight grammatical a in prefix and this would be by your account a good way to give the reader more info?
The reader would not get more info by using that particular phrase because Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian are not ofspring of the Croatian or Serbian language (Serbo-Croatian, Croato-Serbian, etc.). The Croatian or Serbian language as it was officialy been called in Croatia was an artificial Constitutional phrase, as was during the Kingdom of Yugoslavia Serbo-Croato-Slovene language.
The reader should be presented by the current constitutional phrase, that being Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian (simmilar language is one of the official languages at the Hague tribunal). This is the safest way to go. And it is not original research, quoting the constitution of the land in question.
Even if some would say that Bosnia and Herzegovina doesn't have the Deyton Constitution, but the 1992 Constitution is still valid because the Dayton has not proclaimed it invalid.
If not using the BCS formula, then leave the field in the table blank and let the future decide on it.
With respect. -- Imbris (talk) 03:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the constitution says specifically that "Bistra voda" is sung in Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian, which it most likely does not, then it is a textbook example of original research. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I want the name of a language-family used, with an explanation accompanying it. If you're unhappy with the term "Serbo-Croat", that's fine - all I'm after is to list the name of the language-family that the three languages (Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian) belong to, with an accompanying note explaining that different sources have attributed the song to each of these three languages, and that all three languages belong to a common language-family. The reason I feel this is a good solution is that it notes that several differing sources exist, attributing the song to one of several languages, and it gives the reader sufficient information to understand why this is the case - without bogging them down in constitutional law. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 12:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever said we should list the language as "disputed", we shouldn't. We should only list something as disputed if it's disputed in the real world (and of relevance). A dispute here on the talk page does not warrant marking something as disputed in the article. BalkanFever 10:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was me, and point taken. My aim was to have a note explaining that different sources say different things, rather than suggesting that there was an actual dispute. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 12:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We should set the language set to "Bosnian". I believe that the source supporting that, an online newspaper, is the only reliable source. The source claiming the language is Serbian, I believe was this, and has now removed all mention of the language. The third source, a personal homepage that in a footnote is claiming that the language is Croatian, is a bit self-contadicting. Also further down in the comments, the person who added that footnote states that it is wrong and will be corrected to Bosnian as a response to a comment.
PS. The rest of my comment is a bit OR, but I feel the need to comment on the arguments at 4lyrics. Both the argument claiming Croatian and the one claiming Bosnian are wrong since the spelling "ij", "i" and "e" is not guaranteed to always differ between the languages as explained in the entries for the these languages. Cheers 83.227.37.170 (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To someone who does not know anything about the language situation, Bosnian would surely make the most sense as the country the song is from is Bosnia, but I kinda like Flag's idea of naming the language family because one could technically argue that it is sung in any of the languages since they are so close. 4Lyrics is not a "homepage" it is a reputable website specializing in Eurovision lyrics, just as reliable as say ESCToday and Oikotimes, which specialize in news. It's natural for webmasters to correct errors on their pages, even big newspapers and such do that. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if 4lyrics is a reliable source I'd tend to agree that "Bosnian" would make the most sense - possibly with a footnote explaining the similarities with other languages. Like you, I'm unfamiliar with the language situation - when I was at school we learnt about "Serbo-Croat languages", but that was a long, long, time ago and I gather the academic consensus has changed since then - I suspect that's what Imbris is picking up on - my incorrect terminology (which was in no way intended to be partisan or offensive, apologies if anyone took it that way). Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The source 4lyrics speaks of the song being sung in Croatian, this was confirmed by the translators Todd B and Luke Fisher + the moderators comment of Nathan Waddell. Since the song represents Bosnia and Herzegovina it should list also Bosnian language. -- Imbris (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that suggestion is that it isn't clear to anyone unfamiliar with Bosnian and Croatian why "Bosnian" would be listed when the reference says only "Croatian". After all, other nations' songs are sung in a non-native language, yet are only listed as being sung in one language. I realise in this case Bosnian is very similar to Croatian, but I'm unconvinced that this similarity is sufficient to justify making a claim unsupported by the reference. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 13:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have at least one reliable source that we could use, supporting that the language is Bosnian. My problem with the 4lyrics source is that it is in some way disputed further down in the comments. Also being a native speaker I would say that the languages are similar enough that the short lyrics aren't enough to identify the language completely. One has to listen to the pronunciation. As the Wikipedia pages of these languages says; It is true that Serbian usually changes "ije" to "e", but not always. It is also true that Croatian usually uses different name for the month May, but not always. This leads of course to a lot of confusion if only viewing the text. Also, stating in the article that the song is in Serbo-Croation or all tree languages, simply because of the similarities, one could do the same thing for the Serbian and Croatian entry, 83.227.*-guy 83.227.39.1 (talk) 14:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point - any reason why we can't just say "Bosnian" (i.e. make no mention of Croatian or Serbian), using one or both of the references for Bosnian provided above? When I checked out the references they looked OK to me - i.e. they seemed to be reliable. (stating "a Serbo-Croatian language" is a less-than ideal solution, and once I think we should only consider if we're unable to find a satisfactory reference to support a more specific claim. I suspect - though I can't see any references right now - that both the Croatian and Serbian entries have references supporting the claims made by those entries). Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 14:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Individual entries

You may not notice because we've used it for a while and recognize it, but "individual entries" does not really make sense. Individual entries as opposed to overall entries? It seems like it should be links to the songs since they are the "entries" by the countries "individually", but that is not what it is. The template should technically be "Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest 2009" as that is its matching category and I think the subject of the articles would be much more obvious. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claim that John Casey designed the 1997 set

I note that the article states that John Casey designed the set in 1997 in Dublin, and this information is duly referenced. However, I believe that this is not true. IMBD lists Paula Farrell as the production designer. In the souvenir programme for 1997, Paula Farrell is also given credit, and at the time of the contest there were several interviews with her about her design -but I can't find anything online. John Casey worked as a design assistant on the last three Dublin contests, including 1994 which Paula Farrell also designed, and 1995 when the chief designer was Alan Farquharson.

89.100.216.54 (talk) 05:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It states that he was "involved" in '94 and '95, not that he did it himself. The article does assert that he did it all in '97 though. IMDB is not a great source, and it could be that Paula Farrell helped in '97 and was the only one available for comment, we don't know, so keep looking for another source if you would like to change it. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 13:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Jan Jan' or 'Nor Par'?

What song title is Armenia's song? I wonder because it is edited a bit about this and it would be good to find the name of the song has! /85.230.110.58 (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the official Eurovision Song Contest website, eurovision.tv, it's Jan Jan. I have no idea where "Nor Par" is coming from. Cheers, This flag once was redjokespranks 16:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where it is coming from either and it's starting to get annoying. Even if the song had an alternative name, this article only reflects the name it used at Eurovision. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commentators and Spokpersons

Hi, don't you want start now the list of this theme? In portuguese wikipedia, i've started already, and you can wacth rigth here (to spokepersons) and here (for the commentators) bye João P. M. Lima (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Broadcasting

Does anyone know if the ESC will be broadcast in Georgia (on Georgian Public TV) now that it has withdrawn?? If so, we need to put it under the broadcasters.

  1. ^ http://www.dnevniavaz.ba/multimedija/foto-galerije/grupa-regina-premijerno-izvela-pjesmu-bistra-voda
  2. ^ http://www.fbradio.eu/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=1430
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2009&oldid=281867679"