Talk:Eurovision Song Contest/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Attitudes to the Contest

Thank you, whoever did the table -- I was dreading it! But let's be fair -- The Eurovision song contest is still taken seriously by lots of people...although I think it definitely gets campier by the year. I do have it on personal knowledge (oral history at work) that in the 50s and 60s in England, it really was a big deal -- and the songs submitted were chosen by popular vote -- the BBC played them and took polls! I still rate it better entertainment than the Oscars! JHK

---

The table is my work.

As to the serious/camp debate, the fact is that most of the acts tend towards MOR pop and have very little in common with music that music enthusiasts buy. Very few of the winning acts are heard from much again. Sometimes a country's act is not even from that country (Gina G and Celine Dion?) The political bias of the votes from the various countries is obvious. Finally, it's obvious that the Beeb doesn't take it seriously when they have a semi-inebriated Terry Wogan doing his commentary. Finally, from my personal perspective of an Australian looking in, it's an instant cure for the cultural cringe (how can we take seriously a continent with pop music this bad?) and a handy guide to how various European nations perceive each other :) --Robert Merkel

Robert, I'm glad to see someone mention the generate awfulitude (which is a perfectly cromulent word) of the Eurovision contest, but I'm curious as to why there's no mention of it on the page itself. It seems that a lot of people think the contest is full of terrible music, which should get a mention as a large (maybe even majority?) opinion.

The preceding unsigned comment was left by 69.140.0.112 at 10:57, 1 August 2006

Okay, three things: Firstly, this is an encyclopædia, and all material must be encyclopædic and verifiable. General statements such as "most British people think it's a joke" don't really belong in an encyclopædia. Ask yourself: would you expect to read that in the Britannica? Secondly, this is an international article - not just a British article. Wogan may have dragged the xenophobic British public perception along with him for many years, leading many to believe that the Contest is a joke, but that is not an opinion shared in all countries. It would be unencyclopædic to focus on "perception of the Contest in the UK" (ONE country), and not mention exactly how it is perceived in EVERY country in which it is broadcast. Such a list would be too long, and almost impossible to research; and definitely impossible to verify. Go on, you find some encyclopædia-worthy reference material which explains how the Contest is perceived by the Romanian public. Thirdly, there is a section which deals with criticism of the Contest - which is referenced. If you think the Contest is awful then you may have that opinion, but you can't just generalise like this in an encyclopædia article. You have to pick out specific things which you wish to criticise, and then give reasons - and references for them. The two major areas of criticism in the Contest are that people consider many of the entries bland, middle-of-the-road pop and think that the on-stage gimmicks are silly; and that the voting is perceived as all politically biased. Both of these points have been addressed - with references - in the article as it stands. What is your particular reason for calling it awful? Did you think that the 2006 Norwegian entry was boring, making you want to change channels? Do you remember the Bucks Fizz skirt rip, and laugh about it thinking it was a stupid gimmick? Do you think the voting is a ridiculous farce because it's all political? What else? If you think you can identify another specific area of critcism, and can explain it in an encyclopædic manner, with proper references, then please be my guest and include it into the article... or explain it properly here and I can write it in for you if you want. EuroSong ^talk 11:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It's very early in the morning here, so don't expect my repsonse to be too coherent: 1) You seem to be operating under the misapprehension that I'm British, I'm not. 2) Just because the wikipedia is an encyclopedia, doesn't mean it should eschew reporting on criticism--most movie/book/album articles have sections on critical response. I agree that wikipedia should not be a source for original criticism. 3) The existing criticism section is about the form of the contest and the type of music (unimaginative pop), without really touching on the quality of it. "Middle of the road" is not what I'd consider criticism. 4) By way of disclaimer: I have never actually watched the Eurovision Song Contests in their entirety--I have seen some performances from them however (like the GWAR-type band that recently won), and they were all cringe-inducingly bad. I get the impression that a lot of people watch the contest for the same reason they watch shows like American Idol, not for the quality of the performances or the love of competition, but because they enjoy seeing a lot of talentless people making an awful racket in front of millions of other people. But then again, English is the only language I can read, so maybe there are tons of Romanian websites praising the quality of the entries for the Eurovision Song Contests.

OK, sorry for presuming you were British :) Well my point still stands: if you want to introduce more criticism into the article, then it must be specific and have references. Just saying "I thought the 2006 winner was cringe-inducingly bad" is not encyclopædic. As a matter of fact I personally thought it was absolutely fabulous. So there we have it: two points of view. You should note that my POV is not noted in the article either; nowhere is it mentioned that songs have been prasied for their musical content. If you want to write about critical reception of the Contest, then it must be fair and balanced, giving both good and bad reviews... all suitably referenced. EuroSong ^talk 11:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a serious point here, which is not currently addressed in the article. In many countries the competition seems to be taken quite seriously, but this is not, on the whole, the case in the UK (and perhaps in Ireland - see the Father Ted episode, My Little Horse). The lack of seriousness is also evident in the presentational style of Terry Wogan, who seems to be somewhat of an institution in the UK's coverage - if you've seen this, you will understand immediately. I'm not sure how encyclopediac any references would have to be, but these two examples clearly indicate a less than serious public attitude to the whole shindig. It seems a serious omission in the article, to ignore the fact that for a significant number of its viewers, the contest is a gigantic joke, and enjoyed on that level! - Paul 16:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, Paul. You do have a good point: attitudes to the Contest in various countries might be an interesting addition to the article. Do you fancy coming up with some suitable references, which mention the difference between how it is perceived in, say, Estonia and how it is in the UK? I do accept this point: it is a good one, and rightly deserves a mention in the article. However, it's all about references. I'm trying to get this recognised as a Featured Article, and the criteria are very strict - especially when it comes to references. Many FA candidates get rejected simply because there are statements made which are not suitably referenced. Fancy finding some, which are objectively, professionally written, and NPOV? (There are surely many places you can find British people trashing the Contest, but it's harder to find neutrally-objective, professionally-written references.) EuroSong ^talk 17:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry to spoil the fun, but it is virtually impossible to create a section on "attitudes towards the contest" that would fulfill WP standards. The catch is that almost all references providing opinions on the contest will be inherently POV by themselves, so citing them would be replicating their POV. A NPOV section would list all major "attitudes" with sources, but it is virtually impossible to establish a complete list of such. ESC is not an especially controversial topic, so this section is not needed to make the coverage of the topic complete, and would rather raise concerns during the FA candidacy.

Please note that WP's role is first and foremost (well, in fact actually solely) to serve as an encyclopedia, informing the readers of the facts. Therefore, it is inherently lacking opinions and judgements on the subjects discussed - these are reserved for other types of media. On one hand, this might be seen as an imperfection, but on the other, it helps realize the tasks of an encyclopedia. Bravada, talk - 20:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Love the comment about Wogan. It's been obvious for some years now that (as far as the UK is concerned) the future hangs on the continued survival of Terry Wogan (67), who seems to be becoming more disillusioned with the show with every annual voting farce. The majority of British viewers are actually Wogan's fan base, and these will disappear as soon as Terry stops presenting the UK feed. It is telling that the BBC didn't even screen the big 50th anniversary bash in Copenhagen. A Eurovision without Wogan would likewise probably not be worth screening in the UK, and the contest would then lose one of its biggest paymasters. --ChrisR

Past contests and results

Perhaps add a table column for the writers of the winning songs? -- Tarquin

---

or even the venues? Another thing I could do it or someone else but have pages off all teh songs for that year and what place they came in. - fonzy

All the information specific to a particular Song Contest (location, entries, full results, perhaps also the songwriters, but not separate pages for every single song or something like that) could be on a page for that year's event, yes. Adding all that to one page would make it too big and the table is wide enough as it is. The links are already there in the table, all that is needed is for someone to edit them... ;) -Scipius

- i have created one for 1956 please tell me waht you think. - fonzy

It looks excellent, but I've taken the liberty of changing the table to look more like others on Wikipedia, what do you think? Cellpadding does not seem to work properly, so the text runs right to the edge of the cell for the moment, but it should be fixed at some point. Also, good work on shrinking the table on the main page, I hope that fixes Zoe's problem. -Scipius

---

Yet again a case of a table causing the page to span into the right margin. Can somebody tell me what to do to try to cut down the column widths? -- Zoe

--- I will keep the other tables to that style also i think some one should write a good artcile on each year of it underneath. - fonzy

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "that style". It's still too wide. -- Zoe

--i'm nto talking about the main table i am tlaking about the new idividucal tabels i am creating for each year. - fonzy. ps sorry to confuse you i should have written this below Scipius message.

On the individual pages: Fonzy: Yes, I originally added a bit of text, but then decided that the venue could stay in the table if no-one was going to write a short article. Someone should probably write something about the individual ESC (how it went, any peculiarities, etc.), but I don't know enough about the subject and I understand if you don't feel up to it at the moment either ;) It's not that necessary anyway at this point, let's have the tables first.

On the main table width: Zoe, does the table at least adapt to a changing size of browser window? For me (Moz1.0) it at the very least narrows the table automatically (breaks up the longer performer names and song titles) until a width that's far below what one can expect, so I don't see why it doesn't for you. -Scipius

The size seems fine now. Did someone change it? -- Zoe

I changed the note below the table (it had a space in front of it, thereby not narrowing automatically), maybe that was it? -Scipius

---

I need someone good at languages to check on spellings of foreign words on the names of the songs. Also I think some of the songs should have accents on. But the sources i got them from did not have them. - fonzy

---

I've noticed on various pages, such as this one, that European, especially non-English speaking, song titles are not capitalized except the first word. Is this not a rule outside of English-speaking countries, and/or is it rare in Europe? I don't mean to be nitpicky, but if many countries don't capitalize songs as a rule, Wikipedia:Wikiproject Music Standards needs to be changed to reflect this. Tuf-Kat

Just a sample look at a couple of songs by typing them in at http://ubl.artistdirect.com/ show that the names are capitalized there. Are they wrong here? -- Zoe

---

I have some questions and comments about the various by-year contest pages, and I'm not sure where to put them, so I'll try here:

• Every single one of them links to Eurovision, instead of Eurovision Song Contest. While colloquially "correct", strictly speaking this is sloppy; worse, Eurovision is (now) a disambiguation page, so it doesn't even take the user to the right place. I guess someone's going to have to go through and correct them all.
• On the articles for some of the earlier contests, the "__NOTOC__" directive has been added. I would have thought it was perfectly sensible for these pages to have tables of contents, but wonder if there was a reason I haven't thought of for disabling them...?
• Great work otherwise, by the way! Very, well, comprehensive!! :-D

- IMSoP 23:30, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

French Name

Is there a particular reason the French name is listed? Does it have some particular status within the contest, as compared to say the German name or the Greek name or the Italian name? --Delirium 09:35, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

As I recall, English and French are the official languages of the EBU, which is why the presenters always give the scores in both languages as well as, optionally, their own -- hence "Norvège, nul points, Norway, no points"! :) -- Arwel 13:28, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Except, of course, "nul points" has never actually been uttered on the Eurovision stage - if a song receives no points at all, its name is never read out during the bilingual voting process... -- AnEff

Several of the initial winners were from french-speaking countries; therefore until 1967, all but three contests were actually called "Grand prix". This name seems to have stuck, i.e. I (a German) have never heard it called anything but "the Grand Prix". _Since_ 1967, there has not been a single event called "Grand prix", but still the name is used (in fact, I seem to recall an uproar in ~1998 when people actually noticed that the contest was now always called "EV Song contest"). 82.32.65.149 21:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

When I visited Germany in the "Eurovision season" a few years ago, some friends were trying to explain a large international music contest. It turned out, of course, that they meant the Eurovision. Surely the different names in common use should go at the start of the article - just so we all know what we're reading about? - Paul 16:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is it?

As an American, I'm totally unfamiliar with the Eurovision song contest... and the article seems to have a number of major omissions. Major questions I still have, even after reading the article: What is a "song contest?" How are the entrants chosen? How is the winner chosen? What does the winner win? These seem like basic facts which may be obvious to Europeans, but are totally obscure to me. Can someone who knows about such things amend the article accordingly? -- Seth Ilys 05:13, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Some answers to your questions in other words, I think most of it is already in the article, but maybe not clear enough - I don't think I could get the article better by changing at at the moment, but everyone is invited: The "song contest" means the presentation of one song per country to find out which song/performance is the most popular throughout all participating countries. The entrants are chosen in different ways depending on the country - I do not know the current procedures, but there were times were a commission of several "professionals" (music journalists, composers, producers etc.) chose one song to represent their country in this event.

The usual procedure, however, is to do a TV show in each country (the countries are free to choose the mode) with several contestants, and the audience can vote for the most popular song by calling in (this is the way it's done in Germany, where I live.). The choice criteria for participants in this national "contest" is unknown to me - I suppose the TV station doing the show is selecting if there are more than, say, 12 entries. IIRC, there is usually a time limit for the publishing of the song - it must not be published earlier than a few weeks before the national contest. In Germany, this year it was possible to get into the national contest after the entry deadline because the CD was on #1 on the billboard for several weeks, but most other songs in the national contest are usually not what one would consider a billboard hit, at least not before the presentation on the a.m. TV show. After the national "election", each country sends the winning song to the European contest.

The winner of the European contest wins nothing particular (like money or a widely recognized trophy), but there is a possibility of fame rising after the winning of this contest. Best example for this is ABBA (they won in 1974, kicking off their world career) and Céline Dion, who once performed for Switzerland before she was famous across the world. The country where the winning entry originated has to host next year's event, which is often seen as possibility to advertise the own country to the rest of Europe, e.g. as a vacation spot. The costs of hosting the event, however, are a burden to the winning country (see main article, look for "Ireland"). - Chrysalis 11:44, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

I've made a very minor change to it but I think the overview explains things reasonably well. In a nutshell it's a naff battle of the bands, with each 'band' (few acts are proper bands)representing a country. There's something for fans of europop, surreal stage acts, dancers in revealing clothes (of either sex) and geo-political bias in the voting. On other words, there's something for everyone! Bombot 10:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

---

I thought that Lebanon withdrew because of problems showing the Israeli performance, which the EBU requires? not because of the political crisis. -- Joolz 01:12, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Eurovision and Finland

Finland has never won the Eurovision Song Contest, and it's become common tradition in Finland to think it never will. Most Finnish songs have even fared very badly. That two countries very near us - Sweden and Estonia - have won merely adds insult to the injury.

There is a Finnish joke about this: A man frees a genie from a bottle. The genie says he will grant one wish. "Bring back the Carelian ithmus!" says the man. "That's too big a wish, maybe a smaller one?" replies the genie. "Finland should win the Eurovision Song Contest even once" says the man. The genie thinks for a while, then says "Let me see that map again..."

Are there any other countries with such an attitude towards the contest? — JIP | Talk 09:34, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I personally love the song Finland is sending this year - Hard Rock Hallelujah. Sadly, the watchers of Eurovision are pop-people and don't appreciate hard rock. But I'ma vote for Finland anyway. :D Rawk on. Iamyourpast 00:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Somewhat ironic, this section. I think that Finnish joke just breathed its last :) Vilĉjo 22:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I thought as well. What should we change it to, then? Finland has already won a Nobel prize, and the world championship in ice hockey too... Maybe an Oscar for best foreign film? Or has that been done too? Or is it too lame? JIP | Talk 09:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Rules for a draw

I read in one of the articles on Eurovision about what would happen if a draw were declared;

Eurovision Song Contest 1970

"To avoid an incident like in 1969, a tie rule was created. It stated that, if two or more songs gained the same number of points, each song would have to be performed again. After that every jury except the juries of the countries concerned would have a show of hands of which they thought was the best. If the countries tied again, then they would share first place."

Given that almost every country now uses televoting; have the rules changed, and should these rules be added to the page? --Neo 18:31, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the rules today is that in the case of a draw, the one with the most top scores (12 points) wins. If that also is tied, I'm unsure whether they go down the entire scale (10, 8, etc) to decide, or if both countries share first place. Hornblower 22:50, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so. It also says that all voting members have a panel of judges in case the televoting malfunctions etc., so I would assume that it's those judges that are used. -Gerbon

No, in case of a tie, you go down the list like Hornblower stated. This has happened several times before, although I can't recall any specific years. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 19:28, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, no, this was changed recently. Now the first rule is to count the number of countries from which they got any points. If that fails to break the tie, only then they apply Hornblower's procedure. (If you think about it, it's pretty much opposite in spirit, but, oh well.) For example, look at the official scoreboard here, Sweden and Ukraine have both 30 points, and Sweden is officially ranked higher, even though it has no 12s, while Ukraine has one. BTW you can find full rules at EBU's homepage, if you really want to check this. --Dzordzm 05:17, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I have an unrelated question, why are some interwikis pointing to articles about national preselections (e.g.Melodi Grand Prixes, say in Norway) rather than (existing) articles about ESC itself on those Wikipedias? --Dzordzm 05:17, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Italy?

Anyone know why Italy haven't been in it since 1997? 84.13.136.202 11:57, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

A quick wander round Google suggests that the broadcaster RAI weren't happy with the viewing figures and/or the ESC rules, so decided to stop taking part Dupont Circle 19:49, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

junior eurovision

Am I correct in believing that the rules of the junior eurovision require that the next year's host be pre-determined before the contest so as to reduce the stress on the children because they aren't singing for the prestige of hosting the competition next year? If I am should it be put in? 62.252.32.14 19:59, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

This comment should be left at Talk:Junior Eurovision Song Contest :) EuroSong ^talk 23:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

New info about Romania and Moldova added

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/romanian/news/story/2005/06/050614_eurovision_moldova.shtml --Danutz

Lebanon's 2005 Withdrawal

I may regret raising this, but does anybody else feel that the phrase 'decided to withdraw rather than show the Israeli entry' is a bit simplistic when describing why Lebanon withdrew from the 2005 contest? As I understand it, Tele-Liban, the Lebanese TV corporation, decided to enter, but it was later forced to withdraw when it emerged that Lebanese law made it impossible to show the Israeli entry (see here for the full story from the BBC). Perhaps a minor edit, to make the situation clearer? If we have to lay blame, at least reflect the fact that it was Lebanon's legislation that was the problem. At the moment it doesn't do Tele-Liban any credit for entering and instead suggests that it was their attitude problem which brought about the withdrawal. Comments? Peeper 12:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Political voting - suggested amendment

Does anybody else feel that explaining away the UK's second places in 1992 and 1993 as a 'reward' for John Major's narrow victory in ratifying the Maastricht Treaty should be deleted? Here are my reasons for suggesting it.

• It seems unlikely that the UK would be rewarded for two years in a row for ratifying the Maastricht Treaty.

• If the voting juries were rewarding the UK, it seems excessive to so many votes as to secure second place twice.

• The UK has come second more times than any other country in the history of the contest.

• The exact circumstances of the UK's ratification of the Maastricht Treaty, while tense, seems unlikely to have been so significant as to influence Eurovision juries barely at all. The UK was, and remained for some time at least, 'the reluctant European'.

• The Eurovision Song Contest is not coterminous with the European Union - many participating countries were not EU members and would probably give little regard to internal EU politics.

• I suspect somebody will raise Italy's victory in 1990 with Insieme:1992 as evidence, but this is quite different - the message of the song was directly concerned with European unity, it was ideological rather than overtly political, and the song's victory had no basis in contemporary EU politics. This example casts no light on how well Sonia and Michael Ball did!

Unless anybody has serious objections and can provide evidence to support this claim, I intend to delete it as we are at serious risk of over-explaining everything. There is, occasionally, the possibility that a song is good enough to score points. Comments please? Peeper 08:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Fully agreed! To suggest any causal link between Maastricht and the UK's results in 1992 and 1993 is at best wishful thinking, and at worst the kind of flawed logic I'd expect to see trumpeted as "fact" over at esctoday.com and its ilk. Far more relevant must be, for example, the fact that the UK finally broke with its established trend of entering "no-names" and sent established stage/pop artists to those contests in the form of Michael Ball and Sonia respectively - both of whom would have had some kind of cachet with jurors around Europe at the time. Either way, though, to suggest that Major and Maastricht were somehow responsible for the UK's (near-)success in '92 and '93 is just plain ludicrous... AnEff

Why are non-European Countries in the EUROsong contest?

I was just wondering why non-European countries were allowed in this contest. Could someone explain it to me and add the explaination to the article?

As the second paragraph of the introduction says: The contest's name comes from the Eurovision TV distribution network, which is run by the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) and can reach a potential television audience of more than one billion. Any member of the EBU may participate in the contest. This also includes countries of Africa and Asia such as Israel, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt, Lebanon, Libya and Syria. Of these non-European nations, only Israel and Morocco have participated in the contest. Lebanon had intended to participate for the first time in 2005, but was later forced to withdraw when it emerged that Lebanese law made it impossible to show the Israeli entry (the contest rules require participating broadcasters to show all the songs). -- Arwel 02:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

C'mon, you expect people to actually *read* the article before criticising it? :-) AnEff

Tunisia also intended to participate once. This, therefore needs changing, as well as on the map. RedvBlue 13:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was told about this. Unfortunately I could not readily find a good reference for this fact. ESCtoday gives it a mention somewhere, but I really would prefer a more solid, non-fan-website reference for this. Can anyone help? EuroSong ^talk 16:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Riverdance part correct

From the article:

"The Irish dancing show Riverdance was first seen internationally at the 1994 contest"

I think Riverdance was actually created for the occasion, not just "seen internationally" at that contest. So the link between Riverdance and the ESC are bigger - anybody care to chime in with facts? Peter S. 14:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

It's complicated. Bill Whelan composed a seven-minute piece of music which Michael Flattley choreographed for the 1994 Eurovision Song Contest interval. This piece was called Riverdance. The piece was later expanded greatly to become the internationally-famous stage show of the same name. As written, the statement isn't incorrect, however, it's also not entirely correct.

Poor English

What does "Because many European were founded on ideas of linguisitc unity" mean? - Fredrik | talk 17:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

And "Usually between one third and a half of the contestants each year got at least once 12 points" - is this even English? Somebody with a good knowledge of the ESC and the English language needs to rewrite the 12 points club section; I can't do it myself because I have no idea what it is trying to say. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 21:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Israel and the 1980 contest

While it may be true that the IBA wanted to save money to upgrade to color broadcasting, that does not change the fact that the contest was scheduled on Israel's Memorial Day, and henceforth, Israel did not participate at all. I believe that was the primary reason. The color broadcasting may have been a secondary reason. --Asbl 22:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Fryede gave the following answer in the article

When Dutch broadcaster NOS stepped in to take over as hosts, the date they selected conflicted with Israel's Day of Remembrance.

Thanks, this explains it. Thank you. --Asbl 03:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

template nominated for deletion

I nominated the Template:Eurovision Song Contest host cities for deletion. It is big, and is it useful for anyone but a fraction of the readers? Wouldn't a short notice, such as the {{Cities in Sweden}} be more expedient? / Fred-Chess 17:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

External links section

I think it looks quite silly to have so many sub-categories of external links. Does anyone else agree with me? I think that two categories: "Official sites" and "Fan sites" should be enough. Before I go and re-arrange it though....comments please? EuroSong 17:18, 10 April 2006

No Tezza?

Why isn't Terry Wogan mentioned prominently in this article? He's been hosting the celebrations for thousands of years now surely. He's the one who brings a bit of life to it anyway.(UTC)

I disagree that he should have his own section. Wikipedia is an international site, and the Eurovision Song Contest is an international institution. Wogan only has relevance to the BRITISH viewers, and I don't think he should be given any higher prominence in the international article than any other commentator - aside from a brief mention, since he is the most notorious one. EuroSong 16:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't host it, he just does the commentary for viewers in one country. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.234.4.1 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, Terry has a notariety amongst the whole of Eurovision for his commentary as he is the only one to publicly acknowledge the political voting taking place and for his satirical take on the contest. This is in a complete contrast to the other nations who all take the event extremely seriously. Maniac Pony 09:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

How do you know all this? I've only ever watched Eurovision in my home country, Iceland, and all the commentators have used satire and have talked freely about the political voting. On the other hand, I have no idea who Terry Wogan is. Ingaemm 09:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

how would you know...and you are wrong not all take it seriously. do you find americanocentric articles annoying, i do, so dont make articles Britcentric either.

I strongly disagree, Wogan has been presenting the show for nigh on 30 years and hosted the show once. You are grossly misinformed labelling this britcentric as the BBC routinely sell their coverage of the even to dozens of other countries, comentary included. Even in major european countries covering the event themselves, the BBC version of events is almost always shown. Wogan is a massive part of the show's success in Britain with many people tuning in to hear his satirical barbs rather than the song contest itself. I would guess that everyone in Europe with more than a passing interest in the competition would know who he was, any mainland Europeans care to back me up? Deserves its own section.

I have watched the Eurovision Song Contest for many years and barely know who this "Terry Wogan" person even is. Claims that he is famous throughout Europe, and that the BBC version is shown in most of the participating countries, are blatantly incorrect and speak of borderline offensive UK-centrism. JIP | Talk 17:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm English, and love Terry's wit and funny comments, but agree that he shouldn't have his own prominent section here, for the reasons above. Although, perhaps, to compromise with everyone, why not have a separate article listing all the countries presenters over the years? Comments welcome... Kolonuk 20:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Political/geographical voting

The article has a number of references to geographical voting - Bosnia for Coratia, Cyprus for Greece and Turkey, the entire Eastern Bloc for Russia ("Thanks for the 12 points, Ukraine, your crude will be arriving tomorrow") - as well as This may or may not have a bearing on "Political and Regional Voting Patterns" as described above.. Someone appears to have appropriated an entire section of the article.

It really needs a rewrite generally, though;

• It mentions Ireland's hat-trick three times in three paragraphs
• It doesn't really give any impression of how much of a joke the whole thing is to many of the participants
• The overview reads like something written by twenty people, all of whom disagreed with each other, and none of whom bothered to look at the rest of the section before tacking their bit on the end.

I'll almost certainly never get round to doing that rewrite, though, so the above are points to consider for anyone who wants to have a go (if they think they're hard enough). Tyrhinis 22:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Deleted sections

I have added expansion requests to the three sections which were blanked when breakout articles were created. Removing these sections entirely was a very bad move. It ruined the balance of the article, and I would now rate this article as very poor indeed on this account. In my opinion it is essential to have a summary of all aspects of a topic in the main article. Twittenham 11:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

External Links

Might I note that Wikipedia is not a collection of external links. I have removed the international ones (these can easily be found from google and this is the english speaking wikipedia) as well as the 'chat sites' (these are not in accordance with wikipedia external links policy and can also be found easily off of google). I hope there are no problems with this.

michaelCurtis ^talk+ _{contributions} 09:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree. In my re-write, I stuck to your general idea and kept the list of external links relatively small - considering that there are a lot of Eurovision sites out there. Wikipedia is not a link farm, and we only need the main sites here.. and certainly no more than two categories of link! (Official sites and fan-created sites). EuroSong ^talk 23:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I have added two websites to the Fan sites section. All Kinds Of Everything was nominated for 6 Eurowebby and ESCKaz nominated for 7 Eurowebby awards, including best Overall Eurovision website and Best News Content. Eurowebby awards are recognized by EBU. If we have gossip site Oikotimes and almost dead Eurosong.net in the list this 2 sites have to be there. --Zaqqq 03:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

General clean-up/rewrite needed

I have noticed that the article seems to have become quite messy in recent times - and very poorly written in places. Possibly this is due to an influx of new contributors, around the time of the Contest. The article used to be very good - a few months ago. But now I think it needs a major clean-up and/or rewrite. I may take this upon myself to do... or not, as time permits. EuroSong 14:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay... I did the re-write myself. I cleaned out a lot of the non-encyclopædic stuff which should not be in the main article, including the yearly table (which could be re-included in the "history" article, I think. I've tried to keep it concise, although the article is still 37k (Wikipedia's recommended maximum article size is 30k). Also a few pictures have brightened it up a bit. I hope everyone is satisfied with the article as it is now. EuroSong ^talk 01:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Highlights

If 1974 and 2004 are to be highlighted in the list, the article should give a reason for this. -- Jao 15:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Do we really need {{BSASE}}?

Do we really need {{BSASE}}? A template just for showing two winners and of something that was only peripheric to the real contest? I think that can be mentioned in the article without the need for a template --Andromeda 09:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that template is useless. JIP | Talk 18:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

This article failed the GA nominations due to lack of references and wikification. See WP:CITE and WP:WIKIFY. --Tarret 22:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's make this a Good Article

Hi everyone,

It is my intention, ultimately, to get this article listed as a Featured Article in Wikipedia. Featured articles are ones which fulfill all of the criteria according to Wikipedia guidelines, and ones which tend to get the most exposure. Each day a different article is featured on the Wikipedia main page: I am hoping that one day this article will be featured.

A step along the way to getting it featured, is to get it recognised as a Good Article. Please see these criteria. In particular, we need to ensure:

• All the information given is encyclopædic in nature: that is to say, it is all relevant to the Eurovision Song Contest as a whole concept. We don't want to dwell on tiny details, or make long lists of things. Recently a mention of "Mr Brown" was tagged onto the end of the "Scrutineers" section, with a note that it is not the same person as an American jazz artist of the same name! This is irrelevant and unencyclopædic.
• It is concise. Currently the aticle is 37k long. The recommended maximum length is 30k, so even now it is a bit too long. If someone thinks that some important information has been left out, perhaps it can be incorporated into existing sentences - or existing sentences can be replaced with superior, more factually accurate ones.
• If someone thinks that something can be added to one of the sections about history, voting or winners, then please consider adding this information to the sub-articles accordingly. These articles were originally created to break out this information, as the main article was getting far too long. Again, think of the length.

If someone thinks that they have some good things to contribute which genuinely push the article further towards Featured Status, as defined by the criteria linked above, then please go ahead - and also feel free to talk about it here on this talk page.

Thanks :) EuroSong ^talk 23:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Good job everyone and congrats on getting this article to GA status. --Tarret 13:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)