Talk:ABU Radio Song Festival 2012/Archive 1

Dates
is 11th of October. I have tried to include this in the article, however, user Wesley Mouse unprofessionally twice reverted my edits, stating without any references that it will take part on the same day with TV festival. He had also published incorrect information on my talk page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ruslanovich though all edits have been explained to him and are correct and properly sourced. Please, study the sources, clearly indicating date of the Radio final to be 11th of October http://www.abu.org.my/Latest_News-@-ABU_Radio_Song_Festival_website_showcases_a_strong_field_of_entries.aspx http://www.abu.org.my/Latest_News-@-Entry_deadline_extended_for_ABU_Radio_Song_Festival.aspx http://esckaz.com/2012/abu.htm http://www.facebook.com/MDASingapore/posts/510329602316281 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruslanovich (talk • contribs) 20:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Of those sources listed above, the first two open up a blank page with 404-error on them. The third one (ESCKaz) is already used in the article, just use the 'ref name' tag for it.  And the fourth reference cannot be used, its a Facebook profile - anyone can create false Facebook profiles and alter information to how they wish, see WP:FACEBOOK.   Wesley   Mouse  20:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Both links work perfectly for me and clearly state the date, try to copy and paste them or open manually, or open through ABU site news page. Ruslanovich (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you understand why I had to revert the edits though? They were not 'unprofessionally reverted'.  I checked all your sources that you added in your edits and two of them wouldn't open.  As I could not verify those sources, then I had to remove the content.  I also informed you not to reinstate them and that you should open a discussion here first.  You didn't comply with that and reverted my actions instead - that is how edit warring starts, and is not appropriate behaviour on Wikipedia.  Anyhow, I have managed to to get around on of those citations for the radio contest dates and now made the corrections accordingly.  But the other one still doesn't open.  So please do not use it until we can find out why I am not able to view it.  And out of courtesy I am taking your word for it that one of the entries is now being performed as an instrumental.  Although I am dubious in doing that as it becomes WP:OR and that is not allowed around here.   Wesley   Mouse  20:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't see good faith in your reverts - all of them were sourced and verifiable. You had to check the sources first, before reverting any edits - the page had contained several major and minor mistakes that I have corrected, as Wikipedia is open project and anyone, not only creator of the page, should correct the mistakes. There is no single source stating that Radio Contest will take place on 14th - why you are insisting on it? aburadiosongfestival.asia never says it is on the same day with TV contest - it just says both are in time of GA in Seoul from 11 to 17th of October. ABU sites and ESCKAZ clearly gives 11th of October date - I see no reason to dispute it. Ruslanovich (talk) 20:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You are to assume good faith on any actions, even the assuming the assumption of good faith is best policy. Most editors on wikipedia will always check new edits to make sure they are correct, verified, and accurate.  This is an encyclopaedia correct, and any new details being added to an article will always get checked for verification.  I have already explained twice now that two of the sources you added did not work.  As I couldn't see them, then how else was I to know they collaborated with what you included?  I cannot just take the word of one editor to confirm what is contained on a webpage that I cannot view - that would be just so wrong.  ESCKaz website doesn't state any dates for the contest, only that they are taking place between the 11 - 17 October, when the 49th ABU general assembly takes place.  So you are incorrect there I am afraid.   Wesley   Mouse  21:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I hope you are able then to revert back to ALL my edits, not posting them yourself one by one. I'm getting the picture that you would prefer to keep the page as your own creation, rather than allow other Wikipedians to edit it. When doing my edits - I have checked and verified all content. You have though claimed them to be vandalism - while now you yourself are adding the same edits under your name. I sincerely hope that you remove all vandalism claims from my talk page, as all my edits have been verified, and have corrected your mistakes. Ruslanovich (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ESCKAZ states date of the contest 4 times, most notably http://esckaz.com/2012/abu.htm#about and http://esckaz.com/2012/abu_radio.htm on the top of the page - which again shows you have not studied the sources enough Ruslanovich (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how to revert back only half of the content, otherwise I would have done. For the time being I don't think the whole content should be fully reverted back as I have stated that some of the citations you used either don't open for me or are not permitted (in regards to the Facebook link). All editors need to be able to verify the sources used, if I can't see any then I would be wrong to just take your solid verification of it - that would be original research. In the event the sources work then yes those can be readded, but as I keep getting 404 codes when I open them, then how do I know that what you say is contained on those web pages is correct? You could say anything and I have no way of verifying the truth. I have already explained that the history section on this article is a summary, if you wish to expand that further then add the new details to the main article Our Sound. I am not trying to own an article, and I find your allegations about that to be rather uncalled for - not very good faith is it.  Wesley  Mouse  21:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't state the Facebook links in my edits, again you give misinformation. I added it only here, just to show you the post from Singaporean organizer of preselection confirming the date. So far, you failed to prove any of my edits were unreliable, but keep sticking with your mistakes and keep defending the content (Our Sound) that has no relation to ABU Festival Ruslanovich (talk) 21:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from name-calling/rude defamatory comments. In the very first post above you said (and I quote) "Please, study the sources, clearly indicating date of the Radio final to be 11th of October" and one of those has a link to Facebook which was also used as a source in one of your edits.  I have provided a link to WP:FACEBOOK to help you understand that en:Wikipedia doesn't like Facebook being used as sources very much.  Also if you check the history of the contest properly, you will know that the ABU wanted to copy the format for Eurovision, and originally planned to call their version 'Asiavision Song Contest' and then changed their minds to 'Our Sound', and recently change their mind again to have two shows ABU Radio and ABU TV festival.  The fact of the matter is they are still the same contest just had name changes between 2007 and now.  Those details about the different name ideas the ABU where going to use should be detailed in more depth on the parent article 'Our Sound' which will most likely end up getting renamed to ABU Song Festivals at some stage soon, to collaborate with the name contest name.   Wesley   Mouse  21:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you're just stating one nonsense after another . "ABU" wanted? Wasn't it private company Asiavision? The only ABU involvement in Our Sound is that it prohibited private company of using Asiavision title, as it belongs to ABU News Service. ABU never was involved in production of Our Sound. ABU couldn't change mind to ABU Festivals. They had nothing to do with Our Sound and just have started own festivals without any changes of mind. Same contest? Huh? Asiavision Pte, who wanted to run Our Sound is Singaporean private company. Nothing to do with ABU. Totally different events. Ruslanovich (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, check you sources. The Asia-Pacific Broadcasting Union had talks with the European Broadcasting Union to create a similar event as Eurovision but for the Asia-Pacific region.  Asisvision Pte was the company give the responsibility to organise the first event, Asiavision Song Contest.  That got postponed twice.  Then there was that issue with the name Asiavision already in use, so the ABU change the contest name to Our Sound.  The contest was postponed again twice, but this time under the new name Our Sound.  Mumbai, India where suppose to host one of the contests, but for unknown reasons they pulled out of organising it.  The South Korea stepped in, and started to organise the event, but under yet another name change (the ones currently used now).  But I have explained and provided help links time and time again now and you still seem to fail to grasp the point and are berating around in circles.  Calm down, have a cuppa tea, review what people have said to you.  Then come back here and discuss matters in a civil manner.  Thank you.   Wesley   Mouse  21:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You have a big gap between Mumbai event, organized by Asiavision based on license purchased from EBU, that was cancelled indefinitely. And then, a totally unrelated event has been started by ABU. The only similarity is that it is music contest and in Asia. ABU was NOT involved AT ALL in Our Sound. Yes, ABU has conducted talks with EBU in 2008. But EBU sold rights to Asiavision - a private company, that though failed to produce the contest and one of the reasons of cancellation was the issues between EBU and Asiavision Pte. Then when this contest failed through, ABU has launched own contest. It is not based on EBU license and ABU hasn't purchased rights from it from EBU. Of course, as ABU owns Asiavision trademark, they can at any point rename it as Asiavision - but so far decided not to do it. Please, take your time to read sources on Our Sound, then return here and continue discussion. Ruslanovich (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

These sections have now been resolved, and are being placed into collapsible boxes per mutual agreement, for those who still wish to read them. Time-stamping for archive purposes.  Wesley  Mouse  17:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Venue for Radio Contest
The venue for Radio Song Contest has not been announced, as it is a radio program, it is expected to be recorded in the same studio where Korean national final took place, not KBS Hall. Again, I stated this while Wesley Mouse reverted my edits failing to give any sources to his assumptions both festivals will take place on the same day in the same hall. Ruslanovich (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I take this claim down, as I have investigated further through available sources and believe you are right in this issue. Ruslanovich (talk) 19:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

These sections have now been resolved, and are being placed into collapsible boxes per mutual agreement, for those who still wish to read them. Time-stamping for archive purposes.  Wesley  Mouse  17:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

History of the contest
In my edits, again reverted by Wesley Mouse, I have indicated that historically ABU Festivals are sourced to ABU Popular Song Contest, the ABU event that took place in 80s. However, ABU Festivals have nothing to do with Our Sound contest - except both are song contests taking part in Asia - clearly different format and different organizers. As Our Sound has been cancelled without the first contest being held, it deserves only minor mention. However, as ABU has already organized ABU Song Contest in 80s with much more close format to the current festivals, they deserve to be mentioned separately. Ruslanovich (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You need to add those to the main article Our Sound. The history section on this article is only a brief summary of the main article which contains the full detailed history.  Which is in-line with manual of style and layout consistency that has been agreed upon via the WP:EURO project.  <b style="background:black"> Wesley   Mouse </b> 20:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If I was an experienced Wikipedia user, I would have nominated Our Sound article for deletion - it is not a notable event being cancelled before first show, and thus does not deserve own page. I see no reason at all why it should be mentioned on ABU Festivals page - can you explain what relations do you see between these two events? Why not to mention other Asian Contests then, as Asia Song Festival, Voice of Asia? I think that history section should describe related ABU events, and not some private failures. Ruslanovich (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If there isn't going to be a parent article for the contests themselves, then there shouldn't be year-by-year articles like this one, so I don't see the point of an AfD. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 21:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There should be a parent article devoted to ABU Song Festivals, not the parent article devoted to Our Sound. Currently they are mixed in one article, and should be separated, or Our Sound contest should have just a minor mention as unsuccessful initiative to organize an Asian event. I see no reason why unsuccessful initiative should have more mentions than successful pan-Asian or Asia-Pacific contests held for several years. The parent article for ABU Festivals should be developed, of course, as current one is a mess - but I'm afraid if I will start working on it - again all my edits will be claimed as vandalism and reverted, thus I discuss the concept here first. Ruslanovich (talk) 21:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is known that the ABU wanted to copy the format for Eurovision, and started plans for a show called Asiavision Song Contest. The first show was scheduled as Asiavision 2008 but that got postponed a year and plans for Asiavision 2009 where underway.  Then the ABU renamed the concept to Our Sound, and again postponed twice more (Our Sound 2010 and 2011).  Then the ABU finally got their act together and decided to go with two festivals ABU Radio Song and ABU TV Song.  They are all the same contest but have gone through that many name changes that it confuses people.  Our Sound is the parent article it just needs to be renamed to ABU Song Festivals and the history on that article updated to reflect all the name changes of the postponed contents.  <b style="background:black"> Wesley   Mouse </b> 21:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you please source that ABU has started Asiavision in 2008. You're giving wrong facts. Very wrong. Asiavision Pte Ltd, Singaporean company has purchased rights from EBU to produce Asian contest based on Eurovision format. Then ABU has prohibited Asiavision of using Asiavision as name for the event, and it was renamed in Our Sound. However, again, as mentioned above, it was due to be run by private company. ABU didn't rename the contest. ABU is not Asiavision Pte Ltd. Please, read the story of Our Sound! Ruslanovich (talk) 21:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You want sources, sure I can provide sources - in chronological order.
 * 31 October 2011 - EBU
 * 8 Novemmber 2011 - EBU
 * 10 November 2011 - News.az
 * There was also the website asiavision.tv which was created in 2007 and registered at the bottom of the website as "All rights reserved - ABU". That site is now showing as closed.  I also remember there being oursound.com between 2010/2011, that too had at the bottom "All rights reserved - ABU".  <b style="background:black"> Wesley   Mouse </b> 21:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, as per your sources. EBU sources only state that ABU is launching own Asian music festivals, not that ABU has been operating Our Sound. They also do not say ABU has purchased EBU license in order to run these festivals. You should know that Azerbaijani sources are never reliable when it comes to Eurovision, and even it says nothing about relation of ABU to Our Sound. Now, the article of Eurovision format being purchased by Asiavision Pte has no mention of ABU http://www.ebu.ch/en/union/news/2008/tcm_6-63136.php Your memory is clearly not correct. Let us see the website mentioned via Archive.org http://web.archive.org/web/20100601084524/http://www.oursound.asia/ Copyright © Asiavision Pte Ltd 2007-2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruslanovich (talk • contribs) 22:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC) Sorry, you say Oursound.COM? This site never existed. Both Asiavision.tv and OurSound.asia never mentioned ABU. As I repeat - the only relation of ABU to Our Sound was that it prohibited use of name Asiavision. And obviously, Our Sound organizers tried to persuade ABU broadcasters individually to take part in the event, but main pan-Asian broadcast was to be organized by non-ABU channel, Channel V.Ruslanovich (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is obviously a major dispute and a contentious one at that. I suggest that you remain calm and discuss things in a civil manner, avoiding not to starting attacking fellow editors.  If you can't then the best suggestion would be to just drop it and return when everyone has cooled down.  It has always been known that the EBU sold the rights to the ABU back in 2007 (that's the earliest I remember the first news report about it on ESCToday.com).  But ESCToday got hacked into earlier this year and lost 12-years worth of work in a couple of seconds.  They did have the most important news article that clarified and verified that the ABU obtained the rights from EBU, and that the ABU placed Asiavision Pte in charge of organising a contest.  Asiavision Pte wanted to call the show Asiavision Song Contest (I assume the reason to be a name connection between Asiavision Pte).  Then Our Sound 2011 (originally scheduled to take place in Mumbai, India - during the 48th ABU General Assembly) got cancelled.  Now seeing as ABU Song Festivals are also taking place during the 49th ABU General Assembly, then an obvious connection is visible.  We know that Asiavision became renamed to Our Sound.  And if Our Sound 2011 was to coincide with an ABU assembly meeting, and ABU Song Festivals are also scheduled to take place during an ABU assembly meeting, then the two shows are the same but under yet another name change.  <b style="background:black"> Wesley   Mouse </b> 22:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * All articles, except for 2012 season on ESCToday have been restored, including 2007-2008 ones. They also are searchable. So if there was an article, try to find it based on ABU, Asiavision or Our Sound key words.
 * http://www.esctoday.com/?s=Asiavision&button=
 * Now the ball is on your side, you've made an assumption, please prove that "ABU has obtained the rights from EBU and placed Asiavision in charge".
 * 48th assembly took place in November 2011 in New Delhi. Our Sound was due to take place in November 2010 in Mumbai. A year difference. Sorry, but I fail to see "obvious connection". Ruslanovich (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have reminded you once too often to remain civil please. Telling someone "the ball is on your side" is very bullish and almost battleground context.  An invitation has been issued to the project page for members to engage in this discussion, as you are clearly trying to push a strong POV-case and using incivility as a weapon of some sorts.  It would be advisable to refrain from contentiously reinstating your edits until the discussion has reached a conclusion.  Now please, drop it for now and wait for others to join in.  <b style="background:black"> Wesley   Mouse </b> 23:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have published my edits just 2 times - one originally, and one adding valid extra sources to prove the date as you requested. I accept your explanation of vandalism happening, though still I would not like to have my edits labelled as vandalism. By this moment, I have explained and defended all my edits in separate topics of the talk page. I clearly fail to understand what is still debatable in them, and why they can not be reinstalled. The debate of Our Sound/ABU relations is important, but mostly for the future of parent page, rather than the edits I've made which were: corrections of the date/languages/broadcasters/live broadcast information/number of finalists/addition of verifiable sources/addition of one paragraph in History section about clearly associated events. Ruslanovich (talk) 23:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I see misinterpretations here of what I have said to you. You understand where I am coming from with the incivility right?  To tell someone that the "ball is on their side" is a bit pushy, and a phrase that I wouldn't use in any dispute resolution talks like this one.  As for the edit being labelled as vandalism, I have explained it, and you have just informed me that you accept that explanation.  I cannot change the wording of the edit summary though sorry.  So there is nothing that can be done, apart from accept that I have pointed out a technical glitch (and one that I have now reported through the official channels).
 * Now to this content. The only thing that concerns me is one of the sources you had used is inaccessible to me, and without seeing what that source states, there is no way to verify its content.  If another user other than yourself can view it, then I will accept that it is verified by another person (I'm sure that person would post a short extract so I can at least see some of the website).  The history part is the main issue now - and that shouldn't get reinstated until we (and other users) have discussed the matter and reached an agreement.  I can't be any fairer than that really.  <b style="background:black"> Wesley   Mouse </b> 23:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, let's do it step by step. Let's first decide about inclusion of ABU Popular Song Contest as main predecessor of ABU Song Festivals. The information on it is here: http://ecentral.my/news/story.asp?file=/2007/6/25/music/18041299&sec=music or at http://esckaz.com/2012/abu.htm in the bottom of the page. This event was clearly run by ABU itself, and as source say: "The popularity of the ESC concept persuaded the Asian Broadcasting Union (ABU) to organise the ABU Popular Song Contest in 1985 and 1986". Additionally Bobbysocks were invited to perform as special guests at the contest. 14 Asian and Pacific countries took part in the 1st contest, 3 winners were chosen by jury, it was offered for delayed broadcast to all ABU members. So concept is very similar to the current ABU Festivals. Is it enough on your opinion for this event to have mention in the history section of ABU Festivals? Ruslanovich (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. I noticed you haven't receive the welcome cookies yet. May I send you some, as a peace offering?  <b style="background:black"> Wesley   Mouse </b> 23:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to add, the only countries that have launched preselections for Our Sound were Cambodia/Philippines/Australia. While in Australia there was no broadcaster associated with the selection at all (it was run on OurSound website), in Cambodia it was run by CTN and in Philippines it was advertised by GMA - none of these two broadcasters are ABU members. The Our Sound final should have been distributed by Channel [V] - pan-Asian channel but again, not ABU member. Ruslanovich (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, hang on a second. This discussion has now got all over the place and I can't keep up with which section is being updated on the talk page.  Comments are being posted out of chronological sequence, which does confuse the hell out of me at most times.
 * This ABU Popular Song Contest in the 1980s sounds very much like the Sanremo Music Festival (pre-Eurovision) and that was the main contest that created Eurovision. So ABU's 1980 creation is could technically be seen as pre-Asiavision.  If that be so, then they could all get bundled together into one parent article - and explain that there where "two" companies (as you state) that organised similar concept shows.  But as the years progressed, one show got cancelled entirely and the other took over entirely.  I have nominated Our Sound to be page moved to a new article name, so we would be able to write something on there about all these contests.  Giving appropriate section headers, such as "History", "Pre-Asiavision", "Our Sound era", and "ABU Song Festival revival" (the latter basically is a revival of Our Sound.  This then helps to tie-together all the shows and provide more background to everything in one place.  Sounds reasonable?  <b style="background:black"> Wesley   Mouse </b> 23:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not pre-Asiavision. Pre ABU Song Festival. And in contrary - shows Our Sound and ABU Song Festivals are NOT of the similar concept. Our Sound was intended to be a) open to every broadcaster in Asia; b) with live broadcast and televoting accross them; c) without jury voting; d) of two days long - performances and results show; e) aimed to be high profile TV production; f) specifically noting that it is for professionals and not aiming for discovery of talents, g) aimed for newly released songs, h) only one entry per country, i) being a purchased format show from EBU based on Eurovision.
 * ABU Radio Festival is a) open only to ABU members which can be even African or European; b) without live broadcast and without televoting; c) with jury voting; d) of one day long; e) aimed to be radio production; f) aimed only for amateur, unsigned artists; g) no limits on song release date; g) 2 entries per broadcaster (already 4 entries per Iran submitted by 2 broadcasters), i) being original format show with similar concepts already used by ABU in past.
 * ABU TV Festival is even more different - no voting at all, not a competition.
 * Based on what criteria you call these shows of a similar concept? Different organizers, different concepts? Again, I do not see any similarities besides they are music shows, and aimed primarely for Asian artists (even though already ABU Radio Festival includes entry from Africa). Again, there are many music shows aimed for Asia - like Asia Song Festival for example - so I do not see any criteria for inclusion of Our Sound and not others.
 * I have shown in my references that ABU Popular Song Contest is a predecessor for ABU Festivals - similar concept, same organizer - it has right to be included in the history section. So far I do not see a valid arguments for associating Our Sound with ABU Festivals, even though in my edits I have left Our Sound portion, but I prefer to write it more in a "not to be confused with" vein making sure that people do not get confused considering Our Sound as predecessor of ABU Festivals.Ruslanovich (talk) 06:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * pre-Asiavision/pre-ABU Festival - I meant the same thing - bit obvious with the way I had suggested ideas. I am working hard to find a compromise here, but you are clearly not for wanting to compromise - so I see this going nowhere while you are having a bullish attitude towards people and what they suggest in a compromising manner.  We're suppose to be working towards mutual agreements.  But I cannot and will not agree to the suggestions that you are making so far, as they are going against the spirit of things.  Having one parent article covering all of the contests (even the ones that haven't lifted off the ground) allows us to have one place to mention the fact that Asian Music Competition have tried to be carried out in various ways - such as Asiavision; Our Sound; ABU Song Festival.  We can then use the same parent article to provide details to the general reader that some of those contests where ideas, plans had gone through, but some got cancelled/renamed using sources.  This is the best compromise all round as it keeps everyone happy, improves one article to show details on Asian competitions.  Not everything should have an article - and if there are ways to incorporate information of two or more similar events into one article then that would be preferred.  If you're not open to compromising situations then I suggest you drop it all together and find something else to work on.  <b style="background:black"> Wesley   Mouse </b> 13:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Your approach is clearly misleading. People, like you already, will be getting confused and consider that the ABU Festivals are revival of the project which was attempted three times with failure. It is clearly not. Different festivals, different organizers and different concepts. I can agree only on listing Our Sound in the article in the "ABU Festivals should not be confused with private initiative Our Sound" way, not the way you suggest. It is not the question of compromise - it is question of facts and verified evidence. I'm pretty sure, ABU will not be happy to have their contest associated with something that was run privately, created numerous false starts and died. The parental article for ABU Festivals may include only minor reference to Our Sound, as they are different, non-related contests. I do not see the reason why you're insisting the events to be "similar" - if they are similar, the page should be titled "International Music Festivals in Asia" and include whole variety of events both taken place and not. At this moment, Our Sound, which never got off to any considerable start is not notable event at all. I suggest you to stop considering article as "Own" and allow sourced, verified edits to it, the ones I have been proposing. Ruslanovich (talk) 16:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * For the last time, stop accusing me of attempting to own an article. I will not tolerate such false accusations from nobody!  We have a major content dispute, and it is compulsory to work on compromise and discuss the content that is disputed before reinserting any of that disputed material.  You're attitude to keep demanding this material MUST be restored without even allowing a discussion to conclude is the wrong approach.  You may do things differently on Russian Language Wikipedia, but here at English Wikipedia discussion of disputed material is the preferred method.  Now talk civil, help to build mutual agreements - DON'T tell people they are wrong - its not about winning.  Now unless you can resume a normal conversation without force-feeding words and demands down people's throats then I see this discussion going nowhere.  <b style="background:black"> Wesley   Mouse </b> 16:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Your speech clearly shows discrimination between Wikipedia editors, as you consider your edits more valid than mine for some reasons. I am clearly welcoming an independent point of view and would be happy if anyone drop here and provide some new information or proofs. I clearly do not see a dispute that can be decided by concensus. One point of view (mine) has been verified. Another point of view (yours) has been not. Then if you want the disputes to continue, my point of view should be included in the article for time being, before you or someone else provide other valid arguments that it is false. At this moment the only thing you keep pushing is that you have written original paragraph, and I'm editing it. If it was vice versa, the things would have been different. This is clearly wrong approach, it should not be about who is longer user of Wikipedia, or who has created the article, but the edits which can be verified and have correct content. I agree that the discussion is not going anywhere without someone independent. You clearly tend to protect your edits - while I would like to correct the article in order for it to be more complete and helpful to Wikipedia users. Ruslanovich (talk) 16:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest an independent users to react to the following issues.
 * a) whether there is evidence that ABU TV and Radio Song Festivals are associated with Our Sound The Asia Pacific Song Contest and if they are: in what way and to which extent
 * b) whether this evidence is enough for the Our Sound event included in the "History" section for ABU Song Festivals as 1. Predecessor of the ABU Festival or 2. As an event not to be confused with ABU Festival
 * c) whether ABU Popular Song Contest should also be included in the History section
 * d) whether any other International Asian Festivals should be included in the History section
 * Thank you.Ruslanovich (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

These sections have now been resolved, and are being placed into collapsible boxes per mutual agreement, for those who still wish to read them. Time-stamping for archive purposes. <b style="background:black"> Wesley  Mouse </b> 17:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Third opinion

 * Hello guys. I've come here in response to a third opinion request on this matter. On quick note, I've only reviewed the disagreement regarding the "Our Sound" festival. I can see there is a separate section below regarding the separation of the TV and the Radio festivals. I'm not sure if a third opinion is also requested on that matter, so feel free to clarify. Also, echoing CT Cooper comment on that thread, this is merely an opinion by an uninvolved user, and we can wait until Wesley Mouse is free to participate in the discussion again before taking any action. I'll have this on my watchlist, but feel free to drop me a line if I don't respond to new comments.
 * What I can see from the references available on this article and on Our Sound is that indeed that festival is in no way related to the Asia-Pacific Broadcasting Union (ABU). The relevant sources, chronologically:
 * 2008: A private company, Asiavision Pte. Ltd., purchased the right to the Eurovision format
 * 2009: The project, which had the working title of Asiavision Song Contest, is officially renamed to Our Sound – The Asia-Pacific Song Contest upon a request from ABU because it "has been operating a daily exchange of news by satellite among television stations under the name of Asiavision for more than 20 years and wanted to avoid any confusions"
 * 2011: A report is made on the about ABU launching radio and television festivals, and an official is quoted saying that the two events might be merged "into a single 'Asiavision Song Contest'", but that an official name had not been decided yet. This one is puzzling, and I think this is the point where the confusion arises. My guess is that that the name "Asiavision Song Contest" was thrown around during talks, as they were free to use the handle "Asiavision" as seen on the previous point, and then it permeated to ebu.ch report. Still, that the ABU festivals are being called "ABU TV Song festival" and "ABU Radio song festival" suggests that they simply decided not to use that name. In any case, there is no mention whatsoever of Asiavision Pte. Ltd. in that report, or any suggestion that the ABU initiative is either a continuation or a merger of the "Our Sound" festival.
 * It isn't clear to me what's the state of "Our Sound" nowadays. Both http://www.oursound.asia/ and http://www.asiavision.tv/ are functional (and credited to Asiavision Pte. Ltd.), but there isn't any information on event dates, and the "Timeline" section merely states "Coming Soon". Regardless of that, in regards to the point (a) laid out above by Ruslanovich, I don't see any evidence linking both initiatives, and I would even say that the 2009 press release is evidence to the contrary. Our Sound currently states that it is "also known as ABU Song Festivals", and then it implicitly associates both of them at the end of the History section, which I believe is not only misleading, it is patently wrong.
 * In regards to point (b), the liberal use of the "Asiavision Song Contest" handle makes this confusion very likely to reoccur, so I believe our readers are best served with a clarification that clearly distinguishes both festivals, with links to any relevant article (I have no opinion on whether Our Sound is notable or not). Maybe the history section is the best place for that, maybe it can placed somewhere else. What I think is relevant is that is it done somewhere. If kept, Our Sound must be edited to reflect this difference. As for (c), as I understand "ABU Popular Song Contest" is the name of the festival organized by the ABU in the 80's. If that's so, a mention on the History section does seem relevant. It would be better to do so at a generic article for the ABU Song Festivals, which shouldn't redirect to Our Sound. And as for (d), I don't see why other festivals bear mention under History. Our Sound is a special case because of the name issue. Maybe on "See also"?
 * Please point out if there's anything I've missed, or got backwards — Frankie (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello Frankie, thank you for taking time to looking into this matter. I've not long since finished my split-shift duty as a London 2012 Games Maker and feeling a little tired, I came on here just to see if a 3O had been done yet.  Would you mind if I read your comments in more detail after a good nights sleep?  Then I will be able to respond better than trying to write while tired.  <b style="background:black"> Wesley   Mouse </b> 22:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your third opinion, I fully agree with everything stated in it. It also corresponds to my proposed wording of History section of ABU Song Festivals. Let's now wait for the Wesley's arguments on this issue. Ruslanovich (talk) 11:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * To keep avoiding confusion, may be it will be better rather not to move Our Sound to ABU Song Festivals, but request AfD of Our Sound where decision may be taken of whether to close Our Sound article completely as not-notable event, keep it as separate article or merge short information in the ABU Song Festivals article to avoid confusion. As itself, Our Sound was last been mentioned in 2010, scheduled for November, and after that the website of the contest went to "coming soon" state, while on Official Facebook page of the festival it was announced in March 2011 that project "has been indefinitely postponed due to ongoing issues between the organisers and the EBU" - though there was no more official announcement of it's state besides that. As there wasn't even a list of participating countries announced, there is no notability of the project that hasn't taken place, and haven't been heard since 2010 of. It's analogue Arab World (MENA) Song Contest is now of AfD list. Let's now wait for the Wesley's arguments on this issue. Ruslanovich (talk) 11:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Wesley, can you also please shortly react on which grounds ABU Song Festivals are considered part of Wikiproject:Eurovision - whether this was assumption that ABU Song Festivals are successors of Our Sound and Our Sound in it's turn is based on purchased format of Eurovision Song Contest? Otherwise, it is difficult to understand where the borders of Eurovision project lie in this course. If all international festivals are falling within it, also ASBU Music Festival (Radio Song Festival run by Arab States Broadcasting Union) as well as OTI Festival (TV Song Festival by Latin America Broadcasters) and Caribbean Song Festival have to fall under this project, despite none of these festivals, including ABU have anything to do with EBU or Eurovision format. Ruslanovich (talk) 11:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * @Wesley: I only read your message today, but yes, of course. Welcome back.
 * @Ruslanovich: Just a comment that it isn't necessary for Our Sound to have had any actual instances to be notable, as long as there is coverage in reliable third-party sources. I haven't really reviewed those or looked for any additional ones, but from what I've seen I think it could survive AfD, or at least it wouldn't be a slam dunk delete — Frankie (talk) 15:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for being so patient towards me, trying to juggle regular editing duties on Wikipedia and conducting professional duties as part of my Games Maker role at London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games is not an easy task, which I'm sure you can imagine how hectic it can be. I see there is more to read and absorb in, so please bear with me while I try to respond to each one in brief detail.  The disagreements were in regards to several edits made to this article by .  Naturally I have this and all articles under the WP:ESC banner on my watchlist.  Upon inspecting the new edits I found three sources used, and as has become general practice for me, I check what has been added against the new sources associated to them.  Of the sources, 2 I could not view and kept getting 404 error code, which I'm sure as any other editor would have reacted, I removed the content as it wasn't possible to verify the content.  The third source was for ESCKaz, which is already in use.  Of the 2 sources I had problems with, one I managed to work around, while the other still shown 404 error code (and still does to this present day).
 * Now I'm not sure why, but Ruslanovich didn't seem to understand the concept why if an editor can't verify a source that the edit would be removed from the article - but WP:V and WP:SOURCEACCESS are very detailed about this reason. Ruslanovich then pasted a paragraph from the remaining source that I couldn't access.  But this still defeated the object for the pure fact that I had already pointed out I couldn't verify it, so the user could easily have "pasted" anything they liked and I still wouldn't know if it was a true copy or not.  As courtesy I did state that some of their edits may be re-added, but he demanded all gets restored.  This causes problems as it would still be adding disputed content before a conclusion of discussion was reached.  I did explain on here that I am not aware of a way to restore only half of the edits, while omitting the disputed sections.
 * I agree with Frankie that there are confusion issues with the sources relating to concept rights. With the EBU announcing in 2008 that they were in talks with ABU, only to sell the rights to Asiavision Pte, and then a couple of years later to further publish that the ABU are to host a contest similar to Eurovision Song Contest - does leave it open to interpretation.  Now to explain how the contest may be seen as similar (and I stress I say MAY not HAVE).
 * Asiavision Pte were to create a contest based on the Eurovision concept, initially to be entitled Asiavision Song Contest (2009); and latterly Our Sound (2010/11). Neither contests lifted off the ground and seem to have been "shelved indefinitely".
 * Asia-Pacific Broadcasting Union announced in 2011 that they too were to create two contests based on the Eurovision concept, one entitled ABU Radio Song Festival, and ABU TV Song Festival. Both contests to be launched in 2012 News.az verify this.
 * Despite Asiavision Pte and ABU being two separate companies, they both have proposed contests based on the same Eurovision concept - thus making them similar contests but by two different companies.
 * It is looking highly unlikely that Asiavision Pte's version will ever continue and has become an abandoned project for them, whereas the ABU's version is obviously going ahead as planned. As both contests (the abandoned one and the ABU one) are both based on Eurovision concept, then they fall under the WikiProject Eurovision scope, along with Junior Eurovision Song Contest, Eurovision Dance Contest, Eurovision Young Musicians, and many others listed on the project's home page.  Even OGAE is within the project's scope.  As for AFD of Our Sound article, Ruslanovich has already been informed by  that the likelihood of it being deleted are slim.  Arab World (MENA) Song Contest however, hasn't been AFD's it has been PROD'd - a huge difference there, as one is a nomination, one is a proposal. Anyone can remove the PROD notice, but AFD decisions are based on consensus.  That contest relating to that article though were only "boardroom meeting ideas" and there are not many sources to state otherwise, hence why it will most likely be deleted.  Our Sound on the otherhand has third-party reliable sources to verify the contest was planned and did go beyond a boardroom discussion.
 * Now I have suggested that the Our Sound article be renamed to ABU Song Festivals, and this is purely so that we are able to hold one parent article to show the history on how two unassociated companies had planned to create contests based on the same Eurovision concept, with only one of them (ABU) actually going ahead with the plans and the other (Asiavision Pte) seemingly abandoning them. The title for the article may need improving and I'm happy for that to happen - but the fact two companies have discussed plans to replicate a Eurovision-style contest in the Asia-Pacific region needs to be mentioned in an article somewhere - plus it would keep details on the unsuccessful attempt of Our Sound, while further detailing the successful version by the ABU.
 * So sorry if this response is rather lengthy but as there were so much to reply to, then it was inevitable really. I would also like to request (and this is non-topic related) that Ruslanovich refrain from making rather aggressive/patronising remarks to other users.  It is not nice to blatantly call someone a liar, or be selfish and basically say that I had to stay here and wait for the 3O to start, ignoring the fact that I had real-life commitments (London 2012 Volunteering) which I'm sure you'll agree are more a priority then a discussion on Wikipedia.  I look forward to reading the responses to this post in due course.  Please note that as a volunteer there will be periods that I will unexpectedly be called away at short notice which will result in further delay on this debate.  <b style="background:black"> Wesley   Mouse </b> 16:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, but you preferred to remove and stop/delay a bunch of valuable verifiable edits - about 20 of them, first only due to the reason that you couldn't open one of the links - only aiming to prove the date of the show, which you though have agreed to change in minutes. Still, even if these links prove the date only, and you have changed it yourself, you keep referring to them for no reason. The date is there, time to leave it. Then you also discovered being unhappy with the history section again as reason for not able to re-install other edits. You have not given any arguments about other edits - so now we're stuck discussing history section. Now, you tend to accuse me in not able to delay 3O request further, while originally, none of the edits should have been reverted at all, all being based on verifiable sources, and you yourself have already invited members of Wikiproject:Eurovision to join the discussion, which means you have given all your arguments. Now, let's stick to the history debate. Again, there are some mishaps on your information: you keep claiming Our Sound (2010/11) - there is nothing to prove that the contest has been rescheduled for 2011. The last given date was in November 2010. The .az sources according to the Wikiproject:Eurovision can not be considered a solely reliable source, in the highly debatable cases. I say that the article is clearly wrong, and you can for yourself see, that the ABU Song Festivals have nothing to do with Eurovision concept. I have provided the comparison with several major difference between the concepts in previous discussions. There is no reliable information that would refer to ABU purchasing Eurovision rights from EBU, same to as Asiavision Pte Ltd did. I'm sorry, but the claim that ABU Song Festivals are based on Eurovision concept is wrong. Provided this, I see no reasons of ABU Song Festivals falling under the Wikiproject:Eurovision scopes, while indeed Our Sound article, if it stays, is indeed connected to Eurovision and EBU. This has to be agreed, we're still in disagreement over this. As you are in disagreement with deletion of the article Our Sound then the only two things I can propose are the following: 1. Either to have two articles on two separate unrelated events or 2. To incorporate short info on Our Sound in ABU Song Festivals in the way I have proposed in the Wording of History section below in "Not to be confused with" manner.Ruslanovich (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK let's get something straight here Ruslanovich. What on earth is a remark like "but you preferred to remove and stop/delay a bunch of valuable verifiable edits" suppose to mean?  It comes across as selfish in that you would rather I abandon any real-life obligations to which I am duty-bound to carry out, and stay here 24/7 dealing with this?  I am not a robot, I have a real-life too, just like you do - yet you don't see me telling you not to continue with real-life projects do you?  So please cease making such comments, and it would be polite to retract any such comments that you have already made.
 * And what does "Then you also discovered being unhappy with the history section again as reason for not able to re-install other edits. You have not given any arguments about other edits - so now we're stuck discussing history section." suppose to be aiming at? You have requested numerous times that all your edits get reinstated - yet I have explained to you that the only ones that should be reinstated are the ones unrelated to the history section.  I haven't stopped you from readding them manually, it is just impossible to use the "revert" function to restore only parts of the edits without restoring them all.  So manually restoring the edits no longer in dispute is the only way around that, and I haven't stopped you from reinserting those sections.  To put it in simple terms, it would mean writing the edits again as if they were new contributions (just like I did with the date change) rather than reverting the older ones which would be problematic as all gets restored, not part.  So again, a false assertion on your behalf has been made there.
 * The main issue that is being dispute now is the history section, nothing more nothing less, just the history of the contest(s) - and until that is settled we shouldn't restore the history segments of the article. In regards to the .az sources, if you read the discussion at Project Eurovision, you will have noted that News.az was amongst the list of .az sites being talked about, but News.az was found to be reliable enough - Guns.az was found to be unreliable not News.az.  Look at ESC 2012 (which I might add was promoted to good article status in accordance to Wikipedia article classifications) you'll find News.az and ABC.az have been used as sources.  So that quashes your allegation that news.az is unreliable.
 * And what is this that I am in disagreement of Our Sound being deleted? Other users (and I have counted 3 others excluding myself) that have also informed you that the chances of Our Sound being successfully deleted are as slim as finding rocking horse excrement.  So its not just myself who has said Our Sound won't get deleted, but 3 others too.  Which is why I suggested that it may be better to have one "super-article" that contained brief historical information regarding the unsuccessful Our Sound, but covered more detailed historical facts about ABU contests - with the latter taken more president on an article and the former being written as subtext at the bottom.  It would also mean that Our Sound article is recycled into a newer article whilsts keeping details on both contests that have clearly and explicitly stated are based on the concept of Eurovision Song Contest - thus making them similar (not identical) contests.  <b style="background:black"> Wesley   Mouse </b> 17:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh and one other thing. Since when did you become self-experienced in what article(s) should and shouldn't be grouped under a project?  A project decides that based upon its project goals and scope.  Those goals and scopes are agreed upon by consensus of project members.  The goals and scope of WP:ESC include any article on contests, countries in a contest, participants, and songs that have taken part in anything that is Eurovision related or contested based on the Eurovision concept.  There is currently no project for Asia-Pacific Song Contests, and so such articles may be placed in holding under the Eurovision Project or become a task force which is a non-independent subgroup of a larger WikiProject - WP:ESC being the larger project; even WP:ESC is a sibling-project to WP:MUSIC.  But Project Eurovision became that large that it could no longer continue as a task force to WP:MUSIC and thus branched off into a sub-project.  <b style="background:black"> Wesley   Mouse </b> 17:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Contradicting yourself? This is what you have stated before: "At the time of creating the draft article I did seek advice whether we would need to create two articles, and was informed that there were not enough third party reliable source for each event in an individual context to keep within WP:N and WP:GNG, and could result in one or both articles being AfD'd". Now, you're saying "the chances of Our Sound being successfully deleted are as slim as finding rocking horse excrement".
 * I can not add anything further on the subject of discussion, once again I point our that there are not enough of evidences to keep associating ABU Song Festivals with Eurovision, as concepts of these festivals are very different and besides one article, no other sources claim that ABU Song Festival are based on "licensed" format of Eurovision. As per EBU website, the Eurovision format was sold only to: Asiavision Pte Ltd in Asia, Nibras Media Ltd in MENA countries and were close to sign deal with African countries. There is no mention of EBU licensing the Eurovision format to ABU, even in the related article. I strongly disagree with proposal to link these two contests via Eurovision. Our Sound is based on Eurovision format, ABU Song Festivals are not. Ruslanovich (talk) 18:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No not contradicting - you have clearly misunderstood what I was referring to. The matter of fact that I stated "draft article" in reference to this very article should have clarified what I was referring to.  The two articles which I was referring to are articles for Radio Festival and TV Festival in their own individual status.  There were no third-party reliable sources that explicitly mentioned the TV or Radio Festival in their own right to warrant individual articles and could result in one or both being afd'd.  Combining an article for both radio and tv contests prevents them being deleted as there are third-party sources which mention both contests in the same source.  And you obviously haven't understood what is meant by "the chances of Our Sound being successfully deleted are as slim as finding rocking horse excrement" either do you?  From the comments by others they have said Our Sound wouldn't get deleted, making it slim chance.  A rocking horse, is a child's wooden toy, which with it being a toy cannot create excrement - thus making it slim chance you would find rocking horse excrement.  <b style="background:black"> Wesley   Mouse </b> 18:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, let's not escalate this. @Ruslanovich, I understand that the edits you refer to are verifiable and they should probably be included in the end, but as Wesley mentions we all have real life obligations so we might not be able to keep an accelerated pace. I had planned to make a more comprehensive proposal later tonight (I still do), but in order to get the ball rolling, perhaps you could make a summary of what you'd like to include and where. Just three or four edits that you consider to be the most relevant, if you have more I'm sure we'll get to them in time. Personally, I think the pressing matters are:
 * Re-haul the History section, given that right now it certainly gives an impression that the ABU latests festivals are an actual, intended continuation of what Asiavision Pte was trying to achieve, while it is so only incidentally. The proposal below in the section "Proposed wording of the History section" seems reasonable to me. Again, Our Sound does bear mention, but it has to be clear that they are not the same festival.
 * Correspondingly, modify the lede of Our Sound to remove the direct association with ABU (which includes removing the last paragraph under "History), and instead place a paragraph simply mentioning that ABU started their own separate festival, which was once tentatively referred to as "Asiavision Song Festival"
 * I understand that it is also an issue on whether the ABU festivals may be referred to as an equivalent of Eurovision. Without having reviewed that more deeply, there could be an argument to be made on whether the formats are similar enough to justify that view, but bear in mind that the Eurovision format is something that's need to be licensed for it to be an "official" Eurovision equivalent, something that ABU has apparently not done.
 * @Wesley: The problem I see with a "super article" is that it's scope is too vague. Does it cover ABU festivals only (with a quick mention to Our Sound for clarification's sake)? Does it cover all Asian festivals? All that are "Eurovision-like"? And regardless of whether a super article is written, it shouldn't "absorb" Our Sound nor ABU Song Festivals, which should cover their own subjects separately
 * Let's all have a cup of tea, or your drink of choice (I'll bring the cookies). I'm sure you've heard this one before, but there is no deadline. If we can reach an agreement sooner rather than later, well, that's great. But no kittens will be harmed if we don't — Frankie (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you Frankie for acknowledging real life obligations much appreciated. Its stressing enough volunteering at a major sporting event like London 2012 all unpaid, without having added stress from an editor who is constantly twisting my comments out of context - not very helpful in my opinion.  And as for the no deadline, I totally agree - Rome wasn't built in a day - as the saying goes.  I wholeheartedly understand when you state ABU festivals are an equivalent to Eurovision, as they haven't obtained the licensing rights for it to be classified as identical - and this is something I have also stated throughout this debate.  Eurovision/Our Sound near-identical; Eurovision/ABU Festivals similar; therefore Our Sound/ABU Festivals would also be similar.  And there is a source that has stated that ABU version intends to continuation of what Asiavision Pte was trying to achieve by creating a contest that is similar to the Eurovision - but not an exact identical copy.  I think its those words similar/identical that Ruslanovich is getting confused - and that could be a language misunderstanding beyond my control.  When I mentioned the "super article" idea, yes I meant that the primary focus would be on ABU Festivals only with a quick mention of the fact Our Sound tried to do a similar project as they had EBU license rights to an exact copy of Eurovision-style contest; whereas the ABU appear to have intended to continue the achievement that Asiavision Pte failed to fulfil - albeit that the ABU don't have the EBU's license rights to create a copy-contest.  Our Sound clearly isn't going to ever continue and instead of having the Our Sound article deleted forever (if that were to happen) we might as well recycle that article by updating it with ABU Festival related material (renaming the article to reflect that of course) and give a brief historical outline of what Asiavision Pte intended but failed to attempt.  <b style="background:black"> Wesley   Mouse </b> 18:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I would kindly ask you to list the similarities between ABU Song Festivals and Eurovision Song Contest. An obvious connection may indeed be that both are international music festivals organized by international broadcasting organizations. But then, if we unite them in one article based on that, we have to bring ASBU Radio Song Festival (which has the same format as ABU Song Festival), OTI Festivals, Carribean festivals in as well. Another connection may be to list all Asian international music festivals - but then ASIA Song Festival, ASEAN Festival will be getting in there too. There hardly are any similarities between Eurovision and ABU beyond that, and I have listed above numerous major differences between Our Sound and ABU Festivals that clearly do not allow to say that "ABU appear to have intended to continue the achievement that Asiavision Pte failed to fulfil". Additionally, formats of ABU TV and Radio Festivals are different within themselves - below I have pointed 3 major differences, so do we speak about similarities between Eurovision and TV Festival, Eurovision and Radio Festival, or all three at the same time? I can't see a way of doing an article on all these events together, besides my proposal. Not "similar project", but a "project not to be confused with". That is the only way I see fitting the Our Sound information in ABU Song Festivals article. Otherwise, may I propose you to write an example of wording you want to have for this article in Our Sound/Eurovision/ABU relations section. Ruslanovich (talk) 19:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As per the pressing edits. The most important IMO is defining the differences between ABU TV and ABU Radio Song Festivals as per the proposal of the Format section I had wrote below. I have it higher on importance list than the history, as this is the essence of contests. Currently, the article gives no information on the differences between those two events. It is most important to have a mention that Radio Festival is aimed only on amateur artists, and that TV Festival is a Gala and not a competitive event. Second one is the one we're debating now - in small scope it is the way history section should be presented (including Our Sound/ABU/Eurovision relations), in wider - the existance of Our Sound article. Third will be separation of the events in Infobox - again as per big format differences in these two festivals, differences in coordinators, date, hosts, interval acts etc. Ruslanovich (talk) 19:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I am starting to lose my tether here on the fact my words and what I am meaning are being twisted out of context everytime. Ruslanovich, you are either purposely doing it to spark a reaction, or you are not understanding what I am saying to you. And I have noted that you only post a response immediately after I comment on here, you have never yet posted a response immediately after Frankie - why is that so? I noticed on this talk page history that whenever other editors have responded to your comments you ignore them, yet as soon as I post something you come weighing in all guns blazing and twisting my remarks out of context? I refuse to comment on anything further until you have answered that. And don't forget to retract the earlier remarks that you made at me referring to my real life obligations. If you don't know how to do this, then I would happily strikethrough them on your behalf (with your permission of course). <b style="background:black"> Wesley  Mouse </b> 19:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I have no comment on this, besides that I again, very kindly, asked you to list your arguments or to write your own wording proposal to challenge mine, and instead of this you're again doing a personal attack. It sounds strange to me that you keep on defending your absence of two days (in which a valuable 3O was given), but instead accuse me of absence of 30 minutes between Frankie and your posts not being able to react on his posts quicker than you did. As I do agree with Frankie, all I can do is just to thank him for his opinion and reaction, but as I do disagree with you, it is explaining why I keep asking you for arguments. It is my last post in the personal discussions. Ruslanovich (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Frankie has asked you to drop the remarks about my absence due to real life obligations. And yet you again state above (and I quote) "It sounds strange to me that you keep on defending your absence of two days (in which a valuable 3O was given)" which is basically implying that I should have neglected my real life obligations to finalise this discussion?  Do you have any real life obligations Ruslan?  Have I ever told you to "stop your real life activities and work on here 24/7"?  You'll find that I haven't made any assertions, and it would be appreciated if you stopped making comments that imply I should cancel my real life work.  Or would you prefer to telephone Sebastian Coe (chairman of the London 2012 games) and tell him that I cannot work for him until I have finished this debate with you - because this is more important?  <b style="background:black"> Wesley   Mouse </b> 19:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

These sections have now been resolved, and are being placed into collapsible boxes per mutual agreement, for those who still wish to read them. Time-stamping for archive purposes. <b style="background:black"> Wesley  Mouse </b> 17:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Similarities between ABU and ESC contest
It has been questioned a number of times now that the Eurovision Song Contest, Our Sound Contest, and ABU Song Festivals are not the same because the EBU (who own Eurovision license rights) permitted Asiavision Pte (creator of Our Sound) the licensing rights to create a concept based on that of the Eurovision Song Contest. Whereas ABU Song Festivals do not own such licensing rights. It is quite simple to explain, based on a number of factors.


 * 1) The EBU gave license rights to Asiavision Pte.  Thus making Eurovision Song Contest and Our Sound identical concepts.  In layman's terms we could say twin-like contests.
 * 2) Based on the idea of the Eurovision Song Contest concept, the ABU created two festivals similar in concept but not identical, as the ABU do not have the license rights to do so.
 * 3) As the ABU have created a show based on the Eurovision, then it will also have created a show similar to Our Sound, as Our Sound had license rights to create a twin-like contest of the Eurovision Song Contest.

And to really put it in simplified terms (genetically) Eurovision-Our Sound = Twins... ABU to Eurovision (as already mentioned in sources) would be like a baby sister to Eurovision - thus meaning it would also be baby sister to Eurovision's twin 'Our Sound'. <b style="background:black"> Wesley  Mouse </b> 19:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * 1st point - yes, OK, this was original idea. Before Our Sound organizers haven't started altering the concept moving away from Eurovision, and getting in "issues with EBU". 2nd point - no. ABU haven't created the festivals on the idea of Eurovision, or either we should regard all international festivals to be based on this idea. If anything, ABU Radio Song Festival is almost identical in concept to ASBU Radio Song Festival and a bit to ABU Popular Song Festival. ABU TV Festival is more similar to Asia Song Festival in concept, being just an international gala. But in general, they are very far from the format of Eurovision - no televoting, no voting announcement sequence, different admission and submission rules etc etc as I listed above in comparison of ABU Song Festivals and Our Sound. May I repeat this comparison:
 * Our Sound was intended to be a) open to every broadcaster in Asia; b) with live broadcast and televoting accross them; c) without jury voting; d) of two days long - performances and results show; e) aimed to be high profile TV production; f) specifically noting that it is for professionals and not aiming for discovery of talents, g) aimed for newly released songs, h) only one entry per country, i) being a purchased format show from EBU based on Eurovision.
 * ABU Radio Festival is a) open only to ABU members which can be even African (Sudan) or European; b) without live broadcast and without televoting; c) with jury voting; d) of one day long; e) aimed to be radio production; f) aimed only for amateur, unsigned artists; g) no limits on song release date; g) 2 entries per broadcaster (there were 4 entries per Iran submitted by 2 broadcasters), i) being original format show with similar concepts already used by ABU in past.
 * ABU TV Festival is even further away. I think this is enough to say that ABU Song Festival is not similar to Our Sound in concept. And calling it baby sister to a Our Sound is a joke. I'm afraid we're stuck again. Ruslanovich (talk) 08:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I may agree to the word that ABU Popular Song Contests in 80s have been inspired by Eurovision as Eurovision is the longest running international music festival, it has probably inspired all other continents to organize own international shows. But I see a long distance between being inspired (that is the only vague thing of being international music show within a borders of a region) and being similar to. It takes a good comparison, point by point, to list all similarities, and in our cases I see more differences rather than similarities. Ruslanovich (talk) 08:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * While I don't personally disagree with the relations you're drawing between the festivals, in order to use that as part of this or any related articles we really need to be able to back it up with reliable sources that are drawing the same conclusions. There are a number of sources following the ABU announcement that they would be organizing their own festivals, but none of them goes as far as to call actually link them to Eurovision, let alone to Our Sound. The closest I could see is this post, that states that "(ABU) is planning to hold a “television song festival” similar to the Eurovision Song Contest." It doesn't link to the source specifically, but I'm guessing it's this one. Note how they only mention Eurovision in passing, and any connection between them seems to hinge in that "Asiavision" would be an intuitive equivalent for "Eurovision", but they clearly state that an official name had not been decided yet. Even more, the eurovision.tv instance makes it very clear than even the logo is by no means official, and in the end ABU decided to go with a totally unrelated name. That there are no sources that make a clear association seems natural to me, as the organizers wouldn't make the association themselves (given the possible legal repercussions), and the media, once the initial excitement had passed, is now reporting on what is actually happening, that is, on the ABU Song Festivals as defined by the ABU itself. Maybe in the future someone will write on the differences and similarities between all these events, and that could provide material with which these articles can be expanded. But without such sources, claiming, either explicitly or implicitly, and based on our own analysis of the events' formats and other circumstances, that there is a connection or continuation between them is pretty much what WP:NOR is concerned with, so I'd suggest to take that approach only where it is really required, and to do so carefully — Frankie (talk) 10:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * No connections between the contests eh? No sources to clarify this eh?  A third party reliable source dated 22 August 2012, by Eurovisiontimes.com.  The first two sentences reads as follows " ABU – It is the closest we will get to an Asiavision Song Contest and we shall take it. The Asian pendant to the EBU, the ABU will hold a Radio Song Festival this October in Seoul".  ABU Song Festivals project manager Mr Kenny Kihyung Bae was asked by the same Eurovisiontimes website on 6 January 2012 "Would the show be an Asian version of the Eurovision Song Contest (including the traditional voting procedure e.t.c) or would it be quite different?".  His reply was "ABU Song Festival and Eurovision could be similar in the sense that both contests have its purpose on ‘exchanging cultures’ through performances, but they will be quite different on how those events are actually formed and formatted." - and that response from the organiser is basically stating the Eurovision concept of "exchanging cultures through [music] performance" would be similar, but the Eurovision format of "voting etc" will be different.  <b style="background:black"> Wesley   Mouse </b> 13:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Very simple opinion on this - the only similarity, again underlined by the source, is that it is international music festival within borders of one region. However, that will bring under the same definition at least 5 more international music festivals run in Asia. It will lead us to the super article "International Music Festivals in Asia", which I try to avoid, as it will be very difficult to create and maintain such a article. Ruslanovich (talk) 14:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the first one is such an off-hand remark, I don't see how much it can be extracted from it. The second one is better, and while it is in the end the reproduction of a claim from a primary source, it is in line with what I was trying to describe above, because it is treating both festivals in a comparative manner. Still, it's extent is also very limited, and I read the remark by Kihyung Bae as meaning that the only similarity between them is on a (maybe non-trascendental) conceptual level, while emphasizing the practical differences between them, but that might just be my point of view. In any case, when it comes to the effect of this source on the contents of the article, I don't think it can be used much. I understand that what you're are proposing (please correct me where I'm wrong) is more or less that since all of Eurovision, Our Sound, and the ABU festivals share significant conceptual and even practical similarities, that they share the same "spirit", if I may, then it would be fine to describe their particular histories in an integrated manner, as pieces of the sole "cultural thrust" that evolved through a number of incarnations, regardless of whether they organizers of each were the same for each instance (which doesn't mean that credit to the specific organizers wouldn't be explicitly given where and when appropriate; it would). If that's the case, as I said before, I actually don't disagree with that analysis. But when it comes to providing an accurate description of events as WP intends to, a fractionary, focused approach, rather than integrated, is normally preferred, and furthermore the window for analysis is kept deliberately narrow. To be more specific, the current version of the history begins by describing that the concept (as vague as that word is, since it's not being used to mean a "tangible" concept, such as a licensed format, or a patent) first begun when the rights were sold to Asiavision Pte., which is puzzling since the subject of this article is supposed to be the ABU Festival, not Our Sound. It makes sense under the integrated approach I mentioned above, but for the reader it will make an impression that Our Sound was an official precursor of the ABU Festivals, perhaps an initiative that never kicked off but it is now being rebooted. It isn't. It is an initiative that never kicked off, and no one has brought it back. I find the last paragraph to be even more troubling, because right after it is stated that [Our Sound] was pushed back to 2010, it is stated that "ABU announced that the event would take place in Seoul...". Being that the subject of those sentences has not been explicitly redefined, one cannot but assume that "the event" still refers to Our Sound . It doesn't. It refers to a brand new set of festivals being organized by ABU. That's the sort of things that the proposed text addresses. Our Sound is still a pertinent festival that bears mention in the section, specially for the purposes of clarity. But it is not the subject of this article. I hope I haven't overextended myself with this comment, and I wait to hear your thoughts on this, be it here or on the section below — Frankie (talk) 17:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, I have read, reviewed and thought about everything thoroughly (even if some responses to my comments/suggestions have been put across in a hostile manner). And I would like to put forward a multi-point proposal, if I may.
 * Create an super-article International Music Festivals, to give an overall outlook on music festivals/contests across the globe. In creating this article we will be able to describe to the general viewer about international music competitions, and any similarities between them.  The article itself can also has short sub-sections briefly describing each respective contest with a hatnote directing to a main article in which the sub-section is relating to (for example Eurovision Song Contest, Junior Eurovision Song Contest).
 * Keep Our Sound and give it a major clean up/write up to reflect the current status of that topic, with a "see also" section directing to a main article for ABU Song Festivals to assist the general viewer.
 * Currently ABU Song Festivals redirects to this article (that redirect was changed following Frankie's suggestion). We can look into making that an article in its own right providing details primarily on ABU contests past and present.  Again with a "see also" section and a link to Our Sound to assist the general viewer.
 * Keep this current article in a combined Radio and TV status for the time being. As it has already been mentioned that splitting at an early stage could put either article under AFD by the deletionists - and believe me there are users out there who seize at the chance to nominate such articles as this for deletion.  Members of Project Eurovision have witnessed so many get AFD'd and we've had to work hard to get them all saved from destruction.  There is nothing wrong in the future to review this article and split it accordingly, but not now, not too soon.
 * In regards to the debate on whether this should even come under Project Eurovision, I would appreciate if Ruslanovich rescind any remarks that the project shouldn't have any say on whether to have this under their "scope" or not. As there are no WikiProject Asiavision yet, then it would be logical and more practical to place this under Project Eurovision protection, even if it means creating a task force within Project Eurovision for our Asian Contest Counterparts.  Again, if in the future the contest becomes more established as Eurovision has over the last 57 years, then a project would probably get created.  But that is in the future - we need to think about the present.
 * If Ruslanovich has a passion for this topic, then he is welcome to join WP:ESC and help by maintaining articles on the project - and not just this one. You'll find all the members help out on all the articles under the Project Eurovision banner.
 * Make any corrections to this article that help to reflect verified and reliable sources - trying to include third party sources and not just sticking to the same ones all the time. Apparently this is a preferred method on the project, although there is an RFC talking place at WT:ESC in regards to a possible project reform, including looking into how the project should be operating.  Again, Ruslanovich is welcome to participate in that discussion if he wishes - but must remain civil and avoid personalising comments at other users.  We're a team, not enemies.  And on that note, it would be appreciated if previous remarks by Ruslanovich that have deeply upset and offended me, were refactored either by striking through them, or removing them entirely.
 * If everyone is in a mutual agreement with my proposal, then I will support a closure of this 3O and then we can all get back to doing what we are suppose to do - collaborating on an encyclopaedic project. <b style="background:black"> Wesley   Mouse </b> 00:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I remain highly skeptical regarding this super article, and that there is enough of verifiable sources that would compare these events. Avoiding the original research in this article and using it mainly as a reference list may work, though I would prefer to hear more detailed proposal of it's structure. I do not have a objection on that in general, and I welcome if Wesley and other Wikiproject:Eurovision members would be able to successfully work on such an article. I have no objections to the other raised points, and abstain from commenting on any personal issues. Ruslanovich (talk) 07:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

"Super Article" is just a terminology for ease of referencing to an article covering a collective topic. Just thought I better clear that up as is appears that you may be getting the term mixed up. It wouldn't be a comparison article, and that should be evident in the explanation I gave. The article itself would inform the reader about International Music Festival, using sources from definition sites if needs be in a header "Overview". Then we have subsequent headers for each of the continents, and sub-headers under each of those giving brief detail about contests in each region. Such details will be available from their respective article on Wikipedia, to which we can use, and place hatnotes on the "super article" directing to them. We can discuss this in more detail at WT:ESC and put forward ideas on how such an article would look, what details it should include etc. As for abstaining from commenting on personal issues - please explain further what you mean by this? Are you saying that you will not withdraw comments that have deeply upset me? You are aware that per WP:RUC if an editor makes such request that you are obliged to carry out that request even if you may disagree or give the editor permission to strikethrough the comments they found distressing. It is all covered under WP:CIVIL and WP:SORRY too. Yes, I understand that this debate got overheated, and to the stage where we was talking past each other rather than reading carefully what each other was trying to say - a language barrier perhaps, I don't know. For example, when I came out with a euphemism between an article being closed down and the chances of a children's toy poohing - the context to most people would have been easily understood. However, you did take it out of context and tried to implement that I was contradicting myself. And there is another comment you wrote which explicitly said that you were purposely getting me into an argument. That alone may be seen as taunting and looking at the policies can be sanctioned with blocks etc. Anyhow, I shall wait for your explanation into what you actually meant by abstaining. <b style="background:black"> Wesley  Mouse </b> 12:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding the super article, I'll echo the comment above that the topic definition seems prone to original research, but that doesn't mean it's not doable. As a simple test, check if you have a source that gives you the very definition of the abstract concept "International Song Contest" (it isn't the same subject obviously, but I'm thinking of something along these lines). If you have one, then is like you can build an article. If not, and instead you infer the definition of the concept from the definitions of single instances, such as Eurovision et al, then you're beginning to tread into OR territory. Alternatively, maybe an outline could prove more useful. They're not as verbose as articles, rather they provide a concise overview to readers.
 * I understand your proposal as implying that you agree to the specific paragraphs as proposed below; please clarify if you don't, and what you'd like to have changed. If that is indeed the case, then I'll be stepping back now, given that Ruslanovich has agreed to your proposal. Feel free to ping me if I can be of any assistance. Best regards to both of you, and happy editing — Frankie (talk) 15:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nooo, you're getting what I'm saying confused now. I'm not saying a "super article" would be based on original research, if what I have described came across that way, I do apologise. What I mean is like having a disambiguation page that is listing each of the festivals globally, onto a page entitled "International Music Festivals" (Festivals could also be changed to Contests/Competitions if it works better).  and looking on Wikipedia there is such an article in existence (see Music competition).  That isn't wandering into OR territory, it is referenced, it describes what a music competition is, and also provides examples of such contests.  But that article is also covering contests such as X-Factor.  Having an article similar that is concentrating purely on Music Festivals such as ABU Song Festivals, Eurovision, Junior Eurovision, Our Sound; will allow use to further explain about these particular contests.  We can then header each contest and give a brief details (copy/paste from main articles) and add a "for further information see main article..." hatnote to each headed section to the relevant topic (I've done a draft example in my sandbox).  Unless Ruslanovich decides to retract the comments/remarks that I have politely asked him to do many times now; then I would prefer it if you stuck around a little longer please Frankie.  As far as I am aware if an editor requests another to retract specific remarks, they are duty-bound to comply with that request.  I have been in a similar situation many a time now, when I have been told to strikeout a remark and I refused to comply with the request.  I was strictly told by a few admin that I was obliged to carry out the request and that if I didn't strikeout the remarks that I was ask to do, or gave permission for the editor to do it on my behalf, that I would be breaching WP:RUC and violating WP:CIVIL.  So I would kindly ask once again that Ruslan retract the personalise remarks or allow permission for myself to do so.  If he requests me to do the same on any of my comments, then I would gladly oblige.  <b style="background:black"> Wesley   Mouse </b> 15:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In order to make proceedings go smoothly, can you please strike-though on my behalf any personal remarks made by me that are not related to the contents of the article and that you're considering incorrect or offensive. Please accept my apologies if you have been harmed by any of them. After doing this, can you please also edit the article in accordance with agreed points, or do you want me to do it? It is time to finally move away from the debates and start working on improvement of the article. May I also thank Frankie for his valuable Third Opinion, which have really made things clearer. Ruslanovich (talk) 16:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for giving permission to strikeout offensive remarks, much appreciated. Did you receive the invitation to join ProjectEurovision by the way?  I attempted to send one earlier but I kept getting time-out errors, and haven't checked since.  Also, if we are drawing the 3O to a close, (and this question is for Frankie) do we need to place all this content into one of those extended content collapsible things, to shrink the page length down a bit?  Then we can start smaller threads to work on the rewording - peacefully.  <b style="background:black"> Wesley   Mouse </b> 16:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, it'd be a good idea to collapse the whole section once the changes have been implemented. About the super article, those were just some considerations off the top of my head. I think it's doable, and it's really great that you're willing to put the time and effort to do it.
 * @Ruslanovich, thank you for extending an olive branch in order to focus on the article.
 * I almost forgot I had promised some cookies. Regards — Frankie (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks everyone, I think you may collapse all the contents of the page, just leave out the things you think are still debatable, so we can check them, if there are any. Ruslanovich (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll extend content collapse-thingy-me-whatsit it all then. Then the paragraphs we are working on, we can duplicate into new sections.  *munch munch* lovely cookies Frankie, home baked?  <b style="background:black"> Wesley   Mouse </b> 17:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

These sections have now been resolved, and are being placed into collapsible boxes per mutual agreement, for those who still wish to read them. Time-stamping for archive purposes. <b style="background:black"> Wesley  Mouse </b> 17:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal
I have reviewed the thread in full again along with several of the sources, and I have a couple of proposals below. Again, this is not an authoritative opinion, only what I think should be used. Just a quick note, in hope that we can simply put the matter aside: regarding the scope of WikiProject:Eurovision, or any other project for what's the matter, it is normally up for project members to include or exclude specific articles as they feel pertinent. The tag above is not a formal categorization of the article's subject, but rather a meta-template designed to assist involved editors in maintaining articles more easily. On the second issue, the "Format" section, I haven't made an specific proposal. There is already a detailed proposal by Ruslanovich at the bottom of this page, "Proposed wording for Format section", and I'd like to invite Wesley to share his thoughts on it, and you both can proceed from there. If I may, I'd suggest to remain focused on the content itself, and take your time to find a version you are both satisfied with — Frankie (talk) 09:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

On this article, for History
The Asia-Pacific Broadcasting Union (ABU) had already ran an international song contest for it's members inspired by the Eurovision Song Contest in 1985-1987, called the ABU Popular Song Contest, with 14 countries of Asia-Pacific region competing. The show had a similar concept to the current festivals with winners being chosen by a professional jury. South Korea, New Zealand and Australia celebrated victories in this competition. In 1989-1991 ABU co-produced the ABU Golden Kite World Song Festival in Malaysia with participation of Asia-Pacific countries, as well as Yugoslavia and Finland.

In 2008, the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) proposed a partnership with ABU on the establishment of an Asiavision Song Contest, however these talks didn't produce any result, and in September 2008 it was announced that the Eurovision Song Contest format for Asian production had been sold to a private company from Singapore, Asiavision Pte. Ltd.. The original name intended for that event was Asiavision Song Contest, but it was later changed to Our Sound - The Asia-Pacific Song Contest following a request from the ABU, who uses the Asiavision name for their news exchange service. Initially, the contest (which was supposed to be a two program live broadcast TV show with public voting) was set to premiere in 2009, but it was later rescheduled for March 2010 in Macao and then for November 2010 in Mumbai, at the end being postponed indefinitely "due to the ongoing issues between the organizers and EBU".

Shortly before launching the ABU Song Festivals, the ABU had been considering the possibility to organize the ABU ASEAN TV Song Festival in Thailand. Historically, ASEAN song contests had been organized in periods between 1981 and 1997, however since 2011 the ASEAN Festival had been organized between local Radio stations as Bintang Radio ASEAN.

In November 2011, the ABU announced that they would organize it's own TV and Radio Song Festivals to take place in Seoul, the South Korean capital, in time with 49th General Assembly in October 2012. The name Asiavision Song Contest was initially mentioned as a possibility, but they were later officially titled ABU TV Song Festival and ABU Radio Song Festival. According to the ABU, the deadline for participation applications was 18 May 2012.


 * Comment. This is mainly based on what was proposed before by Ruslanovich. I think this version is preferable to the current version since it provides a good background and a chronological overview on how the current ABU festivals came to be, while letting the reader know where does the Asiavision Pte. initiative falls within that history, and how it relates (albeit tangentially) to the ABU. Personally, I think the current version is vague enough that the reader might come out with the impression that the ABU was somehow behind that initiative, or that the ABU festivals are an actual continuation/revival of it (I'll make an extra comment on the continuation thing on the subsection above). At least, that's the impression I got when I first read it — Frankie (talk) 09:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Just a small note: the last phrase "According to the ABU, the deadline for participation applications was 18 May 2012" applies only for a TV contest, not to the Radio contest, so this should be clarified in this sentence adding "...applications for ABU TV Song Contest was...". As per Radio Contest, I was unable to find the entering deadline, but the submissions deadline was the end of July as per this. Otherwise, as it is based on my proposal I have nothing to amend or debate in this. Thank you, and I hope Wesley can also review and agree upon it. Ruslanovich (talk) 10:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * No comment at the moment, as I have just found more sources that are implying a connection, albeit small, between Eurovision and ABU Festivals. I will allow you time to review those and perhaps comment on them before I comment on this - as those new sources could bear impact on the proposed word of this section.  <b style="background:black"> Wesley   Mouse </b> 13:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

On Our Sound, for the lede
Our Sound - The Asia-Pacific Song Contest was a proposed annual songwriting competition based on the Eurovision Song Contest. The format consisted of a two program live broadcast TV show with public voting. The organizer, Singapore based Asiavision Pte. Ltd., adquired the rights to the Eurovision format from the European Broadcasting Union in 2009. Initially set for 2009, the competition was rescheduled twice before being postponed indefinitely on March 2011.


 * Comment. I think this one is pretty straight-forward. Note that I've removed the mentions of the ABU festivals and their formats, and specially the assertion that it is "also known as ABU Song Festivals", as that could only be interpreted as the two of them being one and the same. I've put the lede in past tense given the state of things, which can be easily changed following any official announcement to reboot the project — Frankie (talk) 09:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think here we can investigate and may be restore the previous editions of Our Sound article as it stood on mid-2011, before the mix-up between the contest has occured. This seems to be the last edit before ABU Festivals jumped in. If we agree of principle of separations, then I may continue working on Our Sound article adding more information into it (as per the confirmed participation broadcasters, the only 1 chosen entrant, launched Australian preselection etc) in order to save it from being deleted. Ruslanovich (talk) 10:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry to sound pragmatic here, but did I just read that right? Ruslanovich, the person who always stated they proposed to AFD Our Sound article has just said here - "I may continue working on Our Sound article adding more information into it (as per the confirmed participation broadcasters, the only 1 chosen entrant, launched Australian preselection etc) in order to save it from being deleted".  That's a 180-turnaround if I have ever seen one.  But glad to see that you have now reconsidered your deletion ideas and have decided to work on improving an article.  <b style="background:black"> Wesley   Mouse </b> 13:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I said I see no notability of the event. I still fail to see it. Working and improving the article doesn't add to the notability of the event, as most of the mentions came from excited Eurovision fan sites. Ruslanovich (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You stated on 17 August 2012 (in a comment still visible near the top of this page) "If I was an experienced Wikipedia user, I would have nominated Our Sound article for deletion". CT Cooper told you that even if AFD went ahead, the article wouldn't get deleted.  And other users have also pointed out to you the same, that it wouldn't get deleted, with or without any new content being added to it.  The only way a delete motion would get through for Our Sound article would be if someone canvassed for it to be deleted.  And canvassing isn't permitted on Wikipedia, and could result in the canvasser being blocked - believe me, I have come face-to-face with canvassing allegations in my time, so I know what I am talking about.  <b style="background:black"> Wesley   Mouse </b> 14:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You stated: "And rather than thinking about placing AFD on Our Sound, we might as well recycle that article. Give it a new name, and use it primarily for ABU Festival history". This is same as to delete the Our Sound article, which you say would never happen otherwise. You have to decide what is your actual proposal is. Anyway, the article in both current state, or in 2011 state is a mess, and if it stays, it should be worked upon, by you, me, Frankie, whoever. Ruslanovich (talk) 14:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Worked upon by Wikipedians... we are volunteer editors, we contribute voluntarily to a major encyclopaedic project. But you tend to find it is people who have an interest in a particular topic area that edit such articles, which is why you find WikiProjects.  Our Sound comes under WP:ESC scope, as would ABU Song Festivals as there are no wikiprojects for this topic area as of yet.  Although I am not saying that at some stage in the future as the contest grows and grows over the years, that a new project would probably be created and WP:ESC would more than likely step aside from such ABU articles as this.  But in the meantime articles on this subject need to be placed under a project banner, and seeing as WP:ESC members are knowledgeable in this topic and have a keen interest it would be better to hold it under that project, even if its a task force sector of WP:ESC.  <b style="background:black"> Wesley   Mouse </b> 14:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

On Our Sound, for History
The concept was first announced in 2009 when the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), producer of the Eurovision Song Contest, announced that it was selling the format to Singapore based Asiavision Pte. Ltd., which would hold a similar contest in Asia. Unlike the Eurovision Song Contest, which is produced by state-owned and public broadcasters, the Asia-Pacific Song Contest was to be a commercial venture.

The original name of the event was to be the Asiavision Song Contest, but it was changed to Our Sound following an agreement between the organizers and the Asia-Pacific Broadcasting Union (ABU), who uses the Asiavision name for their news exchange. Later in 2011 the name Asiavision Song Contest was brought up by a member of the Korean Broadcasting System as a possible title for the upcoming ABU Song Festivals, but those were ultimately titled ABU TV Song Festival and ABU Radio Song Contest.

Initially, Our Sound was set to premiere in 2009, but it was later rescheduled for March 2010, to take place in Macao, and then for November 2010 in Mumbai, at the end being postponed indefinitely "due to the ongoing issues between the organizers and EBU".


 * Comment. Same rationale as the previous one: Our Sound and the ABU festivals are not the same, and any overlap should be avoided. Aside from some minor changes and fixing the two dead links, I've removed from the last paragraph the description of actions by the ABU regarding their own festivals. I think all that needs to be said concerning the ABU is regarding the name issue, and that is covered in the second paragraph. The other two sections should probably be removed, and the infobox also needs to be edited to remove the references to the ABU — Frankie (talk) 09:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Same as previous, we can take this as base, and then add information solely related to Our Sound. Ruslanovich (talk) 10:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This proposal on Our Sound the prose wording for history looks good. I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be implemented to its respective article with immediate effect.  <b style="background:black"> Wesley   Mouse </b> 13:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Redirects

 * 1) Re-target ABU Song Festivals to redirect to this article. An article on the broader subject of festivals organized or co-organized by the ABU seems valid, but until it exists this article is the best target. Certainly not Our Sound
 * 2) Redirect Our Sound - The Asia-Pacific Song Contest to Our Sound. It's the official title, and redirects are cheap.
 * Comment. That's pretty much it. Let me know what you guys think — Frankie (talk) 09:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreement from my side. Wesley, if you agree on this principle, can you cancel your move request of Our Sound to be moved to ABU Song Festivals. Ruslanovich (talk) 10:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * In reply to Frankie's redirects. I always had assumed Our Sound - The Asia-Pacific Song Contest was already redirected to Our Sound.  This appears not to be the case, and should be rectified in due course.  As for re-targeting ABU Song Festivals to ABU Song Festivals 2012 - that seems rather logical until the Our Sound article gets fixed.  There are no more sources which state Our Sound will ever take place now, and seeing as the ABU are going ahead with Song Festival plans, I pretty much doubt Asiavision Pte would even consider stepping on ABU toes and doing another song contest in the same continental region.  And rather than thinking about placing AFD on Our Sound, we might as well recycle that article.  Give it a new name, and use it primarily for ABU Festival history, with a very small brief about Asiavision Pte's failed attempts somewhere within the article.  Might as well recycle right!  <b style="background:black"> Wesley   Mouse </b> 13:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If it is not more than the current proposed wording - it is OK, but basically it means the deletion of the Our Sound article and incorporation of the basic elements in ABU Festivals as the event not to be confused with - just one paragraph. Otherwise, adding a whole sequence about Our Sound in ABU Festivals seems illogical to me, as the article is already complicated with having two different Festivals - TV and Radio under one roof - and we need to define the differences between them. Adding third festival to differentiate from will bring article to a mess. Ruslanovich (talk) 14:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

These sections have now been resolved, and are being placed into collapsible boxes per mutual agreement, for those who still wish to read them. Time-stamping for archive purposes. <b style="background:black"> Wesley  Mouse </b> 17:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed wording of the History section
The Asia-Pacific Broadcasting Union has already attempted to run international song contest for it's members in 1985-1987, when up to 14 countries of Asia-Pacific region have competed in a TV show called ABU Popular Song Contest, inspired by Eurovision Song Contest. The show had similar concept to the current festivals with winners being chosen by professional jury: South Korea, New Zealand and Australia have celebrated victories in this competition. In 1989-1991 ABU was co-producing ABU Golden Kite World Song Festival in Malaysia with participation of Asia-Pacific countries, as well as Yugoslavia and Finland.

Shortly before launching ABU Song Festivals concept, in early 2011, ABU has been considering possibility to organize ABU ASEAN TV Song Festival in Thailand. Historically, ASEAN Song Contests have been organized in period between 1981 and 1997, however since 2011 ASEAN Festival has been launched between local Radio stations.

In November 2011, the ABU announced that they will organize own TV and Radio Song Festivals to take place in Seoul, the South Korean capital, in time with 49th General Assembly in October 2012. Later, they were officially titled ABU TV Song Festival and ABU Radio Song Festival.

The ABU Song Festivals concept being the original creation of Asia-Pacific Broadcasting Union should not be confused with the private commercial initiative Our Sound - The Asia-Pacific Song Contest, that was attempted to be organized by Asiavision Pte Ltd company from Singapore. Earlier in 2008, European Broadcasting Union (EBU) was proposing ABU partnership on establishment of Asiavision Song Contest, however these talks have not produced any known result and by the end of the year it was announced that the Eurovision Song Contest format for Asian production has been sold to a private company. The original name of the event Asiavision Pte Ltd wanted to use was the Asiavision Song Contest as well, but it had to be renamed into Our Sound following a request from the ABU, who uses the Asiavision name for their news exchange service. Initially, the contest (which was supposed to be a two program live broadcast TV show with public voting) was set to premier in 2009, later rescheduled for March in Macao and then November 2010 in Mumbai, at the end being cancelled indefinitely "due to the ongoing issues between the organizers and EBU". Ruslanovich (talk) 00:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

These sections have now been resolved, and are being placed into collapsible boxes per mutual agreement, for those who still wish to read them. Time-stamping for archive purposes. <b style="background:black"> Wesley  Mouse </b> 17:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Instrumental entries
Allowed or not, two entries on ABU Radio Song Festival website are instrumental - Dast Afshan and Tune of Joyful Music of Lorestan. I have indicated this in the article, however, Wesley Mouse again reverted it, failing though to state any time when he can hear Persian language in this songs.Ruslanovich (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

These sections have now been resolved, and are being placed into collapsible boxes per mutual agreement, for those who still wish to read them. Time-stamping for archive purposes. <b style="background:black"> Wesley  Mouse </b> 17:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Final with 15 entries
Wesley Mouse keeps on stating that the final of ABU Radio Song Festival will have all 26 entries performed live. This is wrong and I have stated with sources that first the internal preselection (semifinal) will be held, with the list narrowed down to 15 entries that will travel to Korea. Ruslanovich (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * All the sources state there are 26 entries at the moment, and this is verified. We have to stick to what the sources state.  It is like the Eurovision Song Contest - there were 42 entries - but only 26 participated in the grand final.  Yet we still mention in the article that 42 participated.  <b style="background:black"> Wesley   Mouse </b> 20:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But we don't mention 26 will be performed live, as you do. As only finalists will be performing live in Korea. The rest of entries will remain on site, but nothing more. Additionally, there is no mention anywhere that the list of 26 is final. ABU website mentions "more than 30 entries" Ruslanovich (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But we? Who's we?  <b style="background:black"> Wesley   Mouse </b> 21:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Same "We" you've mentioned in your sentence above. Ruslanovich (talk) 21:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You mean the majestic plural "we" that I used which was in reference to WP:EURO and English Wikipedia in general. But you mentioned "we don't mention 26 will be performed live, as you do" which is in an entirely different context.  Please explain.  <b style="background:black"> Wesley   Mouse </b> 21:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You have deleted my post, again I say that I have to separate We as Wikipedians, referred by you above, from You - the user Wesley Mouse. I don't see major point in this discussion, which is not related to content of the article. Ruslanovich (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Now you are accusing me of deleting a post that I haven't even done? Are you sure you didn't encounter an edit conflict - they are when two or more users press "save", while editing a page in unison.  The user who pressed save first will have their edits stored, the others will get {{t|edit conflict}] and have to re-save it.  An edit conflict happened just now and I have had to retype this post (the edit conflict tag at the start of the comment should highlight this.  <b style="background:black"> Wesley   Mouse </b> 21:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You have first accused me in "vandalism", so sorry, since that I can't see any good faith in your edits. So far, you have only shown that you haven't well studied the sources, despite them being only 4: ABU website, GA in Korea website, ABU Radio Song Festival Website and ESCKAZ - and also you have shown total mix-up between ABU and non-related Our Sound. Thus, I stand clear on my point - ALL edits I've made should be re-installed and vandalism claim should be deleted. Ruslanovich (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am assuming that you don't normally edit on en:Wikipedia and probably edit on a different language version? All reverts were made using WP:Twinkle and today everytime I have pressed "revert AGF" for the second revert it flags up as is I have clicked revert vandalism.  I need to report why that is happening, but as you have taken up my time here, then I haven't been able to get someone to investigate the technical glitch.  As we have reached content dispute situation, then your edits should not be reinstated until we have found a solution and reached an amicable consensus.  This you would know if you have edited regularly on en:Wikipedia.  Not sure how other language-Wikis operate, and to be blunt I don't care how other language Wiki's run their business.  I work primarily on en:Wikipedia, and that is all that matters to me.  <b style="background:black"> Wesley   Mouse </b> 22:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you please, state which exactly my edits result in conflict with your views. I believe I have defended all points of my edits here on talk page. So far, you have admitted several of them to be correct. I see the only thing we're discussing now is relations between Our Sound and ABU, which have hardly anything to do with my edits, as I anyway had saved all Our Sound information (though still think it has nothing to do with article) and just added another verifiable content about the 80s contests organized by ABU and inspired by Eurovision. So which of my edits you still do not want to accept? Ruslanovich (talk) 22:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest you familiarise yourself with WP:DR then. That will answer your question.  <b style="background:black"> Wesley   Mouse </b> 23:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

These sections have now been resolved, and are being placed into collapsible boxes per mutual agreement, for those who still wish to read them. Time-stamping for archive purposes. <b style="background:black"> Wesley  Mouse </b> 17:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Live broadcast
In my edits I have indicated that TV festival will be broadcasted live only in Korea, and provided to other members to be aired on a delay with ability to add own translations. There is quotation of James Jeon in this respect on ESCKAZ. Same, Radio Festival will be only streamed online - no TV broadcast of it will take place. Again they were reverted and now article has assumption that contests will be broadcasted live in all countries like Eurovision and both will be shown on TV. Ruslanovich (talk) 21:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

These sections have now been resolved, and are being placed into collapsible boxes per mutual agreement, for those who still wish to read them. Time-stamping for archive purposes. <b style="background:black"> Wesley  Mouse </b> 17:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Debatable references
Of the four sources that have been linked above, I have provided explanations for them here. <b style="background:black"> Wesley  Mouse </b> 23:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This one - I couldn't view at first, it kept coming up with 404 error code. But when I copy/paste the link into google search bar it allowed me to view it.
 * This link - still won't let me view it and this is the source that I am concerned about as I cannot verify its contents - even the google search bar option isn't working on this one.
 * ESCKaz is already sourced. Use  and it will add the kaz link.
 * Facebook - not really a wise source to use in all honesty.
 * Again, I repeat that I added Facebook link here only to show you more references. The three first references clearly confirm the date of being 11th of October. And not being "moved forward" as you stated in your edit mark, but original date for the contest. I can not say why you can't open 2nd link - different browser, different operation system. The exact quotation is as following: " The group revealed that the First Prize winner at the ABU General Assembly gala night in Seoul on 11 October will be invited to perform at the ABU Awards ceremony on 16 October" and you can search google to verify it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruslanovich (talk • contribs) 06:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Same link also confirms live online broadcast, but recorded radio airing stating "As host broadcaster, Korean Broadcasting System (KBS) will record the show for radio and make it available to all ABU members, with rights given to participating organisations to air the event. Plans are also being made for live video streaming" Ruslanovich (talk) 06:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, you have taken what this section is about out of context, STOP IT! In an earlier thread I informed you that I had issues with four sources.  And the opening line of this thread clearly explains that I have detailed these sources and explained my concerns with them.  So stop twisting words.  Civility please! <b style="background:black"> Wesley   Mouse </b> 13:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You keep pushing the Facebook article, which never was in the edits I made. May be it was better to provide all links to the ABU pages you can't open for some reason, but drop Facebook link then, not repost it? Ruslanovich (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you actually understood any word that I have said in regards to these links? I am not pushing the facebook article, I have however listed the four links you provided above and explained each of those.  The first one I can now view, so any content that it would act as a citation to can be re-added.  The second source, I cannot view it so its inclusion as a citation cannot be verified.  I have said that if someone other than you and I can verify what it reads then it can be used.  But until then I'd only be taking your word for it, and that defeats this whole scenario.  The ESCKaz link, I have stated is already being used and have provided the refname tag so you may use that - it is pointless to have the same source being refnamed twice.  And I am not pushing the facebook link, just stating it shouldn't be used - in case someone else reading this tries to use it as a citation.  <b style="background:black"> Wesley   Mouse </b> 16:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You clearly again miss the point. As per ESCKAZ link - I have added some content which is verified by the link http://esckaz.com/2012/abu_radio.htm - which is different page from the one you have listed http://esckaz.com/2012/abu.htm - thus I gave another reference name for this link, keeping one link as ref:Participants. Ruslanovich (talk) 16:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

These sections have now been resolved, and are being placed into collapsible boxes per mutual agreement, for those who still wish to read them. Time-stamping for archive purposes. <b style="background:black"> Wesley  Mouse </b> 17:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Separation of ABU Radio and TV Song Festivals
I would also like to discuss separating the two events to a different pages or at least clearly separating them in infobox. They may have different venues. They have different project coordinators and managers (KBS is running secretariat of TV Festival, while Radio Australia runs secretariat for Radio Festival). Radio festival is originally aimed to be biennial. Then, theme of the contest is actually the theme of General Assembly, and not exactly of the Song Festival. They have different logos. They may have different presenters. At this moment the infobox is very confusing mixing both festivals together. The concept of the shows has three major differences that should be highlighted: one is aimed for TV and other for radio, one has voting other is not competetive, one is aimed for professionals another for amateurs. Ruslanovich (talk) 07:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please, note the source that The ABU Radio Song Festival will be held biennially. http://www.abu.org.my/images/articles/programme/radio%20song%20festival/ABU_SONG_FESTIVAL_FRAMEWORK.pdf Deleting wrong phrase that this is annual contest - is yet another edition I made, but it was reverted. Another valid point that has to be re-installed along with all of my edits. Ruslanovich (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose this suggestion. The infobox box is clearly split to show the two events as it is.  And they are all part of the ABU Song Festivals.  Once more information is known then we could always review splitting once again.  <b style="background:black"> Wesley   Mouse </b> 13:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Additional comment - the 'national broadcaster' section mentions that its inaugural, although the lead does use the phrase annual. And I have explained to you so many times now, that I think you are purposely choosing to ignore selective comments that I post in regards to restoring edits.  You are demanding that ALL your edits get restored, but I have already told you that this is impossible as we are still disputing some of those edits - so it would be uncooperative to just put everything back without concluding these discussions first.  There are no ways to only restore half (that I know of).  And by half, I mean the half that we have agreed should be put back.  The history section is still in dispute, and that can't be restored until we have found a solution.  The edit which used the source I cannot view due to the 404 error code, shouldn't be restored either until someone uninvolved has been able to verify the content isn't fact or fiction for that particular edit.  I would like to point out that even though I created the article, some editors are accusing me of attempting to own the article and that is not the case.  Disagreeing with certain edits and stating valid reasons for disagreeing does not mean someone is claiming ownership.  It means someone has queries surrounding edits and that is permitted.  However, an editor to demand "all their edits MUST be reinstated" before dispute discussions concerning some/all of those edits have been finalised looks very much like someone else trying to "claim ownership".  <b style="background:black"> Wesley   Mouse </b> 13:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Your opposition to create two independent infoboxes leads to major confusion. Now we have 1 logo - which is logo of the Radio contest, and not of TV contest. We have now 1 venue - which is venue of TV contest - not of Radio contest. There will be more disputed things as per the template you've created. Coordinators are different. Presenters are different. Guests/Intervals are different. It is common sense not to mix these two events together. Ruslanovich (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You have already agreed that 6 of my other edits were valid - the only one you're debating now is the history. Why then you have been reverting the article and insist on doing it again if I restore my edits? All of them have been proved verifiable. If you dispute something and give some claims based on your original research or false assumptions - it is your task to provide sources verifying your point of view - while you have failed to prove any of the points you have been debating. May be it is time to agree, that my proposals are valid, based on clearly verifiable sources and can be included? And only then, if you want some debates - you can continue them on this page. Ruslanovich (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You clearly don't grasp the concept of reverting rules do you? If you revert something it goes back to the previous version.  You have said that all your edits need to be reverted back - in doing so your "version" of the history section would get restored, and that part is still being disputed - while something is being disputed it shouldn't get replaced until such discussion has concluded.  As far as I know there is no way to do semi-revert and only restore bits and pieces.  The only way I know around it is to readd only the agreed secetions back, and leave the ones still in dispute missing.  <b style="background:black"> Wesley   Mouse </b> 16:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you mean that before anyone else shares his point of view and adds his thoughts on the issue - your (wrong) edit should be public on Wikipedia? This is very strange approach. The "verified" edit should be currently published, and then we can continue debates here. Ruslanovich (talk) 16:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, this wouldn't have been a dispute on Russian Wikipedia, which has two kinds of pages: edition verified by moderators and new edition made by users. Your wording may have stayed in verified by moderators version, while mine - as a new edit by users, until a consensus is reach. While this attitude is impossible here, I suggest that the edit which is more verified - should be currently published, and the other edit - debated. Ruslanovich (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Wesley, my suggestion would be to end this discussion. Simply not respond anymore. This is a meta-debate and I have now made Ruslanovich the offer that I can take the article to AfD. Ofcourse without taking any stance in the issue of notability or not. I can see trough your discussion history that a consensus between you two are highly unlikely and that Ruslanovich seems to be unwilling to end this discussion with a consensus too.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the exact same thing myself BabbaQ. The situation has reached deadlock, and neither person seems to understand the other, language barrier probably or misinterpretation of what people are trying to say.  I was thinking now of going down the WP:DR route with the potential of having WP:M.  At the time of creating the draft article I did seek advice whether we would need to create two articles, and was informed that there were not enough third party reliable source for each event in an individual context to keep within WP:N and WP:GNG, and could result in one or both articles being AfD'd.  The suggestion was to merge the two together as there are enough third party reliable sources that covered both events as one entity - thus fulfilling general notability guidelines for Wikipedia.  And then once the events had ended and if more third party reliable sources produced more reports then a review of splitting the articles at that stage.  <b style="background:black"> Wesley   Mouse </b> 10:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh I forgot to mention too Babba, I won't be as active on Wikipedia from 1pm (UK time) as I'm on Paralympic volunteer duties this evening, and again tomorrow. So any discussions from my part would be delayed until my next day off (Tuesday).  <b style="background:black"> Wesley   Mouse </b> 10:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have now summarized all my edits - series of minor edits of incorrect information and two major edits for the history and format sections. I kindly request you to debate with verified sources anything you think is debatable. I have to add that the fact of same sources covering both events is not enough to solve the dispute. I'm not proposing to delete the Our Sound information completely - despite it is a not notable event, the proposal is in fact that Our Sound should have a brief mention in "Not to be confused with" way - that will help Wikipedia users as you, and various media using Wikipedia as their source to avoid confusion and stop associating two absolutely unrelated events. I'm afraid as situation is stuck with you being unable to accept the verified information and being temporary unable to debate due to your professional duties, as well as lack of interest from other editors to investigate and check the sources - we end with Wikipedia article having mostly incorrect information about the event, which is now being spread across the other language versions (and even other media) using English Wikipedia as a primary example. Unfortunately, I'm not able to correct all language versions, so finalizing and correcting the English article is urgent task. Ruslanovich (talk) 11:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I do support proposal for WP:DR. Currently, I have left request for a Third Opinion there.Ruslanovich (talk) 11:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Why WP:3O, when you know full well that I won't be able to participate for the next couple of days due to my professional duties? That is rather unfair, and not cooperative.  3O discussions require a third uninvolved person to discuss with the two editors that are in deadlock discussion.  This will be impossible when you know one half of the involved party cannot participate for a few days.  I am about to log out and leave the building and off to the London Olympic Park, to assist with the Paralympic Transformations as part of my role as a volunteer.  I suggest the 3O needs to be postponed until I return and can participate in such discussions.  <b style="background:black"> Wesley   Mouse </b> 11:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but for the 3rd day we have been saying that we urgently need an independent opinion on the subject, and now you say it has to be delayed again? You had perfectly enough time to add and source your arguments, and, in my personal opinion have failed to provide any verified references to your false personal assumptions that ABU has been involved in the organization of Our Sound and/or that the events have similar concept. As I have noted before, each day without agreement leads to the incorrect information still being published, while all my edits aimed to clarify and verify information are perfectly ready to be implemented. We DO urgently need any kind of Third opinion, which can be made based on the previous discussions of the topic. If you get additional arguments for your theories, you of course will be able to provide when you return to the online community, though I tended to believe you have listed all of them before you had invited members of Wikiproject Eurovision to provide their third opinion based on our previous discussion. To my understanding, any independent opinion, based on sources, is valuable, whether it comes from Eurovision project members of other Third parties. Ruslanovich (talk) 12:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It may take a few days for someone to respond to the third opinion request, but in any case all parties should have a chance to respond to any third opinion given so a consensus can be verified. I don't see the rush, and in any case those providing third opinions are regular users who will try and help resolve a content dispute by providing fresh insight, but they are not arbitrators. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 13:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

These sections have now been resolved, and are being placed into collapsible boxes per mutual agreement, for those who still wish to read them. Time-stamping for archive purposes. <b style="background:black"> Wesley  Mouse </b> 17:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Summarizing the proposed edits
Wesley, you have declared other topics closed, however the article still fails to reflect verified information. Thus, I kindly ask either to debate the proposed edits, or reflect changes in the article as per the edits I have made earlier. All sources are shown in separate discussion topics above. √ - indicates if this edit has been done by me, but reverted. I'm sorry to say, but almost EVERY sentence currently requires an edit, a lot of information is unsourced and incorrect. Most of these edits have been already MADE by me, but reverted by Wesley Mouse. I ask for re-installation of all my edits and then I will also be able to make additional ones as noted above. It is useless and time-consuming to make them again one by one, provided all can be easily re-installed - and then specific one as History may continue to be debated. Ruslanovich (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * √ 1. "are the first annual" - the source showing that Radio Festival is biennial event has been provided.
 * √ 2. "with a total of twenty-six entries to be performed" - incorrect. 26 entries have been submitted, however, only 15 of them will be performed. This has to be changed.
 * √ 3. History section - now being debated separately. Additionally to the major debate on Our Sound, this sentence is obviously wrong "on 14 October 2012 and it would be called the "ABU Radio Song festival", and the "the deadline for participation applications was 18 May 2012" refers only to TV contest, which should be indicated.
 * 4. Format section - has to clearly indicate 3 major differences between events as noted above, main of them being amateurs/professionals question. The other being competetive/non competetive, TV/radio. It also should indicated that African/European countries are allowed to participate if their broadcasters are members of ABU.
 * √ 5. "twenty-six participants from sixteen countries across Asia, Australia and the Pacific will perform their entries", wrong as p.2
 * √ 6. " in a live televised broadcast" - wrong - in a live radio or in live online broadcast, not televised
 * √ 7. "only six countries will be competing" - double wrong. As per p4 - the TV Festival is not competitive event, so they will not compete. Then, not 6, but 12 entries will take part.
 * √ 8. " The theme for the festivals will be 'Beyond the Wave' " - wrong, as this is the theme for General Assembly, and not the festivals.
 * √ 9. "The host broadcaster has offered to cover costs for staging the show as well as the accommodation for all the participants" - partially wrong, as refers only to TV contest and this should be reflected. Radio contest participating broadcaster pay expenses themselves, clearly stated on ABU and ESCKAZ pages.
 * √ 10. " total of twenty-six songs will be performed." - wrong as p5
 * √ 11. "Six countries will take part in the TV Song Festival" - wrong as p7
 * 12. There are some debatable titles and names of performers but I leave this for now.
 * √ 13. "Each participating country will broadcast both events live across their respective networks" - wrong, as most countries will broadcast show delayed. Also, some may not broadcast it at all as well as some non-participating members may broadcast it.
 * √ 14. "Sudan TV (SNPR)" - wrong. SNPR is Radio Sudan.
 * √ 15. External links - my proposals are: a) rename current link as "ABU TV Song Festival page at GA Seoul 2012 site", b) add link to Radio Song Festival official site aburadiosongfestival.asia, c) add the link to ESCKAZ page as the most comprehensive reference.
 * 16. Logo of the contest is only logo of the ABU Radio Song Festival - this has to be indicated.
 * 17. Infobox should be corrected: different presenters/intervals/coordinators etc
 * 18 Entry of Vanuatu clearly should be indicated as Australia/Vanuatu. Despite performer currently lives (working as missionary) in Vanuatu, he originates from Australia and his entry has been submitted by Radio Australia. All sources double indicate this entry.

These sections have now been resolved, and are being placed into collapsible boxes per mutual agreement, for those who still wish to read them. Time-stamping for archive purposes. <b style="background:black"> Wesley  Mouse </b> 17:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed wording for Format section
There are two separately run versions of the ABU Song Festivals: TV and Radio. Major differences between these two versions include:
 * 1. Participation in Radio Festival is open to Radio Members of ABU - in TV Festival to TV Members of ABU. It is notable, that Festivals are open not only to the Full members of ABU, but also to Associate and Affiliate members of the Union, meaning that technically contest can be attended by broadcasters from Europe or Africa. Radio Sudan has confirmed participation in the 2012 ABU Radio Song Festival.
 * 2. TV Festival is just a showcase of music and is not a competitive event. In the Radio Festival top three performers will be awarded prizes by a panel of judges.
 * 3. TV Festival is aimed for already well-known, established acts, popular in their countries, while Radio Festival is open only for unsigned, unestablished, amateur musicians.

The 2012 ABU Radio Song Contest and the 2012 ABU TV Song Festival are both scheduled to take place between 11 - 17 October 2012 during the 49th ABU General Assembly. Radio Festival will be preceded by internal selection round when an international selection committee will choose up to 15 finalists of the Festival to be performed live in Korea from the total list of submissions (currently 26). In TV Festival 12 entries will be performed, and in case the number of submissions will exceed this figure, the host organizer in consultation with the ABU, will determine the finalists "in close consideration of geographical balance and cultural diversity".

2012 ABU Radio Song Festival will be broadcasted online as well as on the Korean KBS radio, and offered for a deferred airing for the Radio Members of ABU, both participating and not-participating in the Festival, which can choose to air it on any suitable date. 2012 TV Song Festival will be broadcasted live on Korean Television KBS and again, offered for a deferred airing to all TV members of ABU with ability to add captions in the languages of the countries taking part or national commentary. Ruslanovich (talk) 10:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

These sections have now been resolved, and are being placed into collapsible boxes per mutual agreement, for those who still wish to read them. Time-stamping for archive purposes. <b style="background:black"> Wesley  Mouse </b> 17:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)