Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2017/Archive 2

Confirmed countries
Greece, Spain and Portugal have not officialy confirmed their participation in the next eurovision song contest by their officials broadcasters. These sources are reliable enough but they announce only intentions. When RTP withdrew from the contest they add that "we promise a comeback in 2017" but we're still there. ERT has not officialy confirmed anything too. Same with TVE. In 2016, we had already added Spain by May but they confirmed in esctoday later. These countries should be removed or add them to the section of "other countries". Isn't it? --JeanisDEL(talk), 11 July 2016, 2:32 (UTC)
 * They're in the "provisional participants" category, meaning that they've announced intentions to compete. An official statement is not necessary, as long as they've announced that they intend on competing. { [ ( jjj   1238 ) ] }  16:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In this way, UK and Bulgaria have also confirmed intentions. Am I wrong? --JeanisDEL (talk), 19 July 2016, 12:12 (UTC)

The description says the countries in the provisional participants list "have formally announced their participation in the contest". Except Greece hasn't formally announced it. The broadcaster has not made any announcement. The source given leads to a Greek entertainment gossip news site that is reporting on rumours. Is this considered a good enough source? Robyn2000 (talk) 03:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Russia
This reference says that Channel One organizes the Russian entry in 2017, but there wasn't any official statement from them on their official site. So, I think Russia has to be removed from list of confirmed countries. I suppose Channel One is mentioned only because it's their turn to be organizers - in Russian two broadcasters do this in turns. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 20:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * It is also said that they will organise it. Not that they would if the country was to participate. It is future. Not conditional. Plus the list is already said to be provisional and the text states that countries listed have expressed interest. I think keeping it in the list isn't a big deal. Yoyo360 (talk) 11:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Arthistorian1977 In my opinion they made wiki reporting news. Neither Russia nor Spain, Greece, and Portugal have confirmed their participation officially. (See my section "Confirmed countries" above). --JeanisDEL (talk) 11:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Firstly, people seem to be misunderstand what the "provisional" section is all about. Any country added in that section must have a source that states a country has confirmed participation. If a country "expresses an interest", then they should and must be added to the "other countries" section, as that is what that section is intended for containing. Previously we had sections that started off with "Possible" withdrawal, debut, or return. But as the term "possible" made it sound like WP:CRYSTAL, we stopped using such "possible" sections, and created the "other countries" which does a far better job. As for Spain, Greece, and Portugal... JeanisDEL would be better off reading the citations in more detail, as they all state that each of those countries have "confirmed participation in 2017". Russia on the other hand looking at the source would be better off in the "other countries" section until more information is known on a 100% confirmation of participation.  Wes Mouse  T@lk 22:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Wes Mouse First of all, I know that wiwibloggs, eurovoix etc are reliable sources. But this doesn't mean that there aren't some presumptions. I think that the person who need to read better the citations is you, because in the source of eurovoix regarding Greek participation is refered that ERT have not commented on the reports. Also it says that greek tv E is making these reports. ERT or E is responsible about the Greek participation? And because all of you here don't take me into account I did an original research and I asked ERT. They reported that they still have to organize the programm for the next year. --JeanisDEL (talk) 2:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No personal attacks! To come out with the remark "I think that the person who need to read better the citations is you" is very rude, and I could take that remark to an admin noticeboard if you wish to be blocked? And if anyone needs to read better, then it would be you. Read my comments again above, and you will find that I actually explained about the "provisional" section and the "other countries" section, and how editors, including YOU should be using those sections accordingly and in their proper usage. You are demonstrating illustrating a disruptive point of view pushing and ignorance in reading advice from others. If you cannot comment in a constructive manner, then keep you derogatory comments to yourself and say nothing at all..  Wes Mouse  T@lk 02:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Host city
The Host city has taken Ages and DONT WORRY GERMANY ANNOUNCED THERES IN OCTOBER SO DONT WORRYBold text — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.197.141 (talk) 9:29 pm, Today (UTC+1)
 * I have restored this thread that you had removed in this edit. Deleting or altering comments made by others is discouraged, per talk page guidelines on editing others comments. Please bear this in mind for future reference.  Wes Mouse  T@lk 22:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Odessa, host city?
According to local media, Odessa is the host city for 2017 and is going to be announced in September 5th. Wiwibloggs. Zimhuh (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Accorfing to Ukrainian Vice Prime Minister, who is the member of organizing commitee, it's not yet decided and will be announced next week - . Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * your link belongs to the Facbook page for ESCKaz. And unfortunately we cannot accept their sources. This is because ESCKaz plagiarised our work last year and tried to deny they had basically copied our work and were using it as "their original published sources".  Wes Mouse  T@lk 03:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't edit anything on the article basing on the link. Just pointing the circus continues :-D. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 06:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I had paid attention to the fact you didn't use the source in the article itself. I was merely advising that ESCKaz shouldn't be used as reliable sourcing, due to the "plagiarism" issues between them and us. On a different note though, isn't Odessa the city that Jamala is from?  Wes Mouse  T@lk 07:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Kiev or Kyiv?
For consistency, we should decide whether to spell the name of the host city as Kiev or Kyiv. Both terms appear on the page at the moment. Pickette (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The EBU refer to it as Kyiv, so I'd go with that. { [ ( jjj   1238 ) ] }  20:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The wiki page is Kiev, so I believe it's more traditional English language term. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Whatever the EBU use is not relevant here, Wikipedia goes on WP:commonname in English, see Talk:Kiev and Talk:Kiev/naming and their archives for the marathon of discussions, tl;dr: the consensuses following many requests and an RfC is 'Kiev'. --  AxG /  ✉  / 10 years of editing  23:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds fair to me. I'll replace the Kyiv's with Kiev. Pickette (talk) 00:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

please follow the guidelines set out by the Wikipedia Naming Conventions, and more specifically Naming conventions (Ukrainian places), which explicitly states Kiev Oblast, not Kyiv Oblast; and Odessa Oblast, not Odesa Oblast. We have the same policy that we must strictly follow in regards to Macedonia, per WP:NCMAC. In light of this, I feel we need to initiate the FAQ tab for this talk page, just like we have for Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2016/FAQ for the NCMAC conditions. In operating that procedure now for 2017 and listing in the FAQ about the Ukraine and Macedonia naming conventions we would have something to direct users towards should they have queries on the matters in future.  Wes Mouse  T@lk 09:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Russian participation
This source from eurovoix refers that "Russia has not officially stated whether they will be competing in next years Eurovision Song Contest in Ukraine." Moreover there's an issue about a blacklist of russian artists. I know that the official site of Eurovision refers that "Channel One Russia, which will organise the Russian entry in 2017" but the other sites like wiwibloggs, esctoday, eurovoix are not informed by the broadcaster. I think it would be better have russia in the "other countries" section until more information is known on a 100% confirmation of participation. --JeanisDEL (talk), 10 September 2016, 2:29 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2016
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 10:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.

Croatia
Croatia have confirmed participation, stated on Wiwibloggs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.176.124.173 (talk) 12:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Greece
The Greek broadcaster ERT has not made any statements regarding their participation, so it seems odd to have Greece listed in the table of countries that have "formally announced their participation in the contest". The source given points to a Greek showbiz gossip blog reporting on internal changes at ERT, but again with no statement from the broadcaster itself. Anecdotally, friends in Greece are worried that ERT may not participate in 2017, so it's by no means considered a done deal by the Greek public. Robyn2000 (talk) 22:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Robyn2000 Finally vindication!! (See my discussion above). I just wanted to explain that these countries have yet to confirm their participation (like spain who confirmed three weeks ago and no by may (another vindication). Same with Greece. But some people there don't want to hear anyone. --JeanisDEL (talk 7:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Yep, I think it's important to distinguish between countries that have actually confirmed their participation in ESC 2017 and those where the broadcaster has not actually done so. Greece and Russia have not confirmed, and as far as I know, Wikipedia generally does not use rumours as encyclopaedia content. Robyn2000 (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC) seems that participation is confirmed according to escnorge. seems that they are going for internal selection again.84.212.111.156 (talk) 07:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Confusion over Bosnia
The section for other countries currently contains information on Bosnia as being "unlikely". first added Bosnia as withdrawn in the infobox, followed later by who used this source as confirmation. However, the headline for that source reads "BiH neće učestvovati na Eurosongu", which translates as "Bosnia and Herzegovina will participate in the Eurovision Song Contest". I feel there are too many conflicting sources that clearly verify withdrawal, likely to withdraw, and confirmed participation. Therefore, I suggest that Bosnia remains in the other countries section detailing the confusion; until more solid and accurate sources are published to verify one way or another what Bosnia are doing.  Wes Mouse  T@lk 20:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Reply to : "Neće" means "will not." I asked a native speaker to confirm this, and she says that "neće means will not." I also asked her to translate the first paragraph of the article, and she translated it as, and I quote, "Bosnia and Herzegovina will not have its representative at Eurovision, the competition for the best song of Europe which will take place in Kyiv in Ukraine next year." Next time, I recommend not to use online translators for translations as many are inaccurate with longer sentences/phrases. ThePhantomKid012 (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * please refrain from making uncivil remarks aimed directly at myself. You can be blocked for actions like that, as you are well aware from past interactions with other users. If you are asking someone to translate a source, then (and using the same tone as you used at me) I recommend that you follow procedure and contact a members of the Wikipedia Translation team.  Wes Mouse  T@lk 20:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And looking at the translators you have not even contacted them. and  have not been active for over a month.  Wes Mouse   T@lk 20:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I can confirm that "neće" means "will not". Denis Kasak (talk) 11:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ThePhantomKid012 is right, "Neće" means "will not." Also there was nothing uncivil about their comment. Please don't antagonize other users for no reason. Pickette (talk) 21:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Australia submitted request of participation
http://www.eurofestivalnews.com/2016/09/22/eurovision-song-contest-2017-ci-sara-anche-laustralia/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.216.158.71 (talk) 16:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * That post is unsourced, so it can only be considered a rumour at this stage. Robyn2000 (talk) 00:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Where is Moldova?
I haven't seen Moldova on any of the lists of confirmed or potential participants. I'm pretty sure Moldova will participate n 2017, I'm just not seeing them. Where are the Moldovans? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EliG.Weinmann (talk • contribs) 21:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * They have not made any announcements yet. We cannot show content on this encyclopaedic article without providing a published reliable source in order to provide verification for what we have added to the article. Failing to follow such rules would put us in violation of original research and our user accounts blocked from further editing.  Wes Mouse  T@lk 21:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

United Kingdom won't link to the page.
So I created the page and it was reviewed. Now the link from the main page to the UK 2017 page is still red, not the hyperlink colour of blue. Why is this? Can someone fix it please? NaThang0P (talk) 12:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * firstly avoid using hyperlinks in thread titles, as it can cause accessibility problems. Secondly, purge the pages history. As the link is blue, but is probably still showing red on your computer because you have not refreshed your computer's memory. You can also purge by pressing + .  Wes Mouse   T@lk 12:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not even sure how the article you created even passed a review, to be honest. The content does not verify any of the mechanisms you have stated will be used to select the 2017 entrant. This is a clear case of WP:TOOSOON, and will more than likely face deletion, unless we redirect to the main article.  Wes Mouse   T@lk 12:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * BBC made an official annoucement today. Source Thanks, Fort esc (talk) 12:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * it is still too soon for an article, unfortunately. A source from BBC stating that submissions are open does not give enough due weight for a standalone article at this stage, and from past experience would end up being nominated for WP:AfD with delete or redirect suggestions purely because of WP:TOOSOON. We need to know more facts before we can create an article, such as national final dates. As an experienced editor of Project Eurovision, you should know by now that an article doesn't get created until the selection dates are published.  Wes Mouse  T@lk 13:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Right OK, would like to point you towards France in the Eurovision Song Contest 2017. Fort esc (talk) 15:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * the French article hold due weight as it has additional sources that provide further information post-submission. That is the rare exception to the case that a standalone article can be created before the selection date is known. However, the UK one does not have enough sources published that provide any further information other than the BBC have now opened up the call for submissions. Thus no due weight at this present time for a standalone article. The BBC source is currently used in the article UK national selection for the Eurovision Song Contest, which at present is the more appropriate article. We need more details to be released, for the UK2017 article to be directed back to a standalone.  Wes Mouse  T@lk 15:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you all for the information. I perhaps got a bit over excited to create the page. I had no idea about WP:TOOSOON existed. Sorry about it. NaThang0P (talk) 14:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Romania should not be mentioned as withdrawn from last year`s contest
they were thrown out for failing to pay their debt. the article makes it seem like it was their choice. please change it.84.212.111.156 (talk) 08:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Good faith?
The source we use to refer that San Marino has confirmed, says "San Marino RTV is yet to publicly confirm that they are participating in the Eurovision Song Contest 2017". That is finally wikipedia? 16 October 2016, 1:54 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.6.241.159 (talk)
 * I couldn't agree more. Is there anyone to explain that ? I mean, there are a bunch of websites, including wiwibloggs, esctoday and eurovoix which still continue to say that San Marino hasn't confirmed (as here http://wiwibloggs.com/2016/10/16/they-didnt-know-no-decision-on-san-marino-at-eurovision-2017/153601/ ). PLUS yesterday, there was no confirmation at all during the press conference. Yoyo360 (talk) 10:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yoyo360: And thanks for reverted my edits. Most likely it was a good faith, neither esctoday, nor eurovoix and wiwibloggs refered that SanMarino had confirmed. These mistakes (in fact good faith) are repeated again and again (Turkey last year). --JeanisDEL (talk), 2:09, 16 October 2016
 * Initial sources that were published stated San Marino as confirmed and an announcement on singer/song at a later date. But it would appear that even the publishing website can have an "off-day" at times. We're all human after all and are prone to mistakes. Don't beat up th e websites, nor the users who acted in good faith. Best place for San Marino is in the 'other countries' section, noting that initial "published reports" were of confirmation, and singer/song at later dates (citing the sources). Then go on to state that no official statement from SMRTV has been released (citing sources again). That keeps in-line with neutral point of view, citing sources, and verification policies.  Wes Mouse  T@lk 21:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Associates Members
Here is something : according to eurovision.tv, associates members may be able to participate, as said here http://www.eurovision.tv/page/about/which-countries-can-take-part 'Associates of the EBU may also be eligible to enter the Eurovision Song Contest, this is decided by the Reference Group, the governing body of the Eurovision Song Contest, on a case by case basis.' I just ask here if this is really new and to be put on the page or if this not something recent... Thanks for the answer Yoyo360 (talk) 21:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * it is old news, unfortunately. ESCToday reported on 28 September about Kazakhstan potentially making a debut as an associate member, due to a statement released by Jon Ola Sand which read "For the 2016 Eurovision Song Contest EBU Associates, such as Khabar Agency in Kazakhstan, were not eligible to take part in the Contest save for an exception made for SBS Australia. The EBU is reviewing these rules ahead of next year’s competition, and will publish the latest edition on the Eurovision.tv site in due course". Eurovoix also reported on 28 September the same published statement from Sand, and listed countries with associate membership. But we cannot really include that list, as it would be speculative, despite them appearing in a source.  Wes Mouse  T@lk 21:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Well in fact if that was old news it would be contradictory. Because if the rule I stated in my first message was already there in 2016, then Kazakhstan WAS eligible, if the Reference Group had approved. But your statement tells that Kazakhstan wasn't... So either I'm missing something, either I'm right saying that if the Reference Group approves it, Khabar Agency could indeed participate next year. Yoyo360 (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * did you read the statement from Jon Ola Sand correctly? It said associates such as Kazakhstan were not eligible to participate in 2016, with exception to Australia. And that the reference group were going to discuss a possible change to this rule so that in 2017 associate members would be eligible to participate. However, the rules are not due to be published for a month or so. The fact I said it is old news, is because the 2 sources I provided above are dated 28 September 2016, which is a few days prior to the one you provided (the EBU only updated that page 2 weeks ago). And the news about possible participation from associates is already included in the article. Hence - "old news".  Wes Mouse  T@lk 22:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Which do make a contradiction. I'm sorry but if Jon Ola Sand said they weren't able to participate in 2016, then we have a contradiction with the statement I gave if it was also valid in 2016. So my statement is more recent than yours, which implies it is the new rule... Yoyo360 (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * EDIT : After a checking on the internet archives, I can assure you, this statement appeared on the website between 20 June 2016 and 10 August 2016 (having the 20 June 2016 version of the page here https://web.archive.org/web/20160620213624/http://www.eurovision.tv/page/about/which-countries-can-take-part and the 10 August version there https://web.archive.org/web/20160810215608/http://www.eurovision.tv/page/about/which-countries-can-take-part ) So this may be an 'older' statement, but still it IS indeed a new rule that should be included. Yoyo360 (talk) 22:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * And also... It was old news there was a change of the rules underway. Not that the change of the rules had indeed been done. Yoyo360 (talk) 22:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * you are clearly misinterpreting the sources. You have even stated yourself that archived sources dated 20 June and 10 August 2016, which is after the 2016 contest had taken place in May 2016. Therefore the context meaning in the statement you used at the opening of this thread is clearly referencing to the 2017 contest, and not the 2016. And that is further clarified by the source published on 28 September 2016, which again states associates were not able to take part, but a review of that rule was in progress, and could be changed if the reference group voted in favour. Thus, associates could be allowed to take part in 2017. It all comes down to the date a source is published. Yes w are currently in 2016, but all sources were published after the 2016 contest had finished.  Wes Mouse  T@lk 22:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Pay attention to the punctuation in both statements, as they can change the context of what is being written. I know English can be confusing, even to a native English-speaking person, but if we ignore a punctuation within a sentence, then we will be giving it a context that it is not implying.
 * The 2016 contest ended 14 May 2016.
 * Archived sources dated 20 June and 10 August state the following: 'Associates of the EBU may also be eligible to enter the Eurovision Song Contest, this is decided by the Reference Group, the governing body of the Eurovision Song Contest, on a case by case basis.' That statement is released AFTER the 2016 contest had concluded.
 * On 28 September 2016 (4 months AFTER the 2016 contest had ended) Jon Ola Sand then releases this public statement: "For the 2016 Eurovision Song Contest EBU Associates, such as Khabar Agency in Kazakhstan, were not eligible to take part in the Contest save for an exception made for SBS Australia. The EBU is reviewing these rules ahead of next year’s competition, and will publish the latest edition on the Eurovision.tv site in due course".
 * Take note of the comma between the words "EBU Associates" and "such as Khabar". It splits up the first part of the statement by providing an example of an associate member within its context. It is not implying that Khabar were able to take part in 2016. It implies that they could not take part in 2016. But a possible change to the 2017 rules means thy would now be able to take part in future contests.  Wes Mouse  T@lk 23:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Have I said anywhere that the statement I gave was valid in 2016 ? no, of course not. I obviously know it is valid for 2017. But I can admit that my English may not be perfect as I'm not a native speaker. I may speak English quite well, sometimes I make mistakes, so yep, if I did make a mistake leading to a confusion anywhere, then you should know that it was none of my intention. But in any case, don't worry for the sources, I have perfeclty understood them, there's no problem.
 * Back to the topic. I think at least the statement I gave clarifies one thing : the Reference Group will itself decide case by case which of the Associates will be eligible. Which is a point we did'nt know before. Yoyo360 (talk) 06:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

we don't know that for certain until the official 2017 rules have been published. What is clear that your source which by your account is also published in June and August 2016 states they would be looked at on a case by case basis. However, ESCToday and Eurovoix who have both published after the EBU's earlier post both confirm that the reference group are clearly looking much deeper into associate members by means of full participation for all of them and no longer on a case-by-case basis. Purely because 28 September, the last time I checked a calendar, comes AFTER June and August. Timeline of events, chronological order. So as the current status stands, it may no longer be case-by-case, and we must now wait for the official rules to be published in order to know one way or another how the EBU decide to treat the associate members and their potential Eurovision membership.  Wes Mouse  T@lk 07:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, web-archives does not show the change made to eurovision.tv page on 20 June as the content is not there. The change happened at 21:56 CET on 10 August 2016 to be exact, which ties in with the additional statement released by Jon Ola Sand one-month later to the journalistic press (ESCToday and Eurovoix).  Wes Mouse  T@lk 07:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Well this is exactly what I told. The change was between 20/06 and 10/08. But you don't have any proof that the Reference Group is workin to allow ALL associates to enter. But we actually have one that they're doing it case by case. Yoyo360 (talk) 09:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * what are you on about that "I don't have proof that the Reference Group is workin to allow ALL associates to enter"? We have got proof to verify that the Ref Group are looking at allowing all associates to enter. Have you not read the statement from Jon Ola Sand published by 2 independant sources ESCToday and Eurovoix on 28 September 2016. Both sources are explicit in quoting Sand's own words. The Eurovoix source also publishes a list of associate members who would become eligible to complete, should the Ref Group vote in favour of allowing Associate Members to compete at future contests. The list includes: Australia, Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Cuba, Hong Kong, India, Iran, Japan, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Malaysia, Mauritius, New Zealand, Oman, South Africa, Syria, and the United States. Now come on, I appreciate and respect that you stated your English isn't that good. But the sources do not lie when they are in black and white. We cannot guess why the change by the EBU from one source to the next. But as we know the contest is prone to evolution, and perhaps the Ref Group first decided to do case-by-case action and after more thought are looking at allowing all of them. Like I said, we won't know more details until the official release of the 2017 rules. So for now we can only mention what the sources have said, which in case you hadn't read the first time, this article does contain information already about the possible participation of associate members based on the 2 sources date 28 September.  Wes Mouse  T@lk 13:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * My point of view on the subject is that the statement of JOS is true consequence of the one on eurovision.tv, saying that associate members will be eligible with the approval of the Ref Group. Let me explain: Ref Group needs (according to eurovision.tv) to approve case by case. And JOS said Ref Group was working on changing the rules. For me, basically, the Ref Group was already working on the case by case thing, and this is also the changing of the rules JOS stated. In any case, I don't want to come any further in that debate. I know you'll call what I explained 'original research', and you'll be right. But know that I'm not as stupid as you seem to think I am. I know how to read. I'm just attempting to put the two statements together to get a coherent conclusion. It's not because JOS said Associate members he meant them all. And the Eurovision.tv website would not cite obsolete statements. There would be no logic in that. So... yeah. I already know we're both going to stick on our opinion, so this is getting pointless. Yoyo360 (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem here is that you are misinterpreting the sources. Whereas I on the other-hand have explained them thoroughly, in detail, and provided sources, differences, and examples. We already know there are 2 statements from 3 sources. Neither you, nor me, nor anyone else knows what was discussed at the Reference Group meeting in Geneva. We don't even know when the discussion took place. What we do know is that on 10 August the official website was updated and states that Associate Members would be looked at on a case-by-case basis. That is clearly true at the time.
 * However, a further statement was released by Sand, in September. For all we know the Reference Group could have held a second meeting to discuss the issue and have changed it for a second time to remove from case-by-case to allowing all the chance to take part. But as the more recent statement in September explicitly verifies, we will not know until the 2017 rules are published. And currently, eurovision.tv and the EBU have not published those rules yet. And if you do not believe me, then click on this link which in big letters so you can't miss it reads "Rules in 2016" and on the right-hand panel shows them as the current rules. So the "change" is clearly at the Ref Groups negotiation table. So be patient, we will know more before the year is over. But what you are also forgetting is we need to be following WP:NPOV, WP:CITE, and WP:V - which you don't seem to be doing.
 * What we should be doing is pointing out that in August a small update was made to the eligibility for associate members, which went under a second review in September following Sand's statement, and that upon publication of the 2017 rules no other details have been released by the EBU. That keeps up with neutral points of view, and we are able verify the facts based on the three cited sources. Quite simple is that!  Wes Mouse  T@lk 17:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I do apologize if I'm disturbing your rude debate about whether foreign broadcasters, which are working (or cooperating whtvr) with the EBU, would be allowed to compete next year. To me, I don't see any point to get you both of your nerves for this kind of odd things, as not any statements have been "officialy" released nor made by the official website of Eurovision's channel. Just sit down, drink a cup of coffee, and cool yourselves down at once. Wikays (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * thanks for the intervention there, much appreciated. Felt like I was talking to a brick wall at times . The confusion seems to be coming from the update to Eurovision.tv on 10 August which states a change to associates are based on case-by case situation, whilst another statement dated 28 September (1 month and 18 days later) from Ola Sand published on 2 Eurovision websites, which appear to say that the rules under review again. That makes it look like the rules have come under review twice in a short space of time. Which is the point I was trying to make, but was being misunderstood.  Wes Mouse  T@lk 19:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok... So... Whatever you think of me, this was insulting. We have different points of view, different opinions, and I may remind you that both can be true. Just to tell you, the statement of JOS does not say if it is a second review or the same review. So until we don't know we can not say, which is why all deserve to be on the page. So, right now, we are both right in a certain way, we'll just have to wait. So I admit I have been sticking on my position, but you have been too. We both may be right, we both may be wrong, and there would be no one to blame. We all make mistakes. But just one thing, know that I will NEVER accept someone insulting me in public. I am as human as you. The fact that you can't see my face may just make think I'm angry in my words (which I am now, but wasn't before), but you just can't say that like that. And I am awaiting apologies. Yoyo360 (talk) 19:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

you are over-reacting just a bit, don't you think? No insults have been made to anyone on this thread. What is apparent is sources and their context are being twisted into thinking they mean something other than what they are reporting, and combining such content in order to imply something else goes against WP:SYNTH. And that is basically what you have tried to do, or how it comes across as anyway. What you have said in your above comment is basically what I said in my 2 comments prior to that. WP:SYNTH prevents us from combining sources in order to make a new point of view. However, using them as individual sources to verify each point of view is allowed. And that is what I have been saying all along. You have just twisted things out of context or misunderstood what was actually being suggested. I never even said the second statement definitely says JOS admits to a second review. But when you look at the sources, it is pretty clear that a second review has or is about to take place. This article, well in fact the main Eurovision article, needs to show that a rule change is currently at negotiation stages with members of the Reference Group and the EBU Members (Active and Associate), with one source stating in August that such participation would be treated on an individual case basis, whilst a further source states the Ref Group are looking into extending that rule by allowing all to participate if they wish - which the 2 sources in September verifies that fact. And if anyone should be awaiting an apology, it is myself, as you have been more rude and accusing me of making insults, when it is clear that I have done no such thing. I'm native-English, you have admitted that your English is not as perfect. So misinterpretation by yourself has clearly occurred here.  Wes Mouse  T@lk 19:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Evidence 1: Eurovision.tv update their website on 10 August stating that associate members will be treated on a case-by-case basis.
 * Evidence 2: ESCToday publish a report on 28 September and quotes a press release from JOS who says the Ref Group are looking into allowing Associates to compete. He does not clarify in that statement if it will be case-by-case. The same statement is also published on a second website, which makes both sources more reliable and credible at this present time.
 * Evidence 3: I stated that in order to address both the update on the website and the press release by JOS, we need to use both sources of 10 August and 28 September. In doing so we are abiding to the neutral weight of context, and are able to verify from all 3 sources.
 * 'brick wall'. That may not be much of an insult, but I consider that as, at least, something not to say. Plus, once again, JOS does not necessary have to say every single element of the changement. W don't know and we don't have any proof that it is really a second review (otherwise find me one, because this statement is not of any kind explicitly mentioning another review, it can also be the same spread over several months as it can take time). And just for you to know, I will read your answer, but I'm not sure to answer it, I've had enough of this debate leading nowhere. Yoyo360 (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "Brick wall" is a figure of speech. Did I explicitly call you the brick wall? Perhaps learning English figures of speech would be good before accusing me of making an insult. If I wanted to make an insult I could have said "Talking to Yoyo was like talking to a brick wall". But I never said that. So please, I find it more of an insult that you are yet again misinterpreting context and giving it a new meaning. And for the last time I have NOT said there is proof of a second review. All I have said is based on the sources it looks likely that a second review may have happened, but we won't know for certain until the 2017 rules are published. I am patiently waiting for the rules so that my questions will be answered. I suggest you be patient and do the same, as your questions will be answered in those rules too. How much more do I have to spell it out? Stop twisting my comments and start to read them properly. If you ar angry, then perhaps you needs to take a break from Wikipedia until you have calmed down. As your frustration is making your judgement blurred and what people are trying to say to you, and the proof is in your over-reactive comments above. I'm perfectly calm. In fact I've taken minutes away whilst typing this so I can be preparing a snack to eat.  Wes Mouse  T@lk 20:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh and another things. We are also suppose to be following guidelines per WP:PSTS. The source you used when creating this thread is a primary source, which we are suppose to try and avoid. ESCToday and Eurovoix are secondary independent sources that are not connected to the main company (EBU). So their publications are deemed more suitable, reliable, and accurate, per WP:PSTS. Perhaps having a read of WP:CALM might help too. You never know, you might pick up a bit of inspiration.  Wes Mouse  T@lk 20:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

My take on this is that I would believe that, if I read this argument correctly for its first posts, save for Australia and that pending rule change on the eligibility of associate members, that they, the associate members, are not eligible to participate in the Eurovision AS OF LATE. The status of Kazakhstan and other associates at this point are speculatory, so for one to assume that once the change comes, the country will participate is crystal ball, unless I am getting something wrong here. Correct me if I'm wrong. --PootisHeavy (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

A simple addendum: Yoyo, calm down. --PootisHeavy (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've not speculated Kazakhstan as participating, as I am one who is on-the-ball at removing crystal ball content, rather than having it included. Jon Ola Sand said in an interview on 28 September that associate members (with exception to Australia) were not eligible to participate, and gave Khabar TV (Kazakhstan) as an example of what is an associate member. In the same statement Sand goes on to say that this rule is under discussion with the Reference Group and subject to possible change come final publication of the 2017 rules. All that information has already been added to the article, as they are published by secondary - a requirement advised by WP:PSTS. However, yesterday, Yoyo360 came across something different on the eligibility page of eurovision.tv (a WP:PRIMARY source which was updated in August), which states associate members may be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, which is a different analysis of what the secondary sources published over a month later. As there is a slight-contradiction in both sources, then it is clear that either sources have published something wrong, or a change in circumstances has arisen following a ref group meeting, or both sources are right. And that is the point I've tried to put across, and that we need to make sure any changes to articles should address both sides of the argument as we have sources to verify both sides. That way no crystal ball guessing has happened, neutral points of view are adhered to, and all published facts can be verified by the citations we have found. But it would appear what I have tried to point out is being missed or misinterpreted.  Wes Mouse  T@lk 20:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay. So now that I'm calmed down I've got several things to say. Fact is not that I was misinterpreting the sources. At the beginning I wasn't even interpreting them at all. My fist purpose was to be sure the statement for eurovision.tv was recent (in the sens 'recent enough to be referencing to 2017 but not to 2016) in order to know if it would be good to include it as it gave an information about a rule change (even if the statement of JOS on 28 September could indeed imply a second one). But I didn't explicitly mention it and this is the reason I misinterpreted what you said when you said 'old news' with the statement of JOS. I thought you meant 'it's from before 2016'. Which wasn't coherent in fact (because it would've implied Kazakhstan could have been eligible and we would have heard of it I think). I had not thought of JOS statement before you put it. And if I had thought of it, I wouldn't have asked if my statement was old or new, I would directly have asked if it could have been added to the page. Soooo... Yeah, that was weird. Then I re-explained, and you told I was misinterpreted the sources, and I didn't understand at all because I wasn't, we just misunderstood ourselves (because of me I know). However, it went a little bit too far, and I admit that my caracter is not of the best ones, I can get annoyed quite quickly, and for that I'm sorry. I tried to keep it cool, and I managed to (sort of) until a certain point. Then, I also admit I then interpreted the sources in a certain way, which I acknowledged it, would not be recognized as valid by Wikipedia (as I said ' I know you'll call what I explained 'original research', and you'll be right'), I was just sharing my thoughts. After all, it could have been interesting to have your point of view on this thoughts, even though they could not be written on the article. But this chapter is closed as we both admitted already that we can both be right.
 * About the 'brick wall' thing, I'll just let go because this is even more pointless that the rest of this thread. Just that for me your 'fugure of speech' was kinda explicit. Who could be the 'brick wall' other than me... Anyway... Sorry for thinking you insulted me if you didn't mean to. But know that some people (as me) do take that badly.
 * So here is it. I explained myself and my point of view about what happenned. I'm sorry to have bothered you so much (because I know how much I can be annoying trust me, I know, sometimes I annoy myself).
 * Last thing, as we have (surprisingly I find) agreed that my source of eurovision.tv could be written on the article, I'd like to do it, but I have absolutely no idea on how to formulate the idea of all this. So, would you help me for that (maybe as a sign of reconciliation... or something like that)?
 * Yoyo360 (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * apology accepted. As for using eurovision.tv source that you found, we cannot use it unfortunately. WP:PSTS is preventing that from being allowed. Eurovision.tv is a primary source are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. That policy advises us that "any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation". The only secondary sources we have are those of 28 September which provide Sand's statement, of which WP:SECONDARY advises us that "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source". That we have done a few weeks ago when both secondary sources where added to this article in the Kazakhstan section giving brief details. But better more in-depth clarification would be better off included in Eurovision Song Contest and List of countries in the Eurovision Song Contest, as both those articles are more relevant to the topic at hand on participation. But policy does restrict us on using the eurovision.tv source as that is a primary source.  Wes Mouse  T@lk 21:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This rule is a little bit strange sometimes... eurovision.tv is an official website, and (in my opinion) it should be accepted... But anyway... There is one other source that talks about this statement, it is right there : https://eurovoix.com/2016/10/19/esc17-wording-changes-regarding-associate-member-participation/ . Is this one valid? Yoyo360 (talk) 21:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * that source makes things worse, not better. They have basically quoted this very thread and the content within it. Only you and I had mentioned that "between June and August this year the official wording on the Eurovision.tv regarding associate member broadcasters has been changed". So Eurovoix have basically seen this very public argument which started on 18 October, and today 19 October they publish something about the content being changed. So no, that source cannot be used as it becomes a conflict of interest with our on-going debate. See how much trouble this has now caused? And it makes me suspicious that someone who participated in this thread either works for Eurovoix or has been in contact with them. This has now been blown open so badly that we cannot use either sources now until the rules are published. If only this debate was dropped at the start, when it was suggested about the 2 sources in September, then we would not be in this mess.  Wes Mouse  T@lk 22:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I couldn't guess it would lead us so far, I came from an ESCToday article which also cited this eurovision.tv text. I wouldn't have thought Eurovoix journalists would come there. And they could very well have done their article on their own, it's not like it is very complicated (well I guess they didn't but reading the article I didn't think a single second they'd be reading that argument, it's not like everyone reads the Talk pages). This is getting really awkward if they did take us as sources... I really didn't want that, believe me. It's really making me feel ultra guilty for having totally messed up everything. Yoyo360 (talk) 22:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I very much doubt that Eurovoix have published the report on their own. Are you forgetting that this is a public page that anyone can access and read? More so when they have picked out points from this debate and placed within their article report? It is far from coincidence. ESCKaz was blacklisted for mirroring Wikipedia, hence why we no longer use them as a reliable source. This issue of a website picking up on a debate in here also happened last year and it meant we couldn't use any sources relating to the issue. So now we are back to that point again, where Eurovoix could end up on the blacklist and all their citations removed from our articles. It also means that we can no longer include information in this article about the associate members issue, as any subsequent sources published after this discussion started would be contaminated. Now do you understand the mess that has been caused here? We are basically screwed and cannot use the new sources.  Wes Mouse  T@lk 22:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I got the mess, but how could I have imagined that? God, you can't imagine how guilty I feel really. I feel so sorry, seriously. Yoyo360 (talk) 22:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Now ESCToday have jumped on the bandwagon and have published content which mirrors this debate. So that's now 2 websites that we may no longer be able to use. This debate sure has caused on problematic situation that will be impossible to get out of. Unless of course if both websites take down their reports, then they would not be "plagiarising" from this debate.  Wes Mouse  T@lk 22:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)