Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2023

Voting controversy
Why is there nothing in the article about the voting controversy? To be clear, Loreen won fair and square according to the current rules, but the outsized role of the jury has been heavily criticized in the press and by the public: "there’s one word that’s trending, in all caps, on Twitter – ROBBED." Jpatokal (talk) 09:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I do agree that the voting controversies and just in general the reception of the show should be mentioned every year. There is currently a relevant RfC ongoing at the WikiProject. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 09:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jpatokal While the sentiment is heard, there have been similar if not even bigger jury/televote discrepancies in the past (Italy 2015, Russia 2016 - which was included because it is indirectly tied to the Russia/Ukraine war -, and Norway 2019). So while this should be a topic for broader discussion I suggest for now that no information that allude to this year's outrage over the results (some of which can be used to twist the argument into a certain way aka "Finland should have won!") until the situation calms down/a consensus is reached. Pdhadam (talk) 10:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The opinion of many is that Finland should have won, how can we claim to be WP:NPOV if we omit this view completely? And while the jury/public split is nothing new, it's the first time I can recall that this extended to eg. the crowd chanting another contestant's name on top of the winner's. If anything, this controversy is what ESC 2023 will be remembered for, not currently apparently lead-worthy info like North Macedonia not participating. Jpatokal (talk) 11:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There has already been a discussion on this very talk page around this subject (see ). I believe the main crux around why it's not been included so far is it strikes as more recentism, and there have been other years where the same level of criticism has been levelled. It's important that Wikipedia is up-to-date of course, but the balance between facts and reporting on social media hype needs to be held. It might be better to hold ground for now until the immediate "outrage" has passed and if there is a more longer-term implication then it may warrant inclusion here or in Voting at the Eurovision Song Contest. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The charge of recentism would apply if (say) the main Eurovision article was overrun with 2023's events. It does not apply here because this is about the 2023 contest, which has already ended, and the general reaction to the contest results is now well known. Jpatokal (talk) 11:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * A reception section is generally warranted as others have noted. For Finland, yes there was a lot of noise during the event and that should probably be mentioned somewhere. Also, the distinction between who won the jury vs the televote is interesting at face value. Ultimately though, I try to remember that Finland (or any other country in their situation) were not "robbed" as this is plainly put how the voting structure works. I haven't searched for other sources, but I'm hesitant about this at the moment because two of the provided sources are tabloids/blogs and the third is a newspaper from the entrant's country which would naturally write up a slightly biased piece about how they should have won. Grk1011 (talk) 13:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added a Reception section with better sources, including a Helsingin Sanomat analysis of historical televoting results and why 2023 was indeed exceptional. Jpatokal (talk) 05:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Should we also add in the "ABBA conspiracy", or is it too trivial to be included? Pdhadam (talk) 04:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think a lot of this is too recent/trivial, honestly. I think it’s very recent and I’m not too sure of the necessity for a ‘Reception’ section because to my knowledge, it’s the only ESC page to have one (and implies overall ‘reception’ of the contest, not the final results).
 * Maybe retitling it or writing it in a way whereby it talks about it but it isn’t purely aimed at the Sweden/Finland debate (i.e - ‘several viewers expressed frustration at the final results, particularly in relation to the top two placing countries. Although there were many notable discrepancies between the jury votes and televotes over the contest, it was noted that…’ be more appropriate?
 * I think it’s hard to write this objectively without coming across like someone is purely disappointed their pick didn’t win, and I’ve seen several past years where there’s been similar levels of upset. Alextheepic1999 (talk) 19:23, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Then we should add Reception sections to those Eurovision articles as well. The goal of Wikipedia is not to be "objective", but to represent "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" (to quote WP:NPOV). FWIW, the ongoing RFC about creating a new template also proposes a standard "Reactions" heading for kind of thing. Jpatokal (talk) 05:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

TVR Romania controversy
I've been hearing news about Theodor lately after he exposed TVR's attitude during an interview with "The Watcher" and how TVR left him out like making Theodor to perform the TVR way (I think), should that be added or not? https://twitter.com/ERCommunity_/status/1662099939965509632?t=70bQitM2qRQ2VrnhTP1jqA&s=19 BurningGreymon258 (talk) 12:48, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Potentially there is some relevance to the issues raised by this tweet, however if this does have any relevance it would be in within Romania in the Eurovision Song Contest 2023, since it's only relevant to Romania's participation in the contest and not to the contest itself. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Who removed the tables listing all 12 points?
Previously this article had tables listing all 12 points (jury and televoters) - how many each country received, and from which countries. All other articles of Eurovision contests on Wikipedia have them. 77.105.254.111 (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)


 * This is currently being discussed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision, essentially work is in progress to convert all 12 points table into pure prose text form Pdhadam (talk) 03:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

“12 Points”
Why have the "12 Points" headings and info gone from the detailed voting results? They are still used on every recent Eurovision 202x/20xx article so I can't understand why they've been removed. EMTrainspotting (talk) 07:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)


 * This is currently being discussed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision, essentially work is in progress to convert all 12 points table into pure prose text form Pdhadam (talk) 17:09, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Czechia (WP:BRDiscussion)
For the 2023 contest onwards the Czech republic requested to be known by their shorter English name of Czechia. The producers and EBU agreed and thus the main sources for this article refer to Czechia, not Czech Republic, wikipedia sticking to Czechia on this page until it was WP:GF corrected yesterday.

I understand on a separate but related article there has been a discussion over this a few years back, but there was a definite change this year that was marked both on air and at the EBU and it seems the policy is now outdated, and in any case related to that page not this. I reverted an attempt to bring this article into line with Wikipedia policy that appeared to be at odds with what the reliable sources are saying, because I felt it wasn't just an administrative exercise. Rankersbo (talk) 11:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * As was the case with FYR Macedonia, what name a country uses in Eurovision does not automatically impact what name we use on the articles. There have been two recent discussions in February 2023 and May 2023 affirming that we will use Czech Republic and not Czechia, I don't think this needs to be reopened again. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 11:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This is bit different to FYR Macedonia, there were genuine issues with the name Macedonia, particularly objections from neighbouring countries and that was the agreed international compromise. I'm not aware of any controversy over Czechia? Rankersbo (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC)


 * There are many examples on Wikipedia where a different stance is taken based on WP:COMMONNAME, e.g. Ivory Coast is used for that article's title instead of the country's "preferred" title which is "Côte d'Ivoire". Additionally, the majority of templates on this article point to "Czech Republic" and not "Czechia" (only three out of 17 templates use "Czechia"), and inputting "Czechia" into these templates doesn't change the output in any case, e.g. will still show up within the article as, so my edits were not about changing the name within the articles (which I would be in favour of anyway, however consensus has not been reached on this issue) but merely a clean-up exercise to ensure consistency and point all templates to "Czech Republic". Sims2aholic8 (talk) 12:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, I understand where you are coming from. The BBC and EBU decided to respect the Czechia name, the Eurovision website says Czechia, the onscreen graphics said that, and that was what they performed under- it seemed a bit obtuse to go, no we have a policy, we are ignoring all the sources that say otherwise because we know best.; BUT having this one article out of step with so many others... this would be an odd place to start respecting the country's wishes. This needs a more coordinated approach Rankersbo (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I've changed links to test out naming the country within this article as "Czechia" while keeping the actual article titles as "Czech Republic" per RMs. There are other examples of where this has been used elsewhere within Wikipedia, e.g. 2023 IIHF World Championship. We have not an agreed consensus on this action, so being bold and testing it out here and if there is no massive pushback potentially this could work as a good compromise. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)