Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2024/Archive 3

Article problems identified at ITN
Usually, Eurovision is featured on the Main Page in the ITN box. The nomination has identified some issues that are preventing this article this year from being posted. I know lots of users want to add content, but it's probably best that the problems are addressed first.

ITN comments have so far noted:
 * 1) Some parts lacking sources
 * 2) Detailed results mentioned explicitly
 * 3) Article is too long to navigate easily
 * 4) Some sections should be forked off
 * 5) Postcards table, voting list, spokespersons could be excessive trivia
 * 6) Concerns with the controversies section

If sources can be added, that would be helpful.

I think most forks (i.e. splits) should be discussed, which could take some time - while I, and I'm sure many other users, am experienced in splitting content and BOLD guidelines, the main sections that are candidates for being split off seem to be Broadcasters and Controversies. There's already a discussion above about splitting off the latter, so that should be resolved some way or another (even a no consensus, do whatever) before content is moved. And in terms of broadcasters, since that's such an integral part of the competition, it would seem counterintuitive to not have some kind of list at the main article. (Similar with votes).

However, I think it is an easy solution to move the postcards information to the various country sub-articles. Kingsif (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Detailed voting results tables
Previous Eurovision Contest pages have detailed voting results tables. Will this years article have them too, or isn't the information available? TrogWoolley (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


 * the detailed results tables for semi-final 2 and the final are available. you can go see them at eurovisionworld.com and eurovision.tv
 * semi-final 1's results are unavailable at the moment, due to a glitch at the detailed results of the semi-final 1 website Firsy.mid (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The links are and . If anyone's willing to tussle with the table formatting for it (as seen here), put the table here and I can put it into the article. ji11720 (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 May 2024 (2)
As in past years, when some countries broke their qualification strike or qualified to the final after a long time, that was detailed, so in this year case, Ireland’s, Latvia’s and Georgia’s qualification after 6, 7 and 7 years shall be highlighted. 81.0.36.253 (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ❌ Please explain what changes you would like to be made. Kingsif (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Censorship of Portuguese acting
Controversies of the 2024 Eurovision Song Contest insert Censorship of Portuguese performance on social networks due to Palestinian symbols on nails. "RTP’s President, Nicolau Santos said today that the broadcaster awaits "thorough" answers about the delay in posting Iolanda's performance during the #Eurovision final." Broadcaster RTP will present a formal protest to the EBU in case foul play is detected by the delayed upload of iolanda’s performance Danopt (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Complaints regarding a specific user
It's becoming obvious that one editor in this article is consistently making edits to downplay and distort any criticism of Israel that appears in this article. Each edit individually can be seen through a lens of good-faith, but when taken together it creates a very obvious picture of having particular editorial aims for this article.

Examples from main article:


 * x - Moving large sections about the Israel inclusion controversy into a separate lower traffic article without discussing it in talk page
 * x - Significant detail removal in descriptions of Israeli inclusion protests
 * x - Moving the "Israeli participation" controversy much further down the page to "alphabetise"
 * Repeatedly removing an image of a protest in Barcelona against Israel's inclusion because "we all know what a protest looks like" (as per the edit summary) x. Also justifying removing this image again using the justification "no other section has images and this section doesn't need one either" x (despite other sections having images), immediately followed by deleting the existing other images in other sections less than a minute later x1 x2
 * x - Removing a one-sentence reference to the controversy surrounding Israel's inclusion from the lead, despite being part of an active talkpage discussion about it, knowing that multiple editors were supporting it remaining (see "Do we need "the inclusion of Israel" paragraph on the top page?" section above).

These are just some examples I found while looking through the change log.

This talk page also has a lot of edits from this user, with them bludgeoning many conversation topics about anything critical of Israel - this was suggested earlier by @Kingsif. The topic directly above, "Israel campaign for votes" is an example of this.

I'm not sure what the following steps to take here are but I feel like this discussion should be had. Bugghost 🎤:🐛👻  15:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Leave out this is just a laundry list of complaints. This is not appropriate for Wikipedia, as it is a comment exclusively on the contributor and not the content. It also comes across as you feel you have the right to exclude an editor, for not 'falling in line'. Which comes across as WP:Ownership. The above you are complaining about is just regular editing, if you dislike regular editing practices maybe Wikipedia is not for you. Please see WP:BRD, you also have to follow WP:Assume Good Faith which the above is clearly not doing.
 * This is an article edited by many many users have contributed and this is a collaborative effort by many I strongly suggest you re-think what you are saying as many editors have complained about "Isreal being the focus" and done such edits to combat this. Other editors have slimmed down, removed, re-organised, and changed what you are accusing me of being the sole person of doing. I would suggest you take a break from editing and come back having let you colour of the situation pass.
 * My strong suggestion is you withdraw this as it completely inappropriate in many ways.PicturePerfect666 (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Picture:
 * Re: No personal attacks - I have said nothing personal about you, I know nothing about you, I am complaining about the consistent theme of the edits you are making to the content of the article, each of which were sourced with a diff link.
 * Re: WP:Ownership - I make no claim to own this article, I have never even made an edit to this article.The contributions I've made so far are the Morroccanoil topic in the talk page, and a couple of brief replies to some talk sections. Because this is extended protected, I literally cannot edit this article, let alone think I own it. I have no power here, I am simply pointing out that I believe you are abusing yours.
 * Re: Good Faith - that article says "Avoid accusing other editors of bad faith without clear evidence in the form of diffs". I have included several diffs in this topic to outline my points.
 * Re: "Other editors have slimmed down, removed, re-organised, and changed what you are accusing me of being the sole person of doing" - I know that other editors are making changes, I am not accusing you of that. As I said in my original post, each individual change can be viewed through a lens of good faith, this is because your edits are creating a pattern.
 * I understand your objections but I will not be withdrawing this topic. Bugghost  🎤:🐛👻  16:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You have gone out to state effectively I comment too much, and how dare I keep doing that. You dislike the pushback I give you and the changes I have made, which are not unique to me but to many other users as well. You have ascribed an underlying agenda to my edits and comments, which is an assumption of bad faith and a personal attack. Do you want me to really spell out how inappropriate the above comments by you are? Users in talk pages of articles must never be the focus of discussion. That is for user talk pages, not article talk pages. What you have done by opening this laundry list complaint is what I have said and I stand by it. Please also be aware of WP:boomerang. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not saying you "comment too much", I am saying you are WP:BLUDGEON ing conversation topics, such as the "Israel campaign for votes" topic above.
 * I assumed good faith until I came across evidence of what I believe is bad faith, which I have presented plainly. Again, I have made no personal attacks, I am only talking about the edits you have made. I posted this in this talk page rather than your talk page, because I saw that you blanked well intentioned critical messages left there, more than once, and thought it would be better to post it here instead, as this is the article I have concerns about.
 * I feel like this will go in circles. Any other Wikipedians who would like to weigh in on this, please let me know. If this truly is out-of-line I will delete it, but I would prefer some opinions from third parties first. Bugghost  🎤:🐛👻  18:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok I am not taking part in this any more as you seem to be hell-bent on engaging in negativity, personalisation, and everything else I have mentioned here.
 * Additionally I am moving this from here to my talk page as it is a more appropriate venue, and asking "Any other Wikipedians who would like to weigh in on this, please let me know" is potentially canvassing. You have an issue with me say it in the appropriate place. Here is not. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Please stop removing this talk section. This is not your decision to make Bugghost  🎤:🐛👻  18:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I must say I share Buggshot's view. Their arguments are sensible to me. Yoyo360 (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Shame they are meritless feet stamping, and belly-aching just complaining about a person engaging in normal Wikipedia discussion and editing activities. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Looking at the talk page, not one comment regarding inclusion of Israel related controversies was left without their input, in addition to their edits on the article. It puts their motive into question — IмSтevan  talk 18:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * In short this whole laundry list is bullshit crying to try and stop push back.
 * No one in this complaining (and all complaint are without genuine foundation) comes here with clean hands as they are engaged in exactly what I have pointed out and if you don't like the rules and way Wikipedia works go somewhere else. You are not obligated to be here and everyone here is so voluntarily. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Next attempt at removing this section might be considered edit warring — IмSтevan  talk 19:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I am not contributing to this here, any comments here will be moved to my talk page and will only be replied to there.

Link to the appropriate forum.

PicturePerfect666 (talk) 19:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Baseless nonsense. Id give it up as you have lost all perspective of what Wikipeida is about. It feels all about go after the user engaging in normal editing and discussion practices. Just go on commenting on the contributor and not the contribution and go on casting aspersions on other users motives and then deleting them to hide the attack. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If you do not wish to partake in this conversation on this page you are free to exclude yourself from the conversation — IмSтevan  talk 19:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Stop removing content without clear consensus. Just because you declare something a POV or just because you say that consensus was achieved does not make it true — IмSтevan  talk 05:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 May 2024 (2)
Requesting pronoun for Nemo be corrected in section ‎Non-binary pride flag ban, from:

To: GarethPW (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅ ji11720 (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

“Controversies”
This article is only going to be bogged down if it keeps in it a ‘controversies’ section. The whole section is always a POV can of worms over what to include and exclude. This year in particular. I mean the excessive detail, length and cruft included is maddening when it comes to some things and this year is no exception. Plus the use of poor and depreciated sources is frequently done. It’s a shit show to have such a section, no one is ever happy and it just cases edit conflicts. As such this article must not get to be derailed by one it must be eliminated or seriously considered as to what is a controversy and what is not and that is likely to be a tarpit on top of quicksand. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 05:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @PicturePerfect666 I do agree in that the controversies related to Israel in the contest this year should be condensed ASAP in the article, but mass removing them without prior discussion isn't a good move. @IvanScrooge98 has done most of the lifting, so it's a good starting point to discuss with. Pdhadam (talk) 05:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I did condense the section but was reverted without reason by the user you mentioned. Additionally no one user is ‘a good stating point’ as that asserts they have some kind of WP:Ownership, which is a no-no, see also WP:BRD. As I have set out above the section has serious issues and if these can be overcome those I’ll be happy to pare it down but seriously the excessive detail; what was written on banners and graffitied that’s not needed, quote after quote after none of them are needed, the number of protests completely unnecessary. The section and all ‘controversies’ sections are a mess and this is no different. It has strayed in to commentary, bias, and news reporting of the actions of one set of individuals with little regard to encyclopaedic value and content. What the entrants did I can see a value to that, such as the statement and words or symbols removed or included in outfits. Otherwise it’s just being a news outlet and straying from the focus of the article. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 13:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m sorry but this section is the result of months of work of different editors. If I have expanded it significantly in these last few days, it’s because a lot of things are happening one after the other. You can’t Just come and make mass removals. I believe when dust has settled in the next days we will know how to deal more properly. Now, if you could tell me more in detail what sources you have an issue with, we can at least start from there. ~  Ivan Scrooge 98  ( talk ) 07:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The amount of work and number of editors is completely irrelevant. That is an assertion of WP:Ownership, based on well hard work went in. Which is a major no-no of Wikipedia. Also ‘dust settling’ does not mean the issues raised to get a hand wave away. Serious issues such as WP:NPOV, WP:Bloat and WP:Deprecated. Tabloid newspapers are an example source to avoid, the full list is in a table in the link provided. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 13:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Why have all the incidents of the Israeli delegation harassing other contestants been removed? This section paints Israel in a very positive light which is not reflective of the reality? 78.19.18.167 (talk) 23:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The section was pared-down and there is limited evidence of the harassment as claimed. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 03:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I want to thank for cleaning up the section and making it compliant with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. It removes the tabloid reporting, overt detail, one-sidedness, and the in-depth platforming of one portion of events. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)


 * “one sidedness” do you also accuse the page on the holocaust of being one sided and not presenting the nazi viewpoint fairly? 83.253.25.95 (talk) 07:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * False equivalence and completely inappropriate as a comment to make. Such a dreadful strawman. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 10:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's very one sided now though? 78.19.18.167 (talk) 23:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Detailed results are missing
12 points list is missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:fe1:8084:3b00:4d2a:77bd:9d64:ff8b (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * They can be found here:
 * https://eurovisionworld.com/eurovision/2024
 * Someone with edit privileges should update the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.76.62 (talk) 09:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * for the first semi-final as well as the Latvian 12 points in the semi-final. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asteroid08 (talk • contribs) 09:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The Latvian semi-final 12 points are still missing! Asteroid08 (talk) 07:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Addition of countries that called for Gaza ceasefire
Addition of Switzerland among countries that called for ceasefire in Gaza as is listed among the nations that have done so in source 359 used in the paragraph.


 * Ahead of the contest, in March 2024, an open letter was released by various participants. While not mentioning Israel's participation in the contest, the entrants for Ireland, Norway, Portugal, San Marino,

[Switzerland, ] <===


 * Belgium, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Lithuania, and Finland called for "an immediate and lasting ceasefire" in Gaza, as well as the return of war hostages.[341][359] YhtomitosGeometryDash (talk) 01:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅ 「Hype Boy」 TALK 10:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

"Abuse directed at Israel" section
The term "abuse" is a little bit extreme, don't you think? It is not much of an "abuse" but rather a negative response to the Israeli participation to the contest. 103.168.38.38 (talk) 11:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 May 2024
The section regarding allegations of harassment by the Israeli delegation towards the Irish, Portuguese, Greek, Dutch, Spanish and Swiss delegations and journalists is missing large swaths of necessary information, especially surrounding the removal of a stylist working with the Israeli delegation and the complaints sent by the Spanish journalists working there.

Additionally, there is no information regarding the controversy regarding the EBU's decision to not use footage from the final performance of Portugal's song in official materials and during portions of the broadcast, and the Portuguese artist's nails, which were decorated with pro-Palestinian imagery.

Whitneyahn (talk) 02:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * In interview
 * "The president of the Board of Directors of RTP specified that the Portuguese delegation “reacted immediately when they saw that the video had not entered as the others were entering, immediately after the end of the performance, and the indication that was given through a exchanging emails is that there was a technical problem"
 * "It was during this exchange of emails that the person responding to our delegation said 'but your competitor has pro-Palestinian motives painted on her nails'. On our part we asked the question 'what does that have to do with this? ' (…) and what happened is that immediately afterwards the video came in", he explained, noting that the delegation continues to be in contact with the organizer and is "waiting to know the most complete explanations".
 * When asked about whether he was considering filing a formal protest, the person in charge stressed that it is necessary to have consolidated "the indications of what happened and whether there was actually a technical problem or whether it was someone in the 'regie' who purposely delayed the entry of the video up in the air". 161.230.195.13 (talk) 13:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It is more than evident that there was censorship on the part of the EBU, due to Symbols of Palestine, so much so that they only aired it after the end of the votes. It's strange that they allege technical problems in this performance. Danopt (talk) 13:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 May 2024 (2)
Hello, There is some misinformation in the jury changes section in the Eurovision 2024 article. Kaarija did indeed provide an reason and he wrote "I have decided not to participate as the spokesperson for the Finnish Jury in tonight's Eurovision finale. Giving out the points tonight does not feel right." in both finnish and english in his social media instagram story. Tankeynotsuss (talk) 12:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * "Does not feel right" feels too vague to qualify as a reason, Alessandra and Nikkie provided more concrete reasons for their withdrawal. Pdhadam (talk) 13:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Tankeynotsuss: Could you provide a link to this social media post so it can be verified? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Already sourced it — IмSтevan  talk 17:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, closing this request as ✔️. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Detailed results
The detailed results of the final can be copied from my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alex1/sandbox Alex1 (talk) 11:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much! — IмSтevan  talk 19:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Gilmore Girls DVD
It has been confirmed from one of the writers of ESC that the Season 3 DVD of Gilmore Girls has been posted to the Swiss delegation after winning https://twitter.com/EdwardafSillen/status/1790047773519208773  Eurofreak2000 (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Given that Edward af Sillen is a comedy writer, and the DVD "prize" was a joke, I would take that tweet with a pinch of salt. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

reactions during israel interview
Maybe add a section during israel's interview after semi final 2 i believe. the Greek singer pretented to fall asleep and the Dutch singer with the flag over their head Bhjio (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * No need to add this cruft and minutiae. Wikipedia is not a repository for every action by every person. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 23:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Traumatic experiences
I Think we should add a part of multiple artist coming out and saying the entire experience. For example Ireland about the backstage mood and abuse from both israeli media and the EBU. Also latvian singer said in a tweet: "Going after that country, with the crowd being so intense, was one of the worst things I had to go through, I really did the best that I could in this situation...traumatic experience, wish it all ended after the first semi" Bhjio (talk) 20:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Also Ukrainian artist in an interview about the backstage:
 * https://x.com/ESCdiscord/status/1790086938621341977
 * Norway too:
 * https://x.com/euroviNOR/status/1790052515880317430
 * link to Latvian singers tweet:
 * https://x.com/SilvestrasBelte/status/1789453808239530370 Bhjio (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:TWITTER covers what we can use tweets for as sources. Do you have a different source that can be used?  --Super Goku V (talk) 02:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not a place to do a laundry list of people personal feelings and opinions. The Irish complaints about conduct are included. The ‘mood’ and ‘intensity’ is just speculation and not encyclopaedic.
 * additionally tweets are very bad sources and should be avoided. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Add info
Please add that Joost Klein was disqualified for breaking a swiss camera in the finals. Narcar98 (talk) 07:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The damage to the camera seems not to have contributed to the disqualification. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Israel controversies
The section can be reduced to a single paragraph, as shown in this edit. This article isn't the main article for the controversies involving Israel, so WP:SUMMARYHATNOTE can be applied and most of the content transferred to Israel in the Eurovision Song Contest 2024. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I've added links to what is already at the Israel article in the paragraph that's already there. Sure. Why not. If it keeps the topic together and makes the main article more manageable, people will still try to add things but signposting should help. Kingsif (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can see that and it's an improvement. My point is that the three subsections beneath the opening paragraph can be removed, as that detailed information should be in the 'Israel in Eurovision 2024' article. A.D.Hope (talk) 08:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If it was unclear, I was agreeing with the split suggestion, which I see has already been done. Kingsif (talk) 11:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification, Kingsif. I didn't make the split and I assume you didn't, but I do think it's an improvement! A.D.Hope (talk) 11:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Additional incidents related to the final
Galzigler (talk) 12:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "At Saturday night’s final, Portuguese entrant iolanda appeared onstage with nails painted with the pattern of a kaffiyeh during her performance of “Grito.”"
 * "Loreen will not hand over the trophy to Eden Golan in case of Israel’s victory on Eurovision 2024"
 * "dropped the microphone-shaped glass trophy, injuring their thumb in the process."


 * Regarding the first bullet: "The EBU has not uploaded Portugal’s performance to the official YouTube channel." Galzigler (talk) 12:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Pro-Palestinian supporters organized a "Eurovision" of their own, political event, aimed at spreading anti-Israeli statements.
 * 9 of the participating artists signed this statement.
 * Galzigler (talk) 12:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Lead second para first sentence
I propose changing the first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead from:


 * Thirty-seven countries participated in the contest, with Luxembourg competing for the first time since 1993, while Romania opted not to participate after doing so the previous year.

to


 * Thirty-seven countries participated in the contest, the same number as in 2023. Romania did not return, however, Luxembourg competed for the first time since 1993.

The second version flows better, and also includes the fact that the number of competing countries has remained stable from 2023. @User:Pdhadam has reverted the change when I've tried to insert it into the article, hence opening a discussion to discuss what their objection might be. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @A.D.Hope That is because "the same number as [previous year]" hasn't really been included as a line for previous years' articles. Returning countries are also often mentioned first before non-returns/withdrawals Pdhadam (talk) 23:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter that the line hasn't been included in previous articles, really. It wouldn't be for many, because the number of participating countries fluctuates.
 * The order of Luxembourg and Romania doesn't much matter, but 'while Romania' reads somewhat awkwardly. A.D.Hope (talk) 08:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @A.D.Hope The aim (at least in my view, although there are other editors who may or may not agree) is to achieve consistency between contest year pages, in particular the recent years, and deviating too much from the established lead wording would fail to do so. Pdhadam (talk) 09:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's desirable to have consistency in terms of sections and general order, but the exact words don't need to be the same from one year's article to the next. It's ultimately more important to present the information in a natural, fluent way. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Here's my suggestion according to your edit:
 * Thirty-seven countries participated in the contest, the same number as in 2023. Romania opted not to participate, while Luxembourg competed for the first time since 1993.
 * The reason why I described Romania as "chose not to participate" is due to that it's the norm for previous years where a country choose to not participate after doing so the previous year. Wording such as "withdraw" only applies when a country changes its participation plans at a late stage, i.e. after the EBU announces the list of participants. Pdhadam (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that proposed wording is absolutely fine; I've added it to the article, but swapped 'while' for 'and'. I agree that we should be careful about using words such as 'withdraw' where they might give the wrong impression of events. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Austrian performance glitch
During the Grand Final performance of We Will Rave by Kaleen for Austria, there was a brief glitch where the performance froze on camera, is this worth a mention in incidents and controversies? 92.14.48.137 (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Would require a published source documenting this happening - otherwise shouldn't be included. Even with a source it's unlikely to be relevant enough, unless it was a major outage. Bugghost  🎤:🐛👻  15:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 May 2024
Update table to reflect that Latvia awarded 12 points to Estonia in the second semi-final of the Eurovision Song Contest 2024. 98.59.156.31 (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅. Taavi (talk!) 16:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Detailed results
The detailed results tables should also note where Netherlands would've finished, and other countries' placements should be kept in the order in which they appear on Eurovision.tv. For example here, Ukraine was listed as finishing 10th in the Serbian jury, when it was actually 11th, but was altered on the article to fill up the spot left by Netherlands — IмSтevan  talk 17:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)


 * That information is already being added to the individual country articles for this year (see Albania in the Eurovision Song Contest 2024 as an example). I believe mentioning the number of jury points the Netherlands would have received if they had competed would be relevant, and this is already included in the split poins table, however since they didn't compete and the points awarded did not account for the Netherlands, I don't believe we should be altering the detailed voting tables to add in a row for the Netherlands with the hypothetical points they would have received. I think doing so would be confusing to a normal reader. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Good — IмSтevan  talk 13:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Split proposal: Grand Final content
I don't think this has ever been done before, but in terms of navigating the article, which is very long, it seems clear it would be beneficial to split it. The first split I think should be made - that which I think would be best overall - is to create an article on the grand final itself as an event, and of course then to split out the content that pertains only to the grand final. Kingsif (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion
People are suggesting that we remove information instead of simply splitting the article. That makes no sense.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Now that the article appears on ITN I guess we could close that part of the discussion. Still a split would be suitable. --BabbaQ (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Survey

 * Support as nom. Kingsif (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - would rather support a controversies article D4NT3023 (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You can support both. Kingsif (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think the final needs a separate article at all D4NT3023 (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - As noted above (and as can be seen here) the controversy section isn't the problem and removing it doesn't do much in terms of article length, Support - can always be reworked if it doesn't work. – Davey 2010 Talk 16:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the grand final section is about as long as any other year's, so I don't see a point in making a new page for it JPStrickler (talk) 17:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I think the details about the final are the most crucial part about these articles, and if things end up too long then it would be better to move other less relevant parts to separate articles. Zouki08 (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting topical point: if the final (rather than the whole contest) is 'crucial', then I see it as a question of whether the overview article should be tailored to cover the final and let the hosting, broadcasting, semi-finals, songs, etc. be split out as subsidiary - or if an article on the final should be considered the crucial article for people who want to read about it. Kingsif (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - As per reasons already stated above. There's not enough to warrant a separate article, and it would add unnecessary confusion. Sizewell (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not really any need, not longer than for previous years. Jeppiz (talk) 19:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's about the same length as all other recent years, no need for it BochiBochiGalaxy (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose Just because the article is long doesn't mean it needs to be split up. Ktkvtsh (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose I think that would create just an absolute mess for other articles. I don't think it needs to be split up MattBinYYC (talk) 21:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose I don't see a benefit in doing this. Long articles are fine, and doing this would make reading about ESC2024 much harder. Brobbz (talk) 23:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Strongly Support - This has been brought up over at ITN as well. The article is way too long and difficult to navigate.BabbaQ (talk) 00:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I think there are plenty of ways to shorten the article. And I have not always followed it closely, but I noticed that the format has changed, which effectively increased the length of the article. Here are some suggestions to shorten the article:
 * Remove the 'Notes' column in the Bidding phase table. Use the Notes section further down the article if explanations are needed.
 * Remove the list of participants table. They are already integrated in the result tables. All those extra details such as the broadcasters and songwriters can be covered in the country article or song article and don't need to be covered in the general event article. The broadcasters are already covered in the Broadcasts section anyways. So the list of participants table basically only exists to feature the songwriters and is therefore redundant. If we really want to feature the songwriters on this page, I suggest using the format of the German event article.
 * Remove the postcards table. I think we could do with a short explanation of the concept of this year's postcards. Perhaps alternatively, every country page could feature a more detailed section about that country's postcard.
 * Remove the OGAE voting section. This is irrelevant to the official Contest and it gives the OGAE voting an importance that it does not have. The Contest already comprises a much larger public vote itself, so the OGAE voting really doesn't represent anything. Hhl95 (talk) 02:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Hhl95 You may go to WikiProject Eurovision if you want to initiate discussions on the wider formatting of the contest year pages - more experienced editors with expertise on the contest will be willing to discuss further Pdhadam (talk) 07:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I did realise that I probably suggested things that have been deliberated before. But we are discussing the length of the article here as a problem, so these are suggestions to shorten the article(s). Perhaps concensus can be reached here already. Hhl95 (talk) 08:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. We need the participants tables — IмSтevan  talk 09:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What is the added value of the participants table if the participants are already covered in the results table? Hhl95 (talk) 10:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose I don't feel it is necessary to make a separate page for the finals. Edwyth (talk) 06:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose instead of forking out the final article, maybe remove the WP:TRIVIA like the "postcard" table, complete voting list, and lists of spokespersons, so that the article isn't so long. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose no necessary to do this. John123521 (Talk-Contib.) 12:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Completely unnecessary to split, and in fact I believe this would be damaging to the article(s); the contest is a single event with three shows, so it is much rather represented as a unified article for all three shows. One large article, even if a bit unwieldy at times, that covers all the facets of the contest (either in summary or in full) is a much better solution in my opinion than trying to funnel information into multiple smaller articles that would lead to a loss of context. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose as being redundant. 2405:9800:BA20:17F9:DCEF:9FAE:8CE6:A8FA (talk) 09:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the arguments above. It would seem to be totally redundant. IJA (talk) 18:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose The EBU owns the disqualification affaire now. The fact that they acted as policemen, judge, jury and executioner all at once -without any trial- is part of ESC history now and should not be conveniently stuffed away on a separate page. Jcwf (talk) 03:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 May 2024
In "Incidents and controversies" / "Spokesperson changes", change "were announced by Österdahl" to "were announced by Österdahl, who was heavily booed".

In the "Participating countries" chart, change the Netherlands' language cell from "Dutch" to "Dutch, German (two verses), Italian (two verses), English (two verses and some words), French, Spanish (some words)" Lallamaflamenca (talk) 17:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


 * ❌ I've added a bit more to the spokesperson section, but we need a WP:RS for Österdahl being booed. As for the song languages, I recall that there is some WP standard for what language is listed (perhaps a certain %age of the song sung in it) - but again, it would need a source. The current source, of course showing various lines in other languages, is the Eurovision website. So you might be better raising the question at the Eurovision project talkpage, on when non-main languages are to be included and what sourcing would be required. Kingsif (talk) 17:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Regarding Österdahl, I believe this could work as a source. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I did introduce a source for the boos, actually - I don’t know if in further edits it has been changed or not. Kingsif (talk) 11:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks like the entire section got axed for some reason. Will look into it.  --Super Goku V (talk) 05:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Found it. Grk1011 said the section was UNDUE and took it down here.
 * Personally, I don't agree with the assessment given the coverage over it and with it apparently tied to a claimed incident involving another delegation. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Sort controversies in alphabetical or chronological?
Just spotted that the order of the controversies was changed to alphabetical instead of chronological as in previous years. In my view the chronological order is the better approach as it helps inform the various contexts that lead to each incident - alphabetical would leave things unclear for new readers. Would love if whoever changed the order to alphabetical gives their reasoning. Pdhadam (talk) 02:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd say in this context, chronological sorting makes more sense, especially as the misconduct allegations mostly came out after Joost's DQ. Yoyo360 (talk) 11:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Chronological and by importance for sure. I would've had Italy's televoting, then Dutch dq, then misconduct, then portugal, then booing and then flag policy — IмSтevan  talk 15:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually maybe by importance is the better way to do, putting Israel and the Dutch on the top, Italy on the bottom — IмSтevan  talk 15:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree in theory, but "Importance" could be a tricky and subjective thing to judge here and could lead to disagreements. Chronology is a lot easier to order Bugghost  🎤:🐛👻  15:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that chronological makes more sense. I had a look into the edit logs and have created a topic about the user who made this change, see below. Bugghost  🎤:🐛👻  15:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Why chronological...that is just arbitrary. Alphabetical makes more sense as it is a regular way of sorting things. Chronological makes it a commentary, and a news report not an encyclopaedia, this is not a timeline of events. Also what "context" mandates or makes more sense in regards to not posting? Also, 'Importance" must not be used as that is POV pushing. This is an encyclopaedia, not a news article or a timeline of events. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 15:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

BBC article
Should the israeli reaction given here be added for POV neutrality? Yoyo360 (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Done — IмSтevan  talk 16:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 May 2024
Under "Dutch entry disqualification", please remove this sentence:

"Klein performed what the woman described as a 'threatening move' [373] following the female camera operator's recording of Klein in the green room, where filming was not permitted.[373][374][375]"

This is not supported by the given sources, which all refer to the same Avrotros statement:


 * 1) The Avrotros statement says "Joost was filmed when he had just gotten off stage and had to rush to the greenroom". He was not in the green room.
 * 2) Ignoring #1, there is no source that claims filming in the green room is not permitted. This was a camera operator employed to film the contest, not a random member of the media.
 * 3) The sources do not claim the woman described it as a "threatening move" - these are the words of Avrotros in describing Klein's actions. 87.121.73.40 (talk) 02:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Do you have a proposed replacement wording, which better reflects the sources? PicturePerfect666 (talk) 03:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it's overall quite weak, since the sources all quote a statement by AVROTROS making unverified claims about their own artist, which is why I proposed removing the sentence entirely.
 * If the "threatening move" is noteworthy enough to keep, the sentence could be replaced with:
 * "In a statement, AVROTROS described Klein making a 'threatening movement' towards the camera." 87.121.73.40 (talk) 06:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Basically, I just reverted the text to resolve the issue.  IkuTurisas, can you look this over and either see if it is okay with you or revert and add the source for the "threatening move" part?  --Super Goku V (talk) 11:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * its okay with me IkuTurisas (talk) 11:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Incidents section ordering is POV
The current order of the section with Israel the top and The Netherlands towards the bottom as POV. One seems to a want to promote one and bury the other. The ordering should be with POV pushing and the only way to do that is to alphabetise the sections. Additionally not having it alphabetised is an unnatural way the section. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 03:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)


 * If the sections are ordered chronologically, then it makes the most sense to the reader how things unfolded. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What is ‘chronologically’ when there is overlap between events and events happening in at the same time and events ongoing beyond the event. What do you mean when you say ‘chronological’. Additionally what criteria is used to determine what is and is not a ‘chronological’ order?
 * ALphabetical has a clear obvious order. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 14:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Additionally having looked at the current section I could not consider that the current ordering is 'chronological' as there is no bright line on some events such as the "flag and booing" sections. Additionally the misconduct section is a reported after the fact, matter. So when the claims complained about matter happened is wooly. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 15:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Intro paragraph of incidents
@PicturePerfect666 has removed the intro paragraph of incidents stating every edition is controversial. The nuance here is that this one is "particularly" controversial (some even called it the most controversial). The whole thing was fully sourced. Should it be added back? Yoyo360 (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)


 * This is normal editing practice and is more in line with other article sections of this nature.


 * Also, no need to personalise it by going "User X removed this". it shows a level of unnecessary personalisation. Cool off and step back from the contributor commenting.


 * "some even called it the most controversial" This phrase has been discussed above ad nauseum and dismissed as recentism and not held up under scrutiny.


 * Also "fully sourced" is not a carte blanche for inclusion. This is an encyclopaedia not a list of everything reported in the news.


 * This is beginning to feel like complaints about every change made which a small number of voluble users dislike.


 * PicturePerfect666 (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Well sorry for not agreeing with this change and wanting to bring it here. Yoyo360 (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Then lets discuss it. Why is there some random intro which is not usual in other sections of this nature. Also why are these comments being included what is the encyclopedic value?
 * The contest, as described in previous discussions on this page has been debunked as 'the most controversial ever'.
 * Additionally sources have to show noteworthiness and the fact there are sources doesn't automatically warrant inclusion. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I cannot take claims that this contest was just like any other or as controversial as any other in good faith; an edition considered particularly controversial will of course have a more developed controversies section. Article structures tend to stay the same, but when appropriate, things will be added or removed from the articles or its sections, just like in this case — IмSтevan  talk 05:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read WP:RECENTISM with a focus on WP:10YEARTEST, before continuing to push, this angle of what you consider 'controversial'. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * In 10 years, this contest will still be considered controversial compared to the contests prior — IмSтevan  talk 17:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no way of knowing that, and if that can be shown, it will have to better than going Israel took part and there were protests against them, so that = controversial in perpetuity.
 * I’ll grant you the Netherlands getting disqualified is likely to be the most notable long term controversy as a country has never before been disqualified between semi-final and final.
 * That is an objective not subjective reason. Which is how the measure must be or it is POV.
 * Anything on Israel or anything else for that matter beyond the Netherlands disqualification being ‘10years controversial’ is highly likely a WP:crystal violation.
 * PicturePerfect666 (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So no matter what anybody says, you'll say 10years, and if somebody refutes that you'll say crystal ball. — IмSтevan  talk 18:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I suggest a re-reading. If an objective not subjective reasoning can be provided such as with The Netherlands, that’s fine. Subjectiveness, recentism and wishful wanting is a no. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Dutch DQ reactions
Are other broadcasters' thoughts on the disqualification relevant? RTS just published a piece on it, calling it "unfair to the Dutch team" — IмSтevan  talk 20:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I would say they are? The amount of reactions and complaints that came out of this contest is unusually high and numerous broadcasters artists and delegations have reacted and called for change. On wiki:fr, I ended up adding a reactions section. Yoyo360 (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Detailed results - Semi-final 1 table number error
Ukraine's 5 points recipient is missing. Also, Australia's point total (41) misses 5 points. My guess is Ukraine gave 5 points to Australia.

I just went to eurovision.tv site source (which you reference at the top of the table) and it is actually so. I guess this is an easy correction. Ciao Gianni Stella (talk) 13:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Postcards
Why has the postcards table been removed from the article? A list or table of postcard locations has been included on all previous ESC articles with postcards, but it isn't on this one. I understand it may be for condensation but if so why do the other ones have them? Wasabi OS (talk) 15:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


 * There were two complaints about it at ITN. Given that there wasn't a dedicated discussion on it here, it likely is fine with being restored.  --Super Goku V (talk) 10:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Article should mention Moroccanoil sponsorship
The article doesn't mention that the primary sponsor of Eurovision is Moroccanoil, which is an Israeli cosmetics company based in Tel Aviv. This should be considered pertinent considering the controversy surrounding Israel's inclusion in the contest.

Sources:

https://eurovision.moroccanoil.com/

https://eurovision.tv/story/moroccanoil-becomes-presenting-partner-of-eurovision-2020

https://metro.co.uk/2024/05/09/eurovision-said-israel-2024-song-contest-20799836/ Bugghost  🎤:🐛👻  13:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Not the place for complaining about sponsors from specific countries. This is not a place to air grievances, dislikes, general upset. The article should not contain anything like the above request. Israel are not the focus of this article and this is not a ‘controversy’. This is why having a section or a separate article on ‘controversies’ leads to the want to include everything that everyone considers to be by their own metric ‘controversial’.
 * This suggestion while in good faith is 100% inappropriate for Wikipedia and an example of the dangers of such sections or separate pages about ‘controversies’. Wikipedia is not a place to single out and push a narrative of ‘Israel anything is controversial’ or anything similar for that matter on any other country which enters the contest.
 * TL:DR Wikipedia is not a soapbox. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand where you are coming from - I'm not trying to complain or whip up a frenzy or soapbox, but I can understand that interpretation from my suggestion. Just pointing out that publications (like Metro link above) have suggested that this could cause a conflict of interest when there was mounting pressure to disqualify Israel's entrant.
 * Ignoring Moroccanoil - is documenting sponsorships in general OK for inclusion in the article? It is a large contributor to how Eurovision is funded, and sponsorships are shown repeatedly throughout broadcast. Bugghost  🎤:🐛👻  15:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Metro is a deprecated source and must not be used. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Unless there is a very specific reason such as sponsorship for an anti gay org or similar. Otherwise it’s really not appropriate. The bar is extremely high. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't realise Metro was considered a bad source, sorry about that. Seeing as the Metro is a deprecated source then I'll retract this suggestion for listing Moroccanoil as a potential conflict of interest, as I'm unable to find a better source for that claim, so I 100% agree a COI suggestion shouldn't be in the article.
 * As a side note however I'm not sure why documenting sponsors would be considered inappropriate in general. I can understand objections the original suggestion about a possible confict of interest - but documenting something noncontroversial such as "EasyJet was billed as the 'Official Airline' of Eurovision 2024" (source: https://eurovision.tv/about - bottom of page under 'partners') plainly without editorialising is hardly inappropriate, it's just recording a published fact about the event, written in NPOV. Is there a WP policy/discussion about this? Bugghost  🎤:🐛👻  16:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It’s excessive detail and cruft. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and minutiae like who sponsored what year and so on is just not encyclopaedic content. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 17:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Just to clear something up, the controversy doesn't matter. The only thing that would matter is if Moroccanoil was the title sponsor for Eurovision, like with the yearly Coca-Cola 600 in NASCAR or the 2017 American League Championship Series presented by Camping World for MLB.  They may be a primary sponsor, but that doesn't seem to be enough.  --Super Goku V (talk) 11:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Removal of scare quotes around "genocide"
Remove quotes around "genocide":
 * '''What I think should be changed:

Having quotes around "genocide" can be seen as implicitly disagreeing with the classification of the situation in Gaza as a genocide (see Scare quotes). I believe this is not Wikipedia's call to make, and removing the quotes is faithful to how both the primary and secondary sources phrased it. The current phrasing was introduced in revision.
 * Why it should be changed:

I do not know if this change might be too controversial for an edit request, but I am open to discussion.

Vkb123 (talk) 10:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


 * If the content is (as I believe it clearly should be) moved to a sub-article on controversies, I believe that article title in itself is enough demarcation that the content is sensitive, and so scare quotes wouldn't be needed. Thanks for bringing it up. Kingsif (talk) 10:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Removing the "" around the term takes a side and wades in, neck-deep into a contentious claim and a claim without definition. Genocide has many definitions and there are cultural, societal, legal, etc. Which do you pick and why? Wikivoice cannot make such a claim. Claims of "genocide" are highly POV and disputed. Also these are not 'scare quotes' it shows that the term is used by some as a descriptor but it is not necessarily accurate. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 10:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I am aware that these are probably not intended to be scare quotes, but that is how I originally read it, and I reckon that others might read it like that too. That is why I think the current article might risk POV, but I now realise that simply removing the quotes would just flip the POV in the other direction.
 * As an alternative, what if it said "had a stylised watermelon painted on his chest to call against genocide in Gaza"? This is almost the exact phrasing used by the secondary source, and in my eyes does not seem to imply that Wikipedia recognises or disputes the Gaza situation as a genocide.
 * As another alternative, we could expand the quotation so that it is not just that single word. I cannot find a suitable small but descriptive quote to use, and quoting a large section of the Instagram post feels like undue focus. Plus, it's not written in very encyclopaedic language (if that's a relevant concern, which I'm not sure it is). Vkb123 (talk) 11:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Alternative - Just refrain from using the word 'genocide' in this context. There is no concensus about whether the situation in Gaza qualifies as genocide and it is not up to Wikipedia to decide on this. There are plenty of other words you can use, such as the more neutral word 'conflict'. Hhl95 (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Leone was protesting what he considers genocide, and if Wikipedia is covering it at all, WP then has the duty to accurately explain what the issue/controversy was. It would not be neutral to use a generic term that does not reflect what Leone's protest was. Wikipedia is not deciding anything - the purpose of the quotation marks.
 * I think the suggestion of expanding what is quoted is the best solution. As quoting one word can appear sarcastic and like Wikipedia is deriding Leone's view, while not using quotation marks is inappropriate use of wikivoice, using a longer quote would prevent either from being a concern. Using sourced wording also prevents misinterpretation from Wikipedia restatement. Kingsif (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What individual acts consider genocide does not mean Wikipedia goes that is genocide. Additionally Wikipedia is not here ‘to cover everything’ that is for news companies and not an encyclopaedia. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, and that's why there's quotation marks. Wikipedia accurately explaining what Leone's action was for, is not agreeing with him, and I never suggested that, so I don't know what your reply is for - unless that wasn't understood.
 * Though I don't know how I can explain it better: Leone's act was to protest genocide, as he sees it. It was not to protest conflict. Wikipedia would be introducing inaccuracy (at least) - for no other reason than avoiding a word we could just attribute - if we followed the suggestion to say conflict. (The 'at least' is referring to the fact that readers who go to the source would see that Leone wasn't protesting conflict, but what he sees as genocide, and could interpret WP avoiding the word as WP taking a side.)
 * So, best to use an extended quote. Kingsif (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It’s promoting their opinion above others which is undue weight and undue bias. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If it was the only thing being written about, I would agree, but saying (effectively) "one of the protest actions was this guy painting his chest which he did so because he thinks X", in the middle of a list of four things, is not undue weight or undue bias. I, genuinely, encourage you to look at it in the context it's in. Wikipedia is not presenting his view either as correct or more important than others. Saying that a guy did X because he believes Y is not, in this instance, giving undue weight to what he believes.
 * The text has now been edited to in condemnation of the perceived genocide, anyway. But...
 * I've just edited the section to try and make it more readable and NPOV. I debated removing this part entirely, not for any NPOV concerns, but simply because I can only see the one source for it (and it's Eurovoix, which almost indiscriminately covers everything at Eurovision), so whether it's important enough for inclusion is a question. This also comes as I am thinking of rewriting a more generic (shorter) "There were numerous actions by other participating acts in protest", because I was going to move out the Belgian union and the opening act stuff, and Bambie Thug has other involvements. Which would only leave Leone, and again, on its own it would be inappropriate.
 * I also think the section warrants a mention of the overwhelming public vote for Israel, but we're on clean-up at the moment. Kingsif (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that's a slippery road to go on. It is not up to us to interpret the televote score and to phrase it as support for Israel outside Eurovision. Every year there is plenty to say and interpret about the voting and I think we should just refrain from that, unless there are explicit and sourced voting declarations. Hhl95 (talk) 02:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * For the record: the word 'conflict' was not a suggestion, it was an example. It was not intended to make this a choice between 'genocide' or 'conflict'. Like I wrote, there are plenty of words you could use, or it could be phrased differently, for example by referring to the victims. My proposal is just to remove the word 'genocide' and to use your imagination for a less contested way to phrase it. There's no need to use the literal words that Leone used. Hhl95 (talk) 02:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree just don’t include the word or section at all. The word is far too loaded, and POV. Best just don’t use it. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Didn't see this - given my (above mentioned) apprehensions about including it on relevance, I will take this as small consensus to remove that example. Kingsif (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Remove the word genocide: I agree that this should be changed, but not in the way that you describe. Unambiguously describing Israel's actions in Gaza as genocide is against consensus. If you can find Fred Leone describing Israel's actions as genocide, feel free to keep the word, but make it clearly attributed to him, and not in Wikipedia's voice. JohnR1Roberts (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Removal of content
Please stop removing content off the page. You claimed that the section regarding Palestinian symbols on stage is a bold addition...how? Not only is it properly sourced, the language used avoids taking any side, and all parts of that section were already in the article prior, just moved to that section as they were not appropriate elsewhere — IмSтevan  talk 18:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The way it is being added is not appropriate and this has been discussed. It elevates it beyond and belongs included on the country specific pages. If anything it could be included in a misconduct allegations section. Additionally slapping it below the Israel section is POV pushing. Also the section was boldly added in its current form, appropriately reverted and now discussion occurs. Do not re-add in violation of WP:BRD, it is now in the discuss phase not the revert or bold stage. It’s how editing and discussion works. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Israel's participation is everything any publication was talking about, it's not POV — IмSтevan  talk 19:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

You have made the same revert 3 times in the past 4 hours. This breaks the Three revert rule 1 2 3 — IмSтevan  talk 19:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Pot. Kettle. Black. Again. Stop slinging round accusations. Counting edits is not a checkmate when the other user is violating Wikipedia policy on editing. I suggest the pettiness and point scoring attempts from you are dispensed with. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 19:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Now back to the original points, do you have substantive discussion points?

Moving back to claims made “Israel's participation is everything any publication was talking about, it's not POV”. This is complete hogwash and shows a bent on recentism on the inclusion when it is being argued that it is believed Israel must be overwhelming the article, because of ink spilled by those with a platform in the media. The violates so many policies and guidelines of Wikipedia it’s unreal. Such as balance, neutrality, POV and so on.

This is not a news site and not or a regurgitated form of ink spilled by others.

There must be a genuine objective look at this as an encyclopaedia and not a news site, with a bent or worse a cheap blog by a hack.

PicturePerfect666 (talk) 19:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You're being petty as well by claiming BRD everywhere. I'm sorry but the section is sourced, reuses paragraphs that were included elsewhere, *technically* the political messages are breaking rules (since you're being so attached to rules breaking), and putting it below the Israeli participation section makes sense because the two are related, the onstage messages being caused by israeli presence. Yoyo360 (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you please re-add the paragraph they removed? — IмSтevan  talk 23:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I stand by the content being a violation of Wikipedia inclusion policies. I think this is going to need more than just those of us who are arguing with each other I propose taking the issues we have to dispute resolution as otherwise this is going to catch fire again and end up with petrol being poured on things. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * With the small amount of opinions expressed here, the only thing to do is wait for more anyway Yoyo360 (talk) 20:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not actually. The silence or wait and see approach is not helpful here. I think due to the passions here and claims the only way forward is dispute resolution. Wait and see is not an appropriate step as that solves nothing. Freezing and counting sides is akin to voting and not on. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The only "dispute" on this specific topic was between the reverter (you) and the reverted (Stevan). Which makes sense, that's a debate. I do think waiting a bit more is helpful because more opinions could change things. Yoyo360 (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Lets take this to a more appropriate venue of dispute resolution. It is clear that temperatures are rising again as shown in the previous comment. Which helps no one. Dispute resolution will help to end this and allow everyone to more on. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 20:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Could you please explain in what ways does my last comment make "temperatures rise again" ? I'm expressing an honest opinion. Yoyo360 (talk) 20:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, as this is off topic for here. If you want that I'll discuss it with you on my talk page. I will hopefully also see you at dispute resolution. As was said by admins not everything off topic needs explaining and Wikipedia is not a court. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Well if you took my now second to last comment as hearing things up that was definitely not the intent. But I still disagree with you on the main issue Yoyo360 (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)