Talk:Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2015/Archive 1

The Netherlands
According to Eurovoix, the Netherlands have not confirmed that they will be participating in the Junior contest 2015. Click on the link (same link as belarussian participation) and scroll down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpaceON2 (talk • contribs) 11:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I've changed the section title, per recommendation at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2015, it is known that the list of participants is only provisional at this early stage, and that it is subject to change between now and the final publication of confirmed countries. The fact that Eurovoix state Netherlands have opened Junior Songfestival, which AVRO only use that show for JESC, is pretty clear that Netherlands will be at JESC2015.   Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 11:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Well then, ok. I'm sorry I did not sign my question. -_- SO2 (talk) 12:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * No need to apologise, as the question was very reasonable, and it did get me thinking too so that I could post a reasonable answer in return.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 12:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Italy
So, Italy will be host the Junior Eurovision Song Conest 2015 or not? They said it will announce on monday, but it is already tuesday evening. Tiitarins (talk) 15:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * We have no idea. We are only an online free encyclopaedia for people who wish to research stuff.  We rely on published reliable sources in order for us to update any article.  If the internet has no news on whether Italy are the hosts or not, then it means a decision has still not been made.  Take last year for example, Malta won - and it was reported that Malta would "make a decision on Monday".  It wasn't until 2 weeks later that confirmation was published.  So please, be patient like the rest of us.   Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 15:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Italy never said they'd announce their decision on Monday. They said that discussions on whether they will host or not will begin on Monday, so we might have some time before we know a final answer. If you remember last year, it took a week or two before Malta announced they'd host. { [ ( jjj   1238 ) ] }  01:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Norway is unlikely to return
NRK have told me that they can not afford to pay 2 million norwegian crowns unless they win so unless the fee is reduced they will not participate. 84.213.46.153 (talk) 14:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but without published sources from the broadcaster via one of the Eurovision websites, then we cannot accept your word for it, as that would breach no original research.  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 15:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Malta
Malta will be back, according to the JESC Twitter feed link — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.191.173 (talk) 13:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added this to the article. { [ ( jjj   1238 ) ] }  14:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think we've used Twitter before to source confirmed information, and I'm somewhat dubious about using such. I'll double-check in the project archives to see if we have used Twitter before, and what the consensus was.   Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 15:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As I thought - see WP:Twitter.
 * As an external link: Generally no.
 * As a reliable source:  Sometimes.
 * Common issues: Twitter feeds change with every post, so the desirable information you see today may be replaced by irrelevancies tomorrow.  Wikipedia is not a directory of any subject's complete web presence, and links to social networking sites (other than official links) are discouraged (ELNO #10).  Be wary of fakes.   Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 15:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * For sourcing Twitter, we should use the Twitter status template?   Thanks, Fort esc (talk) 15:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes,, but only if the source fulfils the second point mentioned at WP:Twitter of legitimacy and officialism. We also need to remember that not everyone can access Twitter, so on that basis not everyone would be able to verify what we have sourced by clicking on the citation link.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 15:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * , you don't need an account to simply read tweets. Thanks, Fort esc (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * , well some must, because I cannot access the link. I did have a Twitter account a few years ago, but deleted it as it was nothing but useless crap (Facebook without the game requests).  Not sure why  it won't let me access the link provided though.  But like I said, the guideline does state that Twitter can be used as a reliable source as long as the account is verified as being official, and then we would use the Twitter status template, and not the normal cite web that we'd generally use.  There are so many citation templates for various things, that it might be helpful for people to familiarise themselves with them all.  Do you think this could be something useful to address in the next project newsletter publication?  A list of useful citation templates?  Full comprehensive list of citation templates can be found at Category:Citation Style 1 templates and Category:Citation Style 2 templates. You'd be amazed and gain knowledge on how many different citation templates there are, depending on what it is you are citing.  Even the most experienced of Wikipedian's can learn something new everyday!  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 17:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Ireland
As much information regarding Ireland is already there, JESC have confirmed they have entered talks with Ireland (presumabely TG4).link — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.191.173 (talk) 13:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * We have a more reliable source about Ireland and it is already been included in the "Active EBU Members". Until further information is released in the New Year (as stated by TG4) then nothing more can be added.   Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 15:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan have stated that they are getting closer to JESC 2015 and appreciate to oppurtunity to participate. link — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.191.173 (talk) 13:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The source sited is a blog, which wouldn't be considered reliable so it cannot be used. { [ ( jjj   1238 ) ] }  14:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Twitter
I think the information for Italy, Malta, Russia, and Sweden should be removed. And it isn't just because they are from tiwtter, but the person in which the tweets are responding to bears too much similarities to the editor who then updates this article with the details and uses the tweets as sources. I think this comes too close to WP:SELFPUB, WP:SELFCITE, WP:NOR, and may be even WP:COI. What do you think?  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 00:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. You can't simply assume that it's the same person. And anyways, I was the one who added Malta to the article. { [ ( jjj   1238 ) ] }  01:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not assuming, I am commenting. There is a big difference between the two.  And I am fully aware that you added Malta.  But it does raise questions when the person from twitter "@JahnzPoloyapoy" has a similar account name to .  The JP sticks out like a sore thumb - most definitely fits the duck test.   Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 01:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If someone were to contact a source directly, just for their personal state of mind, then it is not a problem. But if that same person were to then use that correspondence and add it to an article citing the reply, then it not only breaks the spirit of WP:NOR by contacting a source and researching for new information, but also WP:SELFPUB by citing the reply.  I know you've only been a Wikipedian for almost 2 years now, so you may not be aware of a similar incident like this that happened a while back.  A Wikipedian had contacted a Eurovision artist directly via Facebook, then emailed an editor at ESCToday, and used both pieces of information as citations.  It caused so many problems that the ESCToday source was no longer usable, as it was seen as contamination of a citation; and they almost received a block too for WP:NOR breaking.  I, myself, have contact with 2 employees of the EBU, but I would never dream of using anything they reply back to me as a citation.  It would just be unethical.   Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 02:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I completely understand how you were just commenting, it's just that I don't think the JP is sufficient enough and in my mind it's just a coincidence. And yes, I am fully aware of the incident that happened regarding Hersi Matmuja's page and I was a part of the discussion while it was going on. { [ ( jjj   1238 ) ] }  02:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * , well I wasn't referring to Hersi Matmuja's page, but that is another example. The discussion I was referring to was this one back in 2011 in which a Wikipedian openly admitted to self-publishing.  There was also this debate in 2012, which stated that using social media should be avoided and more reliable sources are preferable, something which was again raised here which a valid point on verifiability was raised, quoted as:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.
 * Wikipedia cannot claim somebody said something without high quality reliable sources, so I think we need to air on caution when it comes to social media claims, especially ones that a citing a question asked by a fan.  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 03:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking deeper into WP:V policy and WP:Twitter - it states that if the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. The fact someone has asked a question on Twitter and then gains a reply, and it is used as a citation is a clear "exceptional claim" which is suppose to be discouraged.  I think Twitter feeds should no longer be used.  Might need to thrash this one out even further at WT:EURO for a more broader consensus from the project.   Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 03:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Have the respective national broadcasters made official announcements to verify their participation? At present we are just going off a question asked on Twitter by a fan, to which the EBU have only responded to. The EBU cannot 100% outright say that a broadcaster will be there, without something from the national broadcaster to back-up the claim. Has the EBU even issued invites to all active members yet? The host country and dates are not even known. I'm still on the stance that these tweets should be removed until there is something more solid to verify these exceptional claims.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 17:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd have to agree with Wes on this issue. Regardless of whether the Twitter account and the Wikipedia user are the same, I don't believe in this case that the tweets can confirm the participation of these countries, especially when some of the language isn't very clear-cut, e.g. "pretty certain" in regards to Russia. I think a potential solution for now could be to add these countries to the "Other countries" section, stating that the JESC Twitter account had announced that they would be taking part but there had been no official confirmation from the broadcaster as of yet. I also think that a consensus of Twitter as a source for WP:EURO would be good too. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Moving them to the other countries would be reasonable enough, especially when we are able to state that "despite the EBU's opinion, the X broadcaster has yet to make an official announcement regarding their 2015 participation". Covers all bases, and keeps us in-line with policy.  A consensus debate regarding Twitter over at WP:EURO is probably the logical step forward too.   Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 17:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)