Talk:Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest/Archive 1

Merger?
Should this article really be up. I know people have had thier differences on the subject of FR Yugoslavia and Serbia and Montenegro but, since the 1992 entrant for Yugoslvia is on the SFR Yuogslavia page, should this page be here at all? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I ran into this problem yesterday when doing some cleanup with the Montenegro and Serbia templates. It is very confusing, but it seems like its basically Serbia and Montenegro. Maybe it should be merged into that article with a note that they entered under a different name? Grk1011 (talk) 14:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that some people are saying that it's a different political entity than Serbia nad Montenegro, and that it's not the same as Serbia and Montenegro. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We could say that the two countries entered under the other name, i take it that people assume its a different political scene, but its the same territory.Grk1011 (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that this page should be merged with Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest, and making a note that the other countries left for 1992. Eurovision.TV lists it this was, and makes a note on 1992. They also list the participation name in 1992 as just Yugoslavia. Greekboy (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with merging this article with Serbia and Montenegro in Eurovision. Not much is known about FR Yugoslavia and I don't feel it really needs its own article. Plus, its the same land mass as Serbia and Montenegro. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As much as I want to merge it with Serbia and Montenegro, Greekboy makes a good point in that the Eurovision official site lists it as part of Yugoslavia. I don't know if we can really take it upon ourselves to decide this for it seems like the EBU has already decided. Grk1011 (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Since it is on the official site we should probably merge it with Yugoslavia then. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

This article should remain part of Wikipedia because FR Yugoslavia couldnot appear on the behalf of the SFRY. It is a simple fact. The article most certainly should not be merged with Serbia and Montenegro because Bosnia and Herzegovina was represented. I do not see what is the big deal with leaving this article stand. -- Imbris (talk) 21:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But this is in relation to an EBU event which takes precedent since according to them, there was no difference. If it were merged, there would be ample description of the situation. Grk1011 (talk) 01:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To clear up any confusion, we are now talking about merging it into Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest, as it appears on the EBU site with a note on the situation, and NOT Serbia and Montenegro page. Greekboy (talk) 10:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh yea, I forgot lol. Grk1011 (talk) 11:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Article cannot be merged to SFRY nor Ser&Mon
This article cannot be merged with Yugoslavia because the contestant had not represented the entire Yugoslavia (Yugoslavia dissolved even before the local contest).

On the local contest there were only contestants from the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Socialist Republic of Montenegro and the Republic of Serbia (which dropped the Socialist from its name in 1990).

The EBU cannot decide for themselves because they list that appearance under Yugoslavia with the flag that contains the red five pointed star (symbol of the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia).

At that contest, that flag had not been used but instead of it a flag without the red five pointed star.

The contestant representing Yugoslavia at that contest had not represented SFRY but an unrecognized country of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia consisting only of the Republic of Serbia and (then) the Socialist Republic of Montenegro (which had not changed its name at the time).

Therefore this article cannot be merged in the Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest

At the same time this article cannot be merged in the Serbia and Montenegro in the Eurovison Song Contest because the contestant was elected to represent the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as the Socialist Republic of Montenegro and the Republic of Serbia.

It would be orriginal research to merge with both of those articles, and it would confuse users of this encyclopaedia to omitt the fact that it was FR Yugoslavia who contested.

Imbris (talk) 21:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually its original research to keep the other page because the contest does no acknowledge its existence, the same is true with "FYR Macedonia" which is used instead of "Republic of Macedonia" Grk1011 (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No it is not the same with F. Y. R. O. M. because the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia was internationally recognized under that name at the United Nations. So EBU has no bearing over the name of the Republic of Macedonia, the United Nations have and all of the members of it.
 * It is not original research to keep this article under the existing name because this way is most un-biased and encyclopaedicaly correct.
 * The contest pages are not the Holy Bible and articles related to "one source" solutions are falable at its very start.
 * Imbris (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you please refrain from editing related pages until a decision is made. I can't keep making my point over and over again. Grk1011 (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Listing FR Yugoslavia under the name of SFRY is misleading and leads to acknowledgement of biased possitions. FR Yugoslavia could never have replaced SFRY, nevertheless of the current state of the EBU database on the Internet. -- Imbris (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are listing it under SFRY. Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest article is dedicated to the appearance of SFRY in the ESC. Your merge of the article Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest is what is misleading and furthermore biased. The article Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest has the most correct title and content and is the only way to solve the sittuation without being biased towards SFRY and being biased towards Serbia and Montenegro in the Eurovision Song Contest. -- Imbris (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't get a chance to reword the article yet. Grk1011 (talk) 00:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No rewording will change the dispute because FRY cannot continue the list of SFRY appearances. -- Imbris (talk) 01:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It will because they will be Yugoslavian appearances, and there will be a note about the 1992 entry. It just does not deserve its own page. Grk1011 (talk) 01:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have seen deletion requests which failed if the result was not uninamouos also I resent the pushy tone of your previous edit. If an article deserves to exist is not up to you or me, have you seen lots of minute articles that make this encyclopaedia so great. The user can find almost any village, soon there will be streets :-)
 * Like articles Independent Olympic Participants at the 1992 Summer Olympics and the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs.
 * I think that you need to drop the attitude and praxis of using "one source" which leads to WP:SYN.
 * Imbris (talk) 03:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless you can find a specific source that says that FRY participated under that name and not Yugoslavia like in previous years regardless of what land mass they represented then you have no case. Grk1011 (talk) 10:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The general rule with naming and spellings in the ESC related articles, is to use what the EBU uses for the events. Even though the land/political situation was different that year, they still participated under the name "Yugoslavia". It should be included on this page, with a note about the situation. Naming the article as "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" would be misleading to what actually happen in ESC that year, since they appeared with the name "Yugoslavia". ESC is not a political event. Unless you can find information stating that they participated under the name "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia", it should be merged with this article. Using other information about the break up and such to make your point that it should have the naming "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" would be original research in my opinion, since they are not directly related to the contest itself. Regardless, it does not look like this discussion is going anywhere, so we need an outside third opinion. Greekboy (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The best way to resolve a dispute is to discuss the topic not each other, I certainly don't think anyone is acting in bad faith. I may be friends with Grk1011, but that does not mean I always agree with him on everything. However, I think a completely outside opinion as well would be best to ensure complete neutrality. My opinion is this: I have agreed with the position already established over the ESC Macedonia articles that the name the EBU should be used as the article's name as it is most in context to the article's topic. This does also follow proposed guidelines such as Manual of Style (Macedonia-related articles). I don't think either titles in this case strongly "take sides" at a political level - and a merge is not that inappropriate if it is done in a way which follows WP:NPOV. WP:OR is more about article content and material so it not hugely relevant. Not many sources will tell you what title to use for an encyclopaedic article, but looking at the names sources use overall could help resolve this dispute - the most commonly used name often decides the article title. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask Camaron to respond to gang up on anyone or to campaign, I was just hoping that since he's a pretty fair person and involved in Eurovision, he would be able to describe the situation from the Eurovision stand point better since I wasn't getting anywhere. Grk1011 (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am going to try an official merger proposal below just to let everyone know. Grk1011 (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I am proposing that the article "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest" be merged into "Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest" because they were both entered into the contest as Yugoslavia and the article documents Yugoslavia's participation in the contest. Technically it is not the same country, but the body that runs the contest considers it to be the same. (the article will obviously be reworded to allow for this). Grk1011 (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongly opposed:
 * The entire point of Grk1011 is based on one (in this particular case) not precisely a reliable source. The merge would be in colision with other Wikipedia articles.


 * It is a very short way from listing all of the participants as Yugoslavia (which flag contains a red star) to listing all participants of Yugoslavia under the flag without a red star, as was listed on the eurosong.nl recently.


 * The facts are:
 * The song never represented SFRY, not even on the local contest because SFRY dissolved well before.
 * The song was presented under a plain navy blue, white, bright red flag without a star, and the star was the symbol of SFRY.
 * Nevertheless of the caption or the "team name" under which the song was preformed the international community of the time reffered the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as ''the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro).
 * The merge thus cannot go with the Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest and nor to Serbia and Montenegro in the Eurovision Song Contest (because of the appearance's of preformers from the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (as was called at the time).


 * Sadly enough I have been forced to express my position at:
 * Administrators' noticeboard


 * And also I have hoped to persuade Grk1011 to drop the issue by conversing with thim at:
 * User talk:Grk1011 which contains my view in detail.


 * We have small articles on Wikipedia and the point that Grk1011 made - saying that this article do not deserve to exist shows his POV clearly and has nothing to do with facts but interpretation of a source that however interesting is not reliable in this particular case.


 * In other cases, like international sports (football for example) and Olympic movement SFRY has not been succeded nor continued by FRY.


 * I deeply regred that Grk1011 had not waited for a third opinion and started this proceeding in vain.


 * Starting this merger proposal during the summer holidays is a bad idea.


 * Imbris (talk) 20:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: The "unreliable source" happens to be the contest's website and also the official published book about the contest. I don't know how he can contest that. Grk1011 (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: The "Yugoslavian" participant competed for the FR Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) under the flag of FR Yugoslavia and not the flag of SFRY. So if you are still insisting on the participant competing for "Yugoslavia" (without notion to which Yugoslavia it reffers) then the flag is stopping you from doing that. Also if I had to choose between two bad solutions, then I would prefer to see a merger with Serbia and Montenegro in the Eurovision Song Contest. Then you explan, reword and reference there how much you want. -- Imbris (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Once again, this is not us deciding, the EBU already made the decision for us. Why don't you read the article. A quote: the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was under United Nations sanctions but this had no effect on the European Broadcasting Union. The national selection had in fact only included artists from Serbia, Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Despite FR Yugoslavia consisting of Serbia and Montenegro only, at the time of the contest the entry was performed for SFR Yugoslavia. It doesn't matter if you believe that it could not appear on behalf of SFRY, cause it did. Grk1011 (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * EBU cannot decide anything regarding our encyclopaedical work, the Wiki community will decide based on the knowledge gathered in Wikipedia and the interpretation of reliable sources. Why have you omitted the fact that it was the appearance for FRY with the FRY flag, that is what the article states also. -- Imbris (talk) 22:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Also your reference in the article Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest is contradiction in terms with itself. Why would we belive Sietse Bakker and his recolection. Yugoslavia was not returning but Servia and Montenegro as he calls it. The last appearance of Yugoslavia was in 1991. The appearance of 1992 can easily go to Serbia and Montenegro in the Eurovision Song Contest. -- Imbris (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The old Yugoslavia won in 1989 with Riva and her song "Rock me". Last participation was in 1992 with Extra Nena. Quote from the source. Grk1011 (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * From the reliable source which is not contradiction to iself and the known facts in other Wikipedia articles (and the general knowledge - for that matter). -- Imbris (talk) 22:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongly Support The EBU is as reliable as you can get for Eurovision information. They run the event.  That is like saying that information about the Olympics from the Olympics official website is not reliable. As I said before, this page should be merged with Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest with a note in the article about the political situation.  Regardless of the political situation then, they were represented under the name Yugoslavia and NOT "Ferderal Republic of Yugoslavia" or any other name, which should be used as the name of the article.  Unless you can find a written source somewhere stating otherwise about Eurovision, and NOT another event around the same time, then your argument is useless in this subject as you are using original research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia.  And please do not write the same arguments in the talk over and over.  You stated your point clearly, lets wait for a third outside opinion. Greekboy (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have found another source with supports the merger. According to this article from ESCToday which writes about the follow up on the 1992 singer, it states she was represented under the name "Yugoslavia" in the Eurovision song contest regardless of the situation then, and the last singer to be represented under the "Yugoslavia" name.  ESCToday is one of the most reliable Eurovision sites around, and they follow Eurovision very closely.  This can not be an error too. The fact is that the country name in the Eurovison Song Contest was Yugoslavia, and was considered their last entry regardless of the situation. All the preview videos and such for the song, as well as the postcards before the song, the scoreboard, and the announcers, all read "Yugoslavia".  You keep saying it was a different flag, but that does not change the naming at all.  That should just be noted on the entry page, as well as the other things that go along with it. You can not name this article a different name than what it participated under in the event.  That is just very misleading.  Even if the land mass had changed because of the political situation, the broadcaster and country participated under the Yugoslavia name for the last time in ESC.  Greekboy (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Marcus Klier wrote that article with the help from (obviously biased) Ivana Stošić and Miroslav Luburić from OGAE Serbia. If you thought for a second that this source is reliable just because it supports a theory that cannot be proven. Even by your biased sources, like:
 * Direct quote from http://www.eurovision.tv/page/country-profile?country=7
 * "Yugoslavia was formally dissolved in 1992 (de facto dissolved in 1991 with no leaders representing it). The country comprised the area of the present-day independent states of Bosnia & Herzegovina, Croatia, F.Y.R. Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia."
 * + the fact that There was no Yugoslavia in 1991 because Slovenia and Croatia left the federation thus ending the Constitutional order of the country.
 * + The flag issue. The preformer participated under the FR Yugoslavia flag which is exactly the same as the Flag of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro. Do you really think that this is of no importance.
 * Imbris (talk) 22:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Its of no importance in terms of Eurovision. Grk1011 (talk) 23:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The contradiction in terms of all of the sources that Greekboy and Grk1011 (who think alike that they ought to be a one person) is huge.
 * Direct quote from http://www.eurovision.tv/page/country-profile?country=7 listed below;
 * 6. Disclaimer of warranty; limitation of liability section
 * list of alleged appearances of SFRY look at the title of that table: Participants list and All participants from Socijalistička Federativna Republika Jugoslavija.
 * 5. Disclaimers section
 * 5. Disclaimers section


 * That appearance in 1992 under the name Yugoslavia was not for the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia but for the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro). Why do you think Serbia and Montenegro first appeared in 2004? Because they were under United Nations and European Union sanctions. That appearance in 1992 was under the plain flag of navy blue, white, bright red flag of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. IT was most certainly not under the flag of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia which has the same flag colors but with the red five pointed star in the middle.
 * This should end, but not with the result that Greekboy and Grk1011 want.
 * Imbris (talk) 02:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Your terms of use arguement is dumb, that's like saying you can't trust any source because they could be wrong. We all know that you are always right, no matter what the reliable sources say. Also, when are you going to admit that you are the only one opposing the merge? Grk1011 (talk) 02:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As I remember from the previous discussion there were users who supported the move to Serbia and Montenegro in the Eurovision Song Contest. Also Zvonko was in favour of a merge with the Serbia and Montenegro article. The sources you pretend are reliable are in fact bogus. They are made up by IT specialists who do not care about sources and they are not the official position of EBU. Where does it write that those lists are the officiali position of EBU. If they were official position of EBU they wouldn't write All participants from Socijalistička Federativna Republika Jugoslavija wouldn't have? -- Imbris (talk) 02:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You can't dispute the website solely because you disagree with what it says. Grk1011 (talk) 02:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I dispute what is on that website(s) because the content of that website(s) contradict them selves. Also they list the appearances as Socijalistička Federativna Republika Jugoslavia and not just Yugoslavia as you keep claiming. -- Imbris (talk) 22:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually it says that that is the flag pictured and all entries were under SFRY which furthers our point. Like you said, there are mistakes, this time in the EBUs interpretation, but either way its Yugoslavia to them and we cant change that. Watch the contest footage if you need to. Grk1011 (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And that is correct by your account simply because the webmaster of that site and that database came up with it. That participant competing under the caption of Yugoslavia competed for the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (a.k.a. Serbia and Montenegro) and not for the SFRY. The footage and the flag under which that participant of ESC 1992 prove that EBU database is wrong and thus cannot be relied upon as a neutral source. You look the tape of that ESC 1992 and you will see that it participated under the flag of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia which is the same flag of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro. -- Imbris (talk) 00:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But that does not make it the flag, it was for Yugoslavia whether you like it or not, thats just how the EBU saw it. Grk1011 (talk) 01:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If we get rid of the flag, or put on both flags, would that appese anyone? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 00:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I tried, we can't put both with captions or leave the flag out completely. The template would have to be changed a little to allow for either. Grk1011 (talk) 01:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * With or without the flag this merge will not work. They appeared for a TV caption Yugoslavia but as Federal Republic of Yugoslavia since the EBU database use full name of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The flag issue is just a proof of the contradictory logic of that EBU (not official database). -- Imbris (talk) 01:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I know that it probably isn't the most politically correct solution, but the ESC is not a political contest. Although FRY had the same land mass as Serbia and Montenegro, the 1992 entry was entered under the name "Yugoslavia". We can debate this forever but we'll get nowhere. As Greekboy said, we need an outside third opinion. This needs to end. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 22:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * CommentPolitical correctness has nothing to do with the merge to Serbia and Montenegro in the Eurovision Song Contest. That participant "competed" for "Yugoslavia" but under the flag of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Therefore it cannot continue the list of appearances of Yugoslavia under the flag of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The EBU maintains a database which was created by some IT specialist. That specialist organized the database as he pleased. I do not see that we should use this database as if it were an official document of EBU. Also you have to be aware that EBU considers the information presented "as is" (in the legal disclaimer). I do not have to find any written sources because they are already very well known and are written here on Wikipedia. As well the fact that before the article about FRY was created the participation of FRY has been writen under Serbia and Montenegro in the ESC (here on this Wiki). I do not support the idea that this has to end. I belive that no matter what Greekboy think this article can never go under the Yugoslavia in the ESC article. As an example of how Wikipedia works here is a simmilar case. Russian Empire under the name of Russia is separated in the "official" Olympics database from the Russian Federation. But this wikipedia combined the two and in the same time did not combine East and West Germany. -- Imbris (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That EBU database has an error and Greekboy wants the entire World and this encyclopaedia to follow suit. He has an unclear vision of how encyclopaedias are created. They are created on the basis of reliable sources and other information in other related reliable sources. That EBU database marks the appearance under the SFRY flag which is uncorrect because that participant "competed" under the flag of FRY which is exactly the same as the flag of Serbia and Montenegro. Can anyone of you even remember that appearance or find more reliable data? If you can't please stop with this proposal. -- Imbris (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We have the People's Republic of China and (officialy) the Republic of China (in fact Taiwan) but when we say China we mean the PRC and not ROC. Also when a two or even several women, men, chilidren have the same name (even the same date of birth) we know that it is the case of two or even several different people. Why do you insist on claiming that the EBU database (probably made by a meere IT specialist) is correct. Do you know that "Yugoslavia" in the ESC 1992 appeared under the flag of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) and not under the flag of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. I think that your opinion did not help us because you haven't noticed that in the EBU database this appearance of "Yugoslavia" has been listed under the flag of SFRY and it did NOT appear under that flag but under the flag of FR Yugoslavia. -- Imbris (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Also I would like to mention the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Republic of Congo. They are two different states. The list could go on and on. -- Imbris (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * For this article, there needs to be a compromise. The thoughts on this article are numerous, all subjective to the user. In my opinion, FR Yugoslavia does not warrant it's own article. It was represented under the name "Yugoslavia", not "the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia". For that reason there should be one article, a single article explaning all Yugoslavia's at Eurovision, something on the lines of Yugoslavia at the Olympics for example. If the fact that the flag of FR Yugoslavia is bothering Imbris that much, we can add in two infoboxes to the article, one with the flag of SFRY and one with the flag of FRY. If we can agree on a compromise, then this thing can end once and for all. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We can never compromise on the fact that even the Olympic articles are not clear on the issue, even there is a Yugoslavia at the Olympics there is also a Serbia and Montenegro at the Olympics which is more important. Why is it more important? Because that article about SCG at the Olympics presents the entire information and the Yugoslavia at the Olympics is a meere list (which would shrink to a meere redirect page). The sources for the merge to Yugoslavia in the ESC are contradictory to it self and your proposal to delete this article is not good because the most neutral thing to do would be to leave Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest as it is today. -- Imbris (talk) 22:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Much as I can see the logic of considering Yugoslavia in '92 as the same as Serbia & Montenegro, it's clear how the EBU regards it, and we're in no position to argue with their interpretation (WP:OR). I support the merge with Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest.  Chwe ch  19:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Where did you read that it is the official EBU position on the topic. And where have you read that whatever is written on the Internet must be on this encyclopaedia. In the interest of facts can you tell this group of users how the situation has been solved in the case of Yugoslavia at FIFA and UEFA tournaments? Even if FIFA and UEFA support the claim of Serbia over the entire Yugoslavian football history this has not been used on this Wikipedia because encyclopaedias want reliable and neutral sources. -- Imbris (talk) 00:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We are talking about Eurovision only, other sources about sports and the olympics have no weight in this discussion. And how can you dispute that it is not the official position? Do you have a source that states otherwise in terms of Eurovision? Grk1011 (talk) 01:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We are talking about the Wikipedia as encyclopaedia and not just about the Eurosong. We must respect what has been written in the articles that list appearances of Yugoslavia. There were no 27 appearances but 26 and that one appearance should be mentioned as only as a wikilink in that article (Yugoslavia in the ESC). Just as a curiosity. We must not fabricize on behalf of one contradictory EBU (not official) source. And the burden of proof is not on me but on you also. You are the one demanding the merge with the Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest even if you agreed to a merge with Serbia and Montenegro in the Eurovision Song Contest. I know that user Zvonko is for the latter merge, but he is not currently on-board (editing). Also that EBU site is not even its official site - it is the site only dedicated to Eurovision Song Contest.
 * We as authors of Wikipedia should look what is happening in other areas. Yugoslavia at the Olympics and Serbia and Montenegro at the Olympics (even if they are currently edited) show how this issue should be portrayed, but not limited to the Olympics we should look at the FIFA and UEFA sites where complete fabrications are written but they are not used on this Wikipedia. Ask Chwech.
 * Imbris (talk) 01:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Listen, this is my last reply on this topic. I don't care if you think the EBU's Eurovision site is "not official" because I know that it is and that it is a very reliable source. You cannot fabricate you argument by using other topics as examples. We are only talking in terms of Eurovision. If we go with what you say, then the article will be factually incorrect in terms of Eurovision as the EBU considers it to be the same Yugoslavia. Grk1011 (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In fairness, I can see where Imbris is coming from: one source isn't ideal by any means, and the fact that it's the flag without the red star that's used in the contest itself lends some credibility to his argument. But the official site is a very credible source (and it is most certainly official, I don't see how one can argue with that), and we can't simply dismiss it because it goes against the views of FIFA or UEFA. Out of curiosity, does anyone involved here own a copy of The Eurovision Song Contest: The Official History? As a mass-published material that would have more legitimacy even than the EBU's site: it would very unlikely to be wrong.  Chwe ch  01:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A featured list List of countries in the Eurovision Song Contest that has received that rank because it has been scrutinized by numerous editors shows the sittuation where Yugoslavia in the ESC 1992 is joined with Serbia and Montenegro appearances. Also that list is among very few Eurovision Song Contest articles to receive such high rankings on this Wikipedia.
 * Also the question of primary versus secondary sources arise. That book is a secondary information source. In the best case that book would contain sources for what is written in it. Those sources could be considered primary sources (but just for that book only). Then you and the advocates of the merge should look up those sources (listed in the book, if there are any) and found those sources and look if they are the primary sources. Or if they are not the primary source continue the process to find the primary source. Secondary sources and opinions of some authors are beside the point of even being considered. This is an encyclopaedia and not a newspaper. It should contain reliable sources which are verified with another source or the almighty primary source. So you are mistaken if you belive that a book can help us if it contain the same contradictory information.
 * Imbris (talk) 22:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

??? That featured list has Yugoslavia with 27 entries which goes against what you are saying. What the book says would be enough, we wouldnt need to track down his sources, maybe you should read some wiki policies. Grk1011 (talk) 22:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, per WP:PRIMARY: "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." I should also point out that I rewrote that list and nominated it for FL; I changed the Yugoslavia info based on the consensus that was forming here: if consensus is determined against the merge I will change it back.  Chwe ch  22:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No you will not change it back becuause I will change it this minute. Your changing of the featured list article to serve your and Grk1011 purposes is proposterous. There is no concensus on the issue and yes the other Wikipedia articles should be considered as well as the other sources. Some of that sources I have presented to Grk1011 but he has not even looked at those. Chwech's change of the featured list article is contraproductive and violates Wikipedia's policies. -- Imbris (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm violating policy by correcting something which I myself added to the article in the first place, based on a source which I will freely admit was not as reliable as the EBU one? Please. And you said here that only the editors that got the FL should change it: I've already said that it was me that successfully nominated it in February. I'm unwatchlisting this; it's gone around in circles too many times for me to be bothered with it any more.  Chwe ch  22:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Third opinions

 * The only reliable sources discussed in relation to the topic make it clear that the entry was accepted for Yugoslavia and participated under the name. This isn't the place to argue about whether Eurovision was correct in their actions and attribution. We should also avoid arranging facts to make arguments not made by the available sources. This article should clearly be merged. Vassyana (talk) 22:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with merger. On the Olympics side (where Imbris has claimed there is a consensus), we have a single Yugoslavia at the Olympics article, which clearly distinguishes between the different teams that have been called "Yugoslavia" (YUG) at the Games.  The same approach should be taken here—add text to the Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest that indicates that the name "Yugoslavia" has been used by the EBU to refer to multiple different nation-states.  That article should probably have two infoboxes, one with the SFR flag and one with the FR flag.  I can see how it would be offensive for the article to have only the SFR flag shown, but both SFR and FR entries are discussed. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Mediation
Please see Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-08-24 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest - there is a straw poll, and you are invited to comment.

I am not following normal procedure, but I believe that declaring the mediation and my position at the start is the best way to deal with this case.

Users listed as involved should either comment or abstain, anyone else can comment if they wish. Den dodge | Talk Contribs 15:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You are correct when stated that normal procedure had not been followed. Why we had no oportunity to seek aRequests for comment. Also if this is an informal mediation then why there is a need for a straw poll. This looks to me like a case in which editors who support the merge support it for the reason of bonding with each other, in particular to the position of Greekboy. Grk1011 firstly folowed the Greekboy in support of the merge, then changed his position to a merge with a more natural article - Serbia and Montenegro in the Eurovision Song Contest. I do not see that the merry bunch of Greekboy's peers would ever change their opinion to a merge with Serbia and Montenegro.
 * Also I would like to point out that those same users got the List of participation in the ESC to a FL rank while still under a concensus that Yugoslavia in ESC 1992 was in fact Serbia and Montenegro.
 * I created this article FRY in ESC 1992 as a way to reconcile two different positions, then Grk1011 and Sims2aholic8 started a campaing against the article as not deserving the right to be on Wikipedia. Then an editor called Zvonko came and demanded a merge to Serbia and Montenegro at ESC. Yugoslavia had not appeared 27 times but 26 times as SFRY and 1 time as the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), then in 1992. an unrecognized country which joined the United Nations in late 2000.
 * Imbris (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I find you using my name like that and talking about me uncivil. Second, I and others have stated the position very clearly.  They appeared under the name Yugoslavia.  You can see this in their performance too.  Their political situation/land mass at that time had nothing to do with the appearance name.  It is like FYR Macedonia.  Although their constitutional name is Republic of Macedonia, they appear in the contest under the name FYR Macdeonia (as the EBU sees them), and the articles about their participation are named like that too.  Yes, FYR Macedonia is a whole other issue, but it follows the correct naming conventions as this article should too.  Merging it with Serbia and Montenegro in the Eurovision Song Contest would not only go against naming conventions and use original research, but would also go against a NPOV as it would be supporting a name that they never participated under for that year.  Merging it to with Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest while explaining the situation amply and providing a second infobox would be much more of a NPOV.  Anyway, this has been discussed to death.  I have requested editorial help for this matter, so I am done with going back and forth with the same arguments. Greekboy (talk) 02:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * User's aren't leaving rationales - I won't close the poll until every !vote has one - Den dodge | Talk Contribs 08:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't know we needed rationales, I thought people were voting on whether they supported my view of the merger how i had described it. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Outcome
The outcome of the discussion was to merge the page into "Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest" with a dedicated section about the FR and both flags in the infobox. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)