Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-08-24 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest


 * Note: Please limit posts to this page to brief statements about the nature of the dispute until a volunteer adopts the case. Keep ongoing discussions about the topic to the appropriate talk page(s), but feel free to provide links to the talk page(s) where discussion has happened (and may be ongoing) for the convenience of the informal mediator and other parties. This will help keep discussion from fragmenting out across more pages and make it easier for a volunteer to review the case. Thanks!

Who are the involved parties?
for merge against
 * 2 outside opinions
 * 2 outside opinions
 * 2 outside opinions
 * 2 outside opinions
 * 2 outside opinions
 * 2 outside opinions

What's going on?
Sims2 noticed that there was an FR Yugoslavia page and some members of the WikiProject Eurovision posted in support of merging it with the regular Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest page because the European Broadcasting Union which runs the event considers the 1992 FR Yugoslavian entry to be the same as all past SFYR Yugoslavian entries even though it is a different country. We have all provided sources by the EBU, but Imbris feels that the official Eurovision website is incorrect [www.eurovision.tv the site]. He feels that it is not reliable because "an IT person" just wrote it and it is not the official position. He then proceeded to list other irrelevant examples like the olympics and soccer games where the 1992 entry was different. We are trying to explain to him that we must follow what the EBU says because it would be wrong since that is not what happened in Eurovision. He did have some good points like the flag on the page would be wrong, but a quote from the article stated Despite FR Yugoslavia consisting of Serbia and Montenegro only, at the time of the contest the entry was performed for SFR Yugoslavia.

Near the end, he started accusing Grk1011 and Greekboy of being sockpuppets for having similar interests and then threw Chwech in because the three of us are Greek. Whenever someone would reply to the discussion, he would lecture them on their talk pages about why his point of view is right, hoping they change their position.

What would you like to change about that?
I believe that the merging party has consensus and the article should be merged, but Imbris will not give up. Besides the two outside opinions we got in favor of the merge, no one else has helped and we all can't keep arguing the same point day after day. I feel like the discussion should be closed with whichever outcome the closing admin sees the consensus for.

Mediator notes
I've taken on the case - I'll write notes for myself and involved parties here, and help to bring this to a peaceful resolution on the article talk page Den dodge | Talk Contribs 15:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems obvious that a merge has consensus - but I'm going to conduct a short straw poll in the section below to make sure I'm not being misled (I've seen it happen, and IO don't want to let WP:AGF get in my way - WP:IAR lets me) Den dodge | Talk Contribs 15:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Posted on the talk page Den dodge | Talk Contribs 15:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Only two users have left rationales - I'll ask for them on the talk page, as I have to gather consensus, not find a majority Den dodge | Talk Contribs 08:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Straw poll closed - I'll now read all the rationales Den dodge | Talk Contribs 17:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I will now make a proposal in the discussion section. This will not be !voted upon, but amended by the community.  I will gather a better idea of consensus from that, and progress from there Den dodge | Talk Contribs 17:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A definite consensus has been reached - I'll tie up a few loose ends and then this can be closed. Den dodge | Talk Contribs 17:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Straw Poll

 * Please remember WP:!VOTE and WP:CONSENSUS.
 * Please give a rationale for your !vote.
 * Closed.
 * Anyone can comment - I will abstain as a neutral third party.

Support merge

 * 1) Greekboy summed up the argument pretty well (aka I agree), so I'd just like to add that the opposer tends to bring material into the discussion that is irrelevant. He refers to the naming of FR Yugoslavia at the olympics, at soccer matches, etc. No one denies that it was a different country, but this article must be written in terms of Eurovision. Say we keep this page and someone is like oh FR Yugoslavia participated, let me find some more info. They look at the provided sources for Eurovision and find nothing about it; only the regular Yugoslavia name. If it was merged into Serbia and Montenegro, then all sources about their debut would be off by 12 years. The only outcome can be a merger into Yugoslavia since that is what they were known as. The political situation and land area didn't really play a role in Eurovision and the opposer has to accept that and stop bringing in other sources and using original research to justify their usage. Grk1011 (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) They appeared under the name Yugoslavia in the contest.  Not only is this confirmed on the official contest website run by the EBU, but it is also confirmed in their actual participation. (If you watch their video, they are under the name Yugoslavia)  The political situation at the time may have been different, but the broadcaster JRT chose to participate in 1992, still under the name Yugoslavia. There are various secondary sources scattered around the web saying that it was Yugoslavia's last entry under that name or similar, showing that the contest (and the EBU) saw it under the same name although the political situation was different, but the opposing user finds them irrelevant, a mistake, or biased. (there is one from reputable Esctoday.com, which is considered a good source as it also has an editorial boards, on the talk page following up on the singer, while there is one from the BBC too).  I believe it should be merged with Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest as it participated under that name.  Even though they used a different flag, it could be described amply in the article. The naming issue is sort of 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. The opposing user wants to merge this article with Serbia and Montenegro in the Eurovision song Contest since that was their land mass at the time. (and actually artists from Bosnia and Hercegovina were in the national selection)  Merging it with Serbia and Montenegro in the Eurovision Song Contest would not only go against naming conventions and use original research on this subject, 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. Hope I didn't forget anything from the talk page. Greekboy (talk) 16:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) The 1992 Yugoslavia entry was preformed as "Yugoslavia". It may have the same land mass as Serbia and Montenegro, but the entry itself was for FR Yugoslavia, not SCG. It seems a more simple option to have one article instead of two. We can easlity write about the 1992 entry on the page, and it's special circumstance. Two articles really does not give a NPOV. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Not much more to elaborate on, but I think it's clear from the official reference that "Yugoslavia" entered the 1992 contest. It might not have had the same area, but the EBU didn't think it necessary to use a different name, and neither should we. Obviously the differences between the two Yugoslavias should be clarified in the article, through using two infoboxes, flags etc. as appropriate. As I said, the rationale have been well covered by others already.  Chwe ch  17:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) The arguments by those giving third opinions are particularly persuasive. Only one article is really needed for the use of the entry name "Yugoslavia" - merging would not exactly cause any length issues. Two info-boxes with the appropriate flag in each for both the SFR and FR will work well, and as far as I can see the article can be presented with a NPOV in that way. Also, although the Olympics is seperate, Yugoslavia at the Olympics article format seems to be working well. Camaron | Chris (talk) 17:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose merge

 * 1) Imbris (talk) -- I thought that we are not supposed to vote but only comment on the voting of other uninvolved users. Nevertheless of what seems to be a concensus regarding the merge there are differences between those in favour. Some of them actually support a merge to Serbia and Montenegro in the Eurovision Song Contest as a more neutral thing to do. Also the featured list articles such as the List of countries in the Eurovision Song Contest received their FL rank while containing the NPOV information by which Yugoslavia appeared 26 times in total. I think that this matter should be looked at more closely, in particular the fact that during discussion about Yugoslavia at the Olympics (a non FL article) and List of participating nations at the Summer Olympic Games (a FL article) it was constructively decided that there should not be a Yugoslavia in 1996 S listed under SFRY, but it should be listed as Serbia and Montenegro. I also deeply belive that Grk1011 is highly biased towards the issue because he insist on the non validated and only one source that claims such nonsense that it was Yugoslavia in 1992 ESC. It was not Yugoslavia but the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) or if they insist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) appearing under the shortened name Yugoslavia in the ESC 1992.
 * I thought that the purpose of mediation is not a voting scheme through which any number of users can vote over the sources that we have. -- Imbris (talk) 22:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No - I did ask for rationales and I will use the quality of the rationale to determine consensus, before coming to a reasonable decision (other steps will probably also be involved) Den dodge | Talk Contribs 08:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1) As mediator <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:#999FFF">Den <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:Gainsboro">dodge | Talk Contribs 15:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposals
I propose a merge into the main Yugoslavia at Eurovision article, with a dedicated section about the FR (and a separate infobox, if details are different).

''Add amended versions of this proposal below, or your own separate proposal, to help measure consensus. Please feel free to comment on proposals, explaining flaws or reasons for agreement.''
 * The problem with two infoboxes is that it would be the same thing as having two pages. One infobox cannot say SFRY and the other FRY because only Yugoslavia was in the competition. The two boxes would also have one country with 26 entries the other with one which goes against the sources claiming that Yugoslavia participated 27 time with their last being in 1992. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there any way we can have both flags of SFRY and FRY in the box? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless the 2 boxes had the same name (Yugoslavia) and same stats, but just with different flags? Greekboy (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I just tried it, and it seems to work fine. Greekboy (talk) 20:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)\
 * Hm, maybe. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I mean 2 infoboxes, same info in both, but just a different flag in the second one. And the second one can be on the 1992 section of the article explaining that although the political situation was different then, JRT participated under the name "Yugoslavia" for the last time, but with a different flag.  And that the EBU sees the 1992 participation as Yugoslavia, ect. Greekboy (talk) 20:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd rather one infobox with two flags, under the first one say "1961-1991", under the second say "1992", but the infobox does not allow for this. I think it is the best solution, but the infobox would need to be tweaked. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would too. I don't really see the point of having two infoboxes that have the same info in them, but just different flags. One infobox with both flags would make more sense. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 20:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems sensible, alright - two infoboxes with the same info seems unnecessary. It's getting the two flags into one infobox that'll be tricky bit.  Chwe ch  20:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds right. Does anyone know how to custom edit it? Greekboy (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

(←)The box was converted to an easier format last week on my request to make the fields optional so you wouldn't have to put "none" or "N/A" in, I'll ask the user who helped me to see if can help out again, but I want to wait for Imbris's opinion cause I don't want to waste anyone's time. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The very (one) source you all keep refering to, claims that it was appearances by the SFRY. Those appearances have been 26. FRY appeared 1 time only for Serbia and Montenegro. FIFA, UEFA and even IOC (to a lesser) degree have been biased towards the Yugoslavia issue and this encyclopaedia never caved in to those sources when they claimed nonsense like that "official" ESC web-site (it is not official EBU position). I see that the mediation will not look the entire "picture" and the entire discussion led on the Administrators'noticeboard (where Grk1011 agreed to a concesus on merging to Serbia and Montenegro at ESC), nor will look at the users talk page of Grk1011 and me for evidence on the reliability of that one source.
 * Never, would I agree with a listing of 27 appearances of Yugoslavia because that is POV done by
 * All that talk about two infoboxes shows that the merge to YUG at ESC would be contraproductive and POV.
 * This is an encyclopaedia and not a reference manual on Eurosong, not a newspaper.
 * Imbris (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You need to stop bringing other unrelated events into the mix and telling us what they did. You don't get that the political situation of Yugoslavia has nothing to do with the contest. Svante Stockselius, executive supervisor of the contest stated that it is a "non-political event" . Also, every source has a POV, just the wiki page needs to use that source with a NPOV. You claim that "FIFA, UEFA and even IOC" have not "caved in", once again those are unrelated examples. The FR Yugoslavia actually entered in those competitions as such; not in Eurovision where they entered as the 27th entry for Yugoslavia. You can't deny that because you have failed to provide any Eurovision source that says that they debuted in 1992 as anything other than simply another Yugoslavian entry, only a soccer match which you feel is a blanket source for anything that occurred in 1992. You fear that the encyclopedia needs to tell the truth, and we are wrecking it by proposing this. We are only writing the story of the contest, not a timeline of Yugoslav history. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I the one-infobox-two-flags idea has consensus, I can tweak the infobox <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:#999FFF">Den <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:Gainsboro">dodge | Talk Contribs 09:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I propose a merge into the main Yugoslavia at Eurovision article, with a dedicated section about the FR and both flags in the infobox. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:#999FFF">Den <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:Gainsboro">dodge | Talk Contribs 09:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 12:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me also. Camaron | Chris (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And me. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Greekboy (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Pile-on support from me also.  Chwe ch  16:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Consensus
It seems to me that the following proposal has gathered consensus: I propose a merge into the main Yugoslavia at Eurovision article, with a dedicated section about the FR and both flags in the infobox. The infobox will need tweaking. I'll do that now, and then let you guys implement the change on the main article. Consensus cannot be broken until changed on the article talk page. I'll leave a note when I've finished with the infobox, and then close this case. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:#999FFF">Den <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:Gainsboro">dodge | Talk Contribs 17:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK - |Flag2 and |Name2 have been added to the infobox. My job here is done - I'll leave the rest to you guys. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:#999FFF">Den <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:Gainsboro">dodge | Talk Contribs 17:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Flag 2 seems to be mandatory, see Greece_in_the_Eurovision_Song_Contest. Can you fix that? And it would also need the capability to add a description (ie 1961-1991).Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out! I've made the field otional (I had simply omitted a pipe) and am working on the description. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:#999FFF">Den <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:Gainsboro">dodge | Talk Contribs 18:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ - just use |Caption and |Caption2. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:#999FFF">Den <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:Gainsboro">dodge | Talk Contribs 18:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)