Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2024: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 08:15, 21 May 2024 editYoyo360 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users542 editsNo edit summaryTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 21:22, 3 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,308,054 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2024/Archive 5) (bot
(301 intermediate revisions by 43 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{talkpage}}		{{talkpage}}
	{{Contentious topics/talk notice\|topic=a-i}}		{{Contentious topics/talk notice\|topic=a-i}}
			{{Controversial}}
	{{ITN talk\|14 May\|2024\|oldid=1223728433}}		{{ITN talk\|14 May\|2024\|oldid=1223728433}}
	{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=B\|1=		{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=B\|1=
Line 7:		Line 8:
	{{WikiProject Television\|importance=Mid}}		{{WikiProject Television\|importance=Mid}}
	}}		}}
			{{Annual readership\|scale=log}}
	{{Top 25 Report\|May 5 2024}}
			{{Top 25 Report\|May 5 2024\|May 12 2024}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|archiveheader = {{aan}}		\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 100K		\|maxarchivesize = 100K
	\|counter = 3		\|counter = 5
	\|minthreadsleft = 0		\|minthreadsleft = 5
	\|algo = old(7d)		\|algo = old(30d)
	\|archive =Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2024/Archive %(counter)d		\|archive =Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2024/Archive %(counter)d
	}}		}}

			== Request for comments: votes received and how by Israel ==
	== Do we need "the inclusion of Israel" paragraph on the top page? ==
			{{closed rfc top\|1=Consensus agreed to include coverage of campaigning for votes for Israel within the Controversies section. ] (]) 13:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)}}
			Should the "Controversies and incidents" section contain a section on Israel votes and media reports in connection to this which relate to more individuals than expected or individuals which would not usually have voted. ] (]) 16:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

			Please note that as a prominent controversy is related to the Israel-Hamas war, it is subject to ]. Accordingly, '''accounts with fewer than 500 edits and 30 days' tenure may not participate'''. Any comment violating ARBECR may be removed by any editor, and '''edit warring will not be tolerated'''. Please keep the discussion respectful: comment on the matter in question, not on other editors. Thank you.
	Controversies have their own topic in this article. I don't understand why Israel's participation has to get special mention on the top page. Usually the top page only includes dates, location, and the withdrawing and returning countries. "The inclusion of Israel" should be removed. It is right after Romania's decision to opt-out. What does Romania opting out have to do with "the inclusion of Israel"? ] (]) 03:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
			] (]) 17:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
			:'''Include''' per the already above section ] (]) 16:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
			:'''Include''' as it definitely impacted the results. ] (]) 18:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
			::Can you prove that with reliable neutral verifiable sources? If not it can't be implied through wikivoice. ] (]) 18:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
			:::Didn't mean to prove it or to have that exact wording in the article, but when there ''are'' neutral verifiable sources that many non-Eurovision fans voted, and the fact that every vote counts, it is extremely likely that that was the case. Again, not necessarily saying that should be in the article though ] (]) 18:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
			::::How do you or the publications for that matter know they are "non-Eurovision fans"? Additionally wikivoice cannot go on speculation re: "it is extremely likely that that was the case". It feels like ] is being employed and potentially so ] activities. It also feels like ] to come to the conclusions that they have. ] (]) 19:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
			:::::The sources are reliable and citing officials from the israeli government. All confirm without a doubt that a campaign for votes happened. This is not subjective. This is factual. The matter at hand here is to decide whether to mention this campaign in the article and a former discussion has already been made. ] (]) 19:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
			::::::There is no way to know "All confirm without a doubt that a campaign for votes happened. This is not subjective. This is factual" That all falls under ] as it has drawn a conclusion from them which is not necessarily one supported widely. It draws the reader to conclude the votes for Israel are some how tainted or that rules were broken. Which a non-neutral POV.
			::::::Nowhere is it stated any actual rules were broken, or that mass voting by bots happened or similar. It just seems people in other countries got messages about the Israel entry and decided to exercise a vote this year. It doesn't feel like anything more here, the claims additionally feel extremely ]. ] (]) 19:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::Once again, the matter at hand is whether or not israel had a voting campaign. And the answer is undoubtedly yes, the several sources provided in the former section confirm it, citing a government official. The impact on the voting is not the topic of our discussion. ] (]) 19:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::The issue I have is a misuse of wikivoice and the non neutral implications of the section. ] (]) 22:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::Once again, as long as we use the sources provided in the former section, the inclusion won't cause a problem as we will just be relaying a fact: Israel campaigned for votes. It is factual. The fact that you see non neutral implications behind this type of sentence is problematic because there is not. And if you think that there's an indirect implication that israel got their points from this campaign, read the sources and ponder one minute... because isn't that what our sources exactly imply already? Including the israeli source ynet. ] (]) 05:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::If all of the RS support there being a campaign to mobilise votes for Israel for political reasons then I don't see how it's an issue to state it in Wikivoice. ] (]) 13:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::] Not some nefarious political campaign at the heart of why Israel polled well. Only having Israel is the big bad wolf style article belies the more benign and boring reasons set out in the article above. Also remember how in 2016 Eurovision changed to its current format of voting because it was all neighbours voting for each other. This is a storm in a teacup to claim that people voting en mass and multiple times is new. it also belies that mundane reasons exist as well as the nice sexy claims of the big bad Israel trying to rig the contest.
			:::::::::: ] (]) 14:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::That RS doesn't say there was no campaign, it explains how low support in numbers for a contestant can still result in a unusually good result for them. If anything the source explains how the voting system and the nature of public votes could enable a campaign.{{pb}}{{tq\|1=Second, we have to take into consideration 'motivated reasoning'. "We see this in politics when it comes to turnout in elections and turnout in referendums", explains Cunningham. "When we see turnout in referendums become very low we notice that the results become quite skewed. If turnout in a referendum gets lower than 35% the people who are more motivated, more interested, tend to influence the outcome a little bit more".}}<br> ] (]) 14:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::No source is going to say “there was no campaign” that is like asking for proof of a negative. What it shows is not all RS are singing the same hymn on Israel and there are plenty of other valid reasons for the televote results beyond the claims of what are essentially Israel rigged it. I think there is a potential blinding to stuff outside of the Israel contentiousness when boring and benign reasons also exist. ] (]) 14:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::If it is to be included the boring and benign reasons need the same weight on the section as the juicy and sensational claims. ] (]) 14:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::Thing is, once again, these are not claims. They're facts. '''Several sources''', including some coming directly from Israel, cite an '''Israeli government official and diplomat''' who stated the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs campaigned. Some go as far as detailing they shot videos in at least ten languages demanding people to vote and the whole thing getting 14+ million views. Facts. Not claims. ] (]) 14:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::Claims of “these are facts” are unhelpful as you don’t know that, no one here does. All anyone knows is what is reported so a better statement is “as reported in ” not “these are facts” the latter implies infallibility of the sources. Additionally alternate reasons in an RS has been presented. Wikivoice cannot only give one side, as it currently seems to claim Israel votes were nefarious as opposed to the boring and benign reasons which are also a possibility for the televote results. ] (]) 14:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
			::{{outdent\|13}} No one can know 100% and there are no infallible sources, but we still write statements of fact in Wikivoice. We don't keep repeating "According to Charles Darwin, humans evolved from apes" any time we talk about evolution, even if plenty of people pushing ] theories think it will be disproven any day now.{{pb}}If there's RS reporting that there was a government-sanctioned campaign that didn't actually exist then there would be plenty of reason for other RS to report on how that isn't true or it was uncertain/unclear. If there was a significant disagreement on whether there was or wasn't a government-sanctioned campaign then we should be more careful about using wikivoice. In the absence of any reliable or significant claim that a campaign didn't exist I don't see why we can't state it in wikivoice. ] (]) 18:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
			:::I do not think that the Irish source from a professor is a fringe theory. ] (]) 19:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
			::::Thing is we are talking about a campaign for votes. Which according to numerous sources, definitely happened. Which is worth inclusion. We are not talking about how israel got their results, which would very much indeed necessitate all possibilities to be accounted for. We are talking specifically about whether or not to mention the campaign. Which, once again, did happen according to several sources. No matter its influence, the existence of this campaign has been established. So your Irish Independent reference is irrelevant in this specific context. ] (]) 16:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
			:'''Include''' per others and the already-had discussions ] }</b>]] 20:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
			:'''Include''', obviously. We've already been over this. This is not a proper RfC. See ], in particular ]. RfCs are for getting broader community input to help resolve matters for which no consensus can be determined after extensive "local" discussion. But there is no failure to come to a consensus here. "One editor doesn't like the result" is not a consensus failure, and RfCs are not for ] in hopes of getting an answer one might like better. <small>(Aside: RfCs are also for seeking broad community input, from the start, on a proposal that has site-wide implications, like changing a policy or introducing a new guideline. But that is of course not applicable to a minor discussion like this.)</small> <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 23:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
			:'''include''', as I have mentioned in older discussion. A confirmed vote campaign with government involvement taking place in a song contest with huge and international cultural impact is an incidence of major importance, and something uncommon for the ESC. Inclusion can be warranted, in my opinion. ] (]) 16:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
			{{hat\|] –] <small>(])</small> 20:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)}}
			:'''Do not include''' since his is not new nor unheard of. Participating countries frequently advertise their contest entries, and the reason why it's done more heavily this year has far more to do with the voting window opening early than anything else. Either way, it's not provable without a reasonable doubt, and has no precedent, so should not be included. ] (]) 05:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
			{{hab}}
			:'''Include'''. The issue is not that participating countries advertise their contest entries. That's a no-brainer. The issue is that a government is involved with and admitted that there is a campaign by Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs to vote for them. '''''''
			{{hat\|] –] <small>(])</small> 20:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)}}
			::As provided under the '''"ESC Title and Values"''' section of the , specifically under the '''"Non-Political Event"''' subsection, " Participating Broadcasters shall be responsible...to make sure that the ESC shall in no case be ''politicized'' and/or instrumentalized and/or otherwise brought into disrepute in any way." As what @] have already mentioned, we are specifically talking about whether or not to mention the campaign, which have already been established (sources , , and ). "No matter its influence, the existence of this campaign has been established." ] (]) 07:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
			:::To be honest, I think that the amount of promotion for this entry was, indeed, something new and unheard of. At some point, you couldn't watch a Youtube video without an ad popping up. ] (]) 11:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
			{{hab}}
			:'''Include''' per the previous discussion. Also, as SMcCandlish mentioned, I'm still confused about the need to open a RfC when consensus was already pretty clear. ] (] · ]) 23:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
			:'''Include:''' The exact wording to be added hasn't been fully discussed, but it is clear that there is support for including in the earlier discussion. --] (]) 05:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
			{{hat\|] –] <small>(])</small> 20:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)}}
			:'''Include:''' As others have mentioned there is support for including this ] (]) 12:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
			{{hab}}
			{{closed rfc bottom}}

			== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 August 2024 ==
	:@] In normal circumstances such a line would not be included, however Israel's participation this year has generated heaps of media coverage and controversy that it would be unfeasible to leave it out from lead entirely. Other experienced editors may be able to provide further reasoning for this though. ] (]) 07:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
			{{Edit extended-protected\|Eurovision Song Contest 2024\|answered=yes}}
	::Yes. I would like more reasoning. I understand that Israel's participation has created controversy. But I cannot find other articles where the controversy is mentioned in the top page. So yes, I would like to read more reasoning. Why other controversies are not on the top page on other years? ] (]) 04:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
			Add the following paragraph to the end of the "Disqualification of the Netherlands from the final" section, they explain challenges from Serbia, Slovenia, Portugal, Croatia, France, Norway, Spain, as well as a subsequent criminal investigation that was dismissed today.
	:::Yeah take it out it’s undue weight and npov ] (]) 18:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
	::::Not really, all every media outlet has been writing about is Israel's inclusion — ] ] 19:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::::It is not needed as this is not a news site. Media ink spilt does not mean Wikipeida follows suit. ] (]) 01:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
	::::::We cover what reliable sources cover. On a related note, ] until there is a consensus to remove? --] (]) 10:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::I thought Misplaced Pages was an encyclopedia and not a news outlet to "cover" something. Also in 2021 Belarus was originally intended to participate but was later removed, same with Russia in 2022. Those were facts, maybe controversial but factual when talking about participants' list (it was meant to participate, but not anymore). "The inclusion of Israel" on the top page seems to be something motivated by news outlet. On a furthernote, and who are you to tell me to 'revert myself'? You are basically responding to me and telling me I should not respond back? Is that correct? Why are you personally attacking me? ] (]) 12:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::{{reply\|Tonyb1989}} Just to make it clearer Tony, you are replying to my reply to someone else so I will do my best to respond.
	::::::::You asked where the lede mentions controversies since you asked for an example: {{tpq\|q=y\|Yes. I would like more reasoning. But I cannot find other articles where the controversy is mentioned in the top page. Why other controversies are not on the top page on other years?}} So, I gave you examples where the lede mentioned a controversy which follows our ] policy. So 2022, 2021, 2019, 2017, 2016, 2012, and 2009 are all recent examples. In my opinion, there isn't a difference between the older articles and this article.
	::::::::To give an example, here is a specific comparison with the ledes of the 1979 article and the 2019 article to the 2024 article: "Nineteen countries participated in the contest with Turkey deciding not to participate after Arab countries had pressured it into not participating in a contest held in Israel" versus "The lead-up to the contest was met with controversy on multiple fronts, primarily on issues surrounding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict – this eventually led to demonstrations by interval act performer Madonna and Icelandic entrants Hatari during the broadcast of the final" versus "The inclusion of Israel among the participants in the context of the Israel–Hamas war was met with controversy, and additional security measures were put in place for the event." As you can see, the inclusion of Israel has generated some controversy at times, which is why ] covers Israel the most, followed by Russian and Ukraine. All of these are factual. If your issue is just the wording about "The inclusion of Israel", then it wasn't made clear until now.
	::::::::{{tpq\|y=q\|On a furthernote, and who are you to tell me to 'revert myself'? You are basically responding to me and telling me I should not respond back? Is that correct? Why are you personally attacking me?}} Nope, that was not directed to you, but was instead directed to another user who edited the main article, but who didn't get a ]. At the moment from my perspective, only two users support removal and <s>two</s> ''three'' users support keeping. <s>(Not counting myself at the moment as I am not fully sure given other discussions below.)</s> Thus, I was asking them to ] until they did get a consensus. Since they didn't, likely because my request might not have been visible enough, I have just restored the text myself. --] (]) 23:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::Amended after reviewing the matter. --] (]) 08:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::{{reply\|Tonyb1989}} They are mentioned. Starting with ], where the lede covers Russia's exclusion. In the ], Belarus' disqualification for missing the deadline is covered. With the ], there are at least three mentions in the lede: Ukraine's withdrawal and the last paragraph covering issues in both the lead-up and the final. The ] covers Russia's withdraw after their intended singer was barred from competing. The ] mentions Romania's disqualification due to unpaid debts. The ] covers both human right issues in Azerbaijan and issues involving Iran. The ] mentions the withdrawal of Georgia due to the song selected being disqualified.
	:::To wrap this up so that I don't have to check every article, the earliest issue I could find covered by the lede (]) was the boycott by four countries of the ] --] (]) 10:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
	::::First. I am not allow to do any edits so, I still don't understand why you keep on telling me to "revert myself" and "stop making edits". Secondly, all of the examples you gave were of countries that ended up not participating. This is the first time a controversy surrounding a participating country is mentioned in the top page. For example, the ] makes no mention of "the inclusion of Russia" on its top page. The participation of Russia was controversial after the passing of the ] which lead to booing of ] and during the voting. Instead "the inclusion of Russia" is relegated to the "incident" section. I don't have an issue with the wording. My issue is that it should be relegated to the "incidents" section. The top page should only contain dates, location/venue, the returning and withdrawing countries, and the results. This "inclusion of Israel" seems to be politically motivated. It does not make this a neutral article. ] (]) 03:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::::As I mentioned earlier, you are reading a reply I made to someone else regarding them not having consensus to make an article change. I have not told you to not make edits on the talk page, nor did I tell them that.
	:::::Regarding the second part, the lede is a summary of the article and the issue regarding Israel is a prominent focus of the article. Not only that, the 2019 article I linked to is an example of Israel participating despite a controversy with them participating, "The lead-up to the contest was met with controversy on multiple fronts, primarily on issues surrounding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict – this eventually led to demonstrations by interval act performer Madonna and Icelandic entrants Hatari during the broadcast of the final." In any case, to emphasis, the lede "]" --] (]) 10:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
	::::::The examples refer to countries actively excluded and events actively affecting the contest and the broadcast. Israel were not excluded and they participated as planned. Russia planned to enter but were excluded Belarus were planning on entering but were excluded. These examples you bring are not analogous here as Israel participated as planned and others were not allowed to participate.
	::::::Additionally including the second section regarding Madonna actually occurred during the broadcast of the event, so again not analogous to this situation. With Madonna's actions specifically violating the non-political nature of the event, during the broadcast.
	::::::The inclusion of events which were not directly about things which happened during the contest, e.g. interval act performances, or country exclusions, elevates using wikivoice, non event matters, drawing the focus away from the event which is the focus of the article and makes it about a single countries actions outside of the event.
	::::::I personally in the 2019 would remove "The lead-up to the contest was met with controversy on multiple fronts, primarily on issues surrounding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict – this eventually led to" as this is not actions which occurred directly relating to the contest it was outside of the contest and outside actors.
	::::::moving specifically to the examples provided:
	::::::Regarding the 1970 boycott example that related directly to countries entering the contest and that is directly related to the focus of that article. So again not an analogous example.
	::::::#Regarding 2009 that relates to a specific withdrawal of country, so not analogous to this situation.
	::::::#Regarding 2012 that concerns the venue construction for the event itself, but the Iran section on 'gay parade" should be jettisoned, which I have done so, so not analogous to this situation.
	::::::#Regarding 2016 "Romania's disqualification due to unpaid debts" is directly related to the countries which can enter, so not analogous to this situation.
	::::::#Regarding 2017 Russia Withdrew, which is an event affecting the participating countries and the event, so not analogous to this situation.
	::::::#Regarding 2019 these are a country withdrawing and events which happened during the event broadcast, so not analogous to this situation.
	::::::#Regarding 2021 that is participating countries the withdrawal of countries, so not analogous to this situation.
	::::::#Regarding 2022 that is the exclusion of a country which had planned to participate, so not analogous to this situation.
	::::::In short none of the examples provided are analogous and do not support the current inclusion of Israel in the lede.
	::::::Finally the manual of style in the quote is misused as that section is trumped by WP:NPOV which clearly states "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." The push for inclusion is taking sides as it elevates matters which did not affect the number of countries or which countries entered and participated in the event. It does not relate to a matter which occurred during the broadcast, such as when an interval act in 2019 did what they did, and finally the contest proceeded as planned regardless of the issue trying to be included. All the countries performed as planned, all the voting and results happened as planned.
	::::::In short there is no reason for inclusion, all the examples are not analogous and do not support inclusion and the manual of style quote is inapplicable to this situation. ] (]) 15:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::Picture, Tony. Both of you have misunderstood at least one part of my earlier reply, which was that I didn't cite those examples for specific reasons: {{tpq\|To wrap this up so that I don't have to check every article, (...)}} All I have given was the examples from other articles in a similar topic. I have no idea if there is a controversy mentioned in one of the articles from 1971 to 2008 that is a direct comparison to this controversy, but that isn't the point at all. The main point is that when a controversy is significant enough, it gets mentioned in the lede following LEDE. It is never a guarantee that one controversy is the same as another controversy, but it is pretty clear that prominent controversies are mentioned in the lede.
	:::::::{{tpq\|Finally the manual of style in the quote is misused as that section is trumped by WP:NPOV}} To be brief here, policy doesn't really 'trump' guidelines; they are intended to be complimentary as noted at ].
	:::::::Regarding NPOV, I am struggling with your argument. You quote a sentence saying not to take a side, but explain the side, then go on to say that we should not explain it. (Not to mention that ] says that the primary reason for removing content under NPOV would be ''if'' it is misinforming or misleading.)
	:::::::If the argument was about the wording, then I would at least partly understand. But the argument is about removing a sentence summarizing part of the article for readers. --] (]) 08:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

			(taken from ])
	It is clear reading this discussion that the policy and guidelines of Misplaced Pages presented and the general consensus is to remove from the lede section. This has now been actioned. With a hidden point at this discussion for people who try to force reinsertion against the outcome of this discussion. ] (]) 03:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

			Ivan Simonović, a member of ], called the disqualification "unfair", while Slovenia's broadcaster ] demanded clarifications from the EBU.<ref>{{Cite web \|url=https://www.rts.rs/vesti/smatracnica/5443503/pesma-evrovizije-je-nakon-malmea-na-prekretnici--od-koga-zavisi-na-koju-ce-stranu-prevagnuti.html \|title=Песма Евровизије је након Малмеа на прекретници – од кога зависи на коју ће страну превагнути \|trans-title=Eurovision Song Contest after Malmö at a turning point – who does it depend on where it goes \|date=2024-05-18 \|access-date=2024-05-18 \|work=] \|first=Ivan \|last=Simonović}}</ref> Portugal, Croatia, France, Norway and Spain also demanded explanations from the EBU regarding incidents that occurred during the contest.<ref>{{Cite web \|date=2024-05-15 \|title=RTP pede à Eurovisão uma reunião para esclarecer incidentes \|trans-title=RTP asks Eurovision for a meeting to clarify incidents \|url=https://www.rtp.pt/noticias/cultura/rtp-pede-a-eurovisao-uma-reuniao-para-esclarecer-incidentes_v1571563 \|access-date=2024-05-15 \|publisher=] \|language=pt \|archive-date=15 May 2024 \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240515113055/https://www.rtp.pt/noticias/cultura/rtp-pede-a-eurovisao-uma-reuniao-para-esclarecer-incidentes_v1571563 \|url-status=live }}</ref> The ] launched an investigation into the incident on the day it was reported, and the case was subsequently handed to the ].<ref>{{Cite web \|last=van Eenennaam \|first=Alexander \|date=2024-07-15 \|title=Verhoren in zaak Joost Klein afgerond: Nederlands OM brengt Zweedse collega's deze week op de hoogte \|trans-title=Interrogations in Joost Klein case completed: Dutch Public Prosecution Service to inform Swedish colleagues this week \|url=https://www.ad.nl/show/verhoren-in-zaak-joost-klein-afgerond-nederlands-om-brengt-zweedse-collega-s-deze-week-op-de-hoogte~aa27bb1d/ \|access-date=2024-07-15 \|website=Algemeen Dagblad}}</ref> The investigation was closed on 12 August, with the senior prosecutor Fredrik Jönsson citing a lack of evidence to prove that Klein "was capable of causing serious fear or that {{om\|the man\|sub=he\|br=y}} had any such intention".<ref>{{Cite web \|date=2024-08-12 \|title=Investigation concerning illegal threats in Malmö has been closed {{!}} Swedish Prosecution Authority \|url=https://via.tt.se/pressmeddelande/3571443/investigation-concerning-illegal-threats-in-malmo-has-been-closed?publisherId=3235541 \|access-date=2024-08-12 \|website=via.tt.se \|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web \|last=Blomberg \|first=Linnea \|date=2024-08-12 \|title=Förundersökningen mot Joost Klein läggs ner \|trans-title=The preliminary investigation against Joost Klein is closed \|url=https://www.aftonbladet.se/a/Rz5jkJ \|access-date=2024-08-12 \|website=Aftonbladet \|language=sv}}</ref> ] (]) 20:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
	:Picture, you don't have a consensus with just yourself and one other user when there are at least two other users opposed. --] (]) 10:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
	::No analogous examples as demonstrated indisputably above have been provided, additionally it cannot and must not be claimed that vote counting trumps actual Misplaced Pages policy. ] (]) 17:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::The examples give are not 1:1 examples, but examples that prominent controversies are mentioned in the lede in other articles on the topic. Additionally, one of the main parts about Misplaced Pages is ]. If you want to try to change the wording to one that you believe is an improvement, then feel free to. But you do not have enough support to remove it outright at this time. --] (]) 08:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

			{{done}}<!-- Template:EEp --> with minor edits for ] — ] ] 15:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
	== New article ==
			{{rlt}}

			== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 August 2024 ==
	Would any editors support creating a new article titled "Controversies of the Eurovision Song Contest 2024", which would combine everything in the current #Incidents and controversies section, as well as a big chunk of the Israel in Eurovision 2024 article — ] ] 17:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

	:I would '''support''' that.--] (]) 17:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
	:I don’t think that’s warranted. I think this article deals with sufficiently already.]]]1 19:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
	:Completely unnecessary
	:there are already articles on each country.
	:Another article is pointless duplication. ] (]) 23:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
	:I think it's almost necessary - each annual event article contains very little specific information, most split out into country-by-year sub-articles. To comply with broadness and neutrality (i.e. giving ] for all aspects), there's no way the 'overview' article should then be so specific about controversies. It should have its own sub-article, too. ] (]) 23:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
	::Nothing is necessary on Misplaced Pages. ]]]1 00:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::Very true and such an article would just be duplicative and go into far too much detail on Israel which is the real reason why this is being proposed.
	:::It must be remembered this is an encyclopaedia not a repository for all things on a news item where people are shouting loudly. ] (]) 02:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
	::::It seems implicitly clear that you oppose a very sensible split just because you don't want another article mentioning criticisms of Israel. I encourage you to see this request in the good faith way I believe it was intended, as a sensible procedural move to contain relevant information when it is too large for an overview article. ] (]) 10:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::::It seems you believe unequivocally for the split so lets leave it there. Phrasing like "a very sensible split just because..." is irrelevant and not of value to this discussion. Also your claims regarding Israel should be stuck as a personal attack as you are casting an aspersion based on something which your are conclusion jumping to. ] (]) 11:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
	::::::I was replying to you, not making a point for discussion - the phrasing is of value in addressing your irrelevant objections. But let's leave it there if you're going to keep making up irrelevant reasons and pointing to whataboutisms to try and prevent ''a very sensible split'' because you ]. ] (]) 11:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::This is notice of disengagement with you as you are engaged in attacks and conclusion jumping and are not constructive in your comments. ] (]) 11:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::Wait, so (below) I ask for you to explain your reasons and stop saying my comments have no value, and you think you're being constructive. Glad you'll leave me alone, though, after you just actively sought out one of my replies to somebody else to try and completely dismiss my arguments for no reason. ] (]) 11:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::I do not see any argument from you supporting the sensibility of this split, apart from you stating that the general article should not be too specific. So it seems you call for more specificity, which according to you should then be covered in a separate article. I really don't think Misplaced Pages is an appropriate place to very specifically cover controversies at Eurovision. The historic value is little, as the controversies, media coverage aside, do not have any impact or consequences outside Eurovision. So I think the general event article is appropriate enough to cover the controversies, even more so because the general article provides the context in which those controversies took place, which might get lost in a separate article. ] (]) 12:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Strongly support''' This year is definitely the most controversial ever with loads of incidents, there's not much detail in the current main article (which should be mostly a TL;DR). ] (]) 00:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
	::It hardl is. This just is ]. ]]]1 00:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
	::Nope it is not, it just feels like it is because of recentism. It could easily be argued the UK act getting attacked on stage was more controversial or the allegations of a winner snorting drugs was more controversial. You could reach back into Cliff Richard losing for Britain in 1968 because of alleged Spanish vote buying or the year Celine Dione won for Switzerland by a single point. Throughout the years controversy reigns. ] (]) 02:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
	::I couldn't disagree more. There has never been an artist being disqualified in the middle of the contest, or the potential of an unfolding lawsuit after the contest, and a narrow victory is hardly comparable to incidents which have police involvement. ] (]) 09:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
	:Not sure about wether a specific article is necessary or not, but it definitely needs expansion. For example, there's no mention of Bambie Thug's complaint to the EBU regarding Kan's commentary about them. ] (]) 01:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
	:I think the existing section covers the controversies enough. There is no need for a new article in my opinion. ] '''❯❯❯''' ] 04:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
	::We're still missing all the stuff regarding Bambie Thug, iolanda, Nemo, Olly Alexander, Slimane, 5 minuust & Puuluup, Tali, and many reports of the Israeli delegation's actions - and probably more I can't think of off the top of my head — ] ] 07:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::This is why I support a separate article. Going into detail about the experiences of every artist would take a long time but would still be important and would be better in it's own article ] (]) 09:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
	::::All of that best goes on the individual articles of the acts, no need to duplicate.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 10:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)</small>
	:::::Then why not just put all of it at the artist's/country's articles? Answer: because it's also relevant to the running of the competition. But given the extreme length of this overall article, and the lack of detail about any other topic, it is not appropriate to go into any level of depth for the relevant controversies. If there was only one or two, as in many previous years, that would be more appropriate, but not when it's multiple incidents and getting longer than the hosting section. The information is good to keep but should be split, on procedural grounds, and any !vote about not liking multiple articles is completely irrelevant. ] (]) 10:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::::The above is an excuse to create duplication and that goes against Misplaced Pages. there are always controversies at every year and simply going well now is absurd. Keep to the country articles and the main article. no more articles are needed as that is just a waste of Misplaced Pages space and duplication. "given the extreme length of this overall article, and the lack of detail about any other topic" This is covered by Misplaced Pages policies to stop excessive detail, focus on recentism, news reporting and treating Misplaced Pages as a repository for everything. ] (]) 11:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
	::::::If you can't distinguish between an explanation of good reasons to split, and {{tq\|excuses to create duplication}} – or, more likely, refuse to acknowledge the difference when you just don't want the split – then you have no place commenting. Just explain your reasons if you have them and stop ] the integrity/value of mine. ] (]) 11:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::Please tone down and abandon the conclusion jumping and aspersions. ] (]) 11:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::Sorry, you stalk my comments, try and write my views off completely, and you don't think you're the one who needs to tone it down. I thought we talked about this. ] (]) 11:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
	::::Going into detail about the experiences of every artist is not encyclopaedic and does not warrant a separate article; it doesn't even warrant coverage on Misplaced Pages at all. ] (]) 12:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
	:Right now? Probably not needed (though the existing section should definitely mention more of the behind the scenes stuff around Bambie and KAN). But definitely should be kept in mind for the future, some of these controversies are likely to continue well past the contest. ] (]) 14:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' - A separate article is unnecessary. The mere length of an article cannot be enough reason to split it up. Question is whether the topic itself deserves a standalone article and I don't think so in this case. If your goal is to shorten the article, I strongly suggest removing the OGAE voting paragraph, since that has nothing to do with the official event and gives a level of importance to the OGAE that they don't have. OGAE voting over the years is a prime example of a topic that would warrant a separate article. ] (]) 15:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:{{tq\|The mere length of an article cannot be enough reason to split it up.}} – No? ] And, ], is a major concern at this article. The two-sentence OGAE paragraph would barely make a dent.
	*:For what it's worth, I personally think that, in terms of length, there are many other things that need splitting or condensing. I'm writing a separate proposal below. My personal concerns with the length of this controversies section (as mentioned above) is that it's too long ] the lengths of sections of other things that are more important.
	*:As for topic - a really good thing to bring up by the way - there's a reason that when long articles get split up, the controversies and issues and concerns kind of sections are among the first to go: tangential to the main event, but relevant in how it was received, detail is good but not priority. ] (]) 15:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
	*::Per ] however, the current length of the article (64 kB prose size or 4716 words readable prose) does not justify a split based on length alone. As for ], given there are several individual paragraphs, the subject of the large majority of these has been covered in great detail within media, leads me to believe that the weight attributed to the section is justified given the number of events which have taken place in the lead up to this year's contest. I would however potentially merge some of these into the respective country in contest by year articles, or into other sections, given that there is a lot of overlap in terms of the root cause for some of these. ] (]) 20:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' - Agree with ]s reply to Hhl95 above - the article is way too long however the controversy section isn't the issue and in fact when I preview-removed that whole section it barely did anything in terms of length, the broadcast table and Participating countries table are excessively long and probably should be condensed or split, Right solution just the wrong section listed. –]<sup>]</sup> 15:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:Is there a way to make those tables collapsible so they take up less space? The information in those tables (while long) pertains more to the contest as a whole than the controversy section. ] (]) 17:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
	*::Several of those tables can just be removed or shortened. I did some suggestions further down the talk page, where there is another section about the length of the article. ] (]) 08:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' Per PicturePerfect666 and Davey2010. IMHO, the controversies are already well presented in the existing section. ] (]) 16:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' - the section is missing a lot of events, but expanding it might take up too much of the focus ] (]) 16:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' - there's a lot in that section, and I could see the use of splitting it off into a new page. ] (]) 17:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:Why though there are already 37 sub pages we don’t need a 38th. ] (]) 17:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' - This seems sensible to me. These things are more loosely related to the contest than most of the other segments, and splitting it to another article would be logical. ] (]) 18:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
	* '''Oppose''' By and large, these controversies can be covered in detail on the individual ' in the Eurovision Song Contest 2024', with only a summary on this page. ] (]) 18:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Strongly support'''
	:A lot has been going on, and Eurovision 2024 shouldn't become bloated or unnavigatable. ] (]) 18:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
	* '''Strong oppose''' I am sure the proposal is made with good intentions but fear it would only whitewash the main article by removing the controversies to an article few are likely to visit now that the event is over. ] (]) 19:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Oppose''' as this should not be its own article. It needs to stay as a section of the current one to keep all of the contest history together. ] (]) 19:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
	:I don't think this should be slipt, keep it all together to let people know of what happened to this contest specifically. ] (]) 20:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
	:I would support it, as it would keep the main article navigable and allow the full details of the controversies be found in one place, not buried and summarised in the main article. ] (]) 21:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
	:I disagree, and think this is why the controversies of the contest should also be its own article. Each article should cover its own controversies in a quick summary, but we need more space to cover the controversies in much broader detail. It is unlikely that this will be the last we hear about this year's incidents, and we need more space to update it as it all unfolds. ] (]) 09:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
	* '''Support''' There were numerous minor incidents and major ones this year, and the controversy section will likely soon take up half the article if not acted upon. This will place undue emphasis on negativities. Criticism and incidents at a contest relate directly to that contest and should be covered somewhere relevant and be consistent. A dedicated article makes perfect sense! ] (]) 20:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:The issue is Misplaced Pages is not for every little thing considered ‘a controversy’ ] (]) 20:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
	*::The controversies are hardly "little things". Your attempts at refuting every single argument here that supports a new article are weak. <span style="text-shadow:0.1em 0.1em 0.1em #999999">]<sup>]</sup></span> 11:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:::The arguments in support are even weaker… ]]]1 11:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:::It’s true what is said though about recentism, cruft, bias, NPOV, and balance in these sections. There are already 37 sub articles and a 38th is just a recentism fork because of loudness regarding current events. Give this a fortnight and all the noise will have gone and this year will be no different to other years. Something always happens at Eurovision. This year it was anti-Israel, previously it was the uk getting attacked on stage, previously it was Russia being excluded, previously it was the inclusion of Bosnia on 1992. All as controversial as the the recent events fresh in people’s minds. ] (]) 13:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:This an unfounded ] statement. The controversies section actually only takes up a relatively small part of the article. If anything the coverage should be '''reduced''' rather than increased by giving it a separate article. ]]]1 11:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
	*::For main body content, ignoring titles, tables, images and infoboxes, the word count current stands at around 4700, but the controversy section is around 900, which is 19% of the article. This is pretty large and has grown since my original voicing of support. Reduction of content would be unencyclopædic and frankly a whitewash. ] (]) 20:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:::4700 words is well below the bar warranting a split per ] ]]]1 21:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
	* '''Strongly support:''' I absolutely think that there is very little coverage of the controversies of the Eurovision Song Contest, and there has never been an artist getting disqualified in the middle of the contest before, so this is without question the most controversial edition ever. It is vital to cover the controversies of the contest given how much they reflect and even shape the geopolitics of the countries involved, so I think ] should also be its own article. ] (]) 09:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:There already is ]. ]]]1 11:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
	*::That is "political controversies", not every controversy is political — ] ] 11:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
	* '''Strong Support''' per Kingsif and Kapitan110295. <span style="text-shadow:0.1em 0.1em 0.1em #999999">]<sup>]</sup></span> 11:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
	* '''Strong oppose''' While 2024 has certainly been on the more extreme scale when it comes to controversial editions, I do think creating this article would fall within the ] bracket. I believe that continuing to host relevant controversies on this article is the better call, keeping it in summary where necessary while delving into further information on already existing sub-articles, such as the country in contest by year articles. ] (]) 20:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Support''', as this is common for international competitions--i.e. ] in Paris, ] in Qatar, etc. The controversies section often covers unrelated but important content that is better suited for its own section, as this is a song contest, while the controversies section includes (for example) content about the ]. ] (]) 20:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Support,''' since "the inclusion of Israel" on the top page seems to have become the centerpiece of the whole article as it is above the paragraph that cover more important topic such as the winner and top five. ] (]) 01:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
	::Then the article needs changing so that Israel is not "the centerpiece of the whole article" ] (]) 01:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' - As per the arguments previously and per ]. I don't think a new article is necessary or warranted, and that it is fine for all this information regarding controversies to be in the main article. I believe that creating a separate article would just lead to content forking. I think that it would be more balanced to have it all under one article. ] (]) 09:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
	:I agree I think there is going to be so many controversies after this that a separate page would be necessary ] (]) 13:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Support''' per JohnAdams1800. <span style="background-color:indigo">]</span> <small>(] • ])</small> 13:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Strong Oppose''' - Agree with others that those calling for a separate article will be falling into ]. Fundamentally, it is better to keep the core controversies here (as Sims2aholic8 notes, in summary and adding any additional information to the country entry subarticles), rather than go into endless detail in a separate article that isn't going to be anymore succinct or NPOV. ] (]) 20:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Strong Oppose''' - Unnecessary as no other year had separate pages for their controversies, keep things consistent as this was not the first nor last Eurovision year filled with controversy (we just have more online news coverage of it). Most people when they want to look at the controversies, they are gonna first search for it through the main yearly page, separating it would just cause needless redirects. On top of that the section is not large enough to warrant a separate page. ] (]) 21:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Wait''' a few months. There is currently some sort of criminal charges being filed against Joost Klein, and the historical significance of this Eurovision's controversies cannot be predicted ahead of time. We should wait a few months and see how these controversies progress and if they receive sustained coverage or even merit their own individual articles. ] (]) 15:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' per arguments made above. I don't think there has ever been a ESC as controversial as this year's and I don't think that this is the result of recentism. An article that includes this year's controversies (it doesn't necessarily have to be an extremely lengthy one) might actually be warranted here. I don't really think that the current state of this article summarizes the incidents/controversies well enough with due amount of weight to each one. ] (]) 16:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Strongly Oppose''' - fails ] and ]. There is also a serious danger of any separate article focusing too much on the Israel situation. The proposal for a new article seems to be born out of a want to re-admit all of the content that was (correctly) removed. A separate article would suffer from the same issue as the current controversies section, i.e. not being overlong on some issues and overlooking some others. I am very concerned that it would not be sufficiently balanced between the Israel participation itself and the other controversies that occurred, especially the Dutch DSQ. I am also concerned that, rightly or wrongly, the creation of a new article would be seen as being biased and unduly drawing attention to the issue. Any large detail should be included within ] and ]. ] (]) 20:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Strongly Oppose''' – If this section were at the ''beginning'' of the article, then one might argue in favour, but some kind of summary would then ideally need to be included. Given that it is at the ''end'' of the article, however, readers who aren't interested in the issues discussed don't have to wade through it to get more basic information. As it stands the section is about the right length, and as has been noted above, creating a separate article would run the risk of encouraging the inclusion of additional, largely superfluous content. At the very least, I would suggest '''waiting''', for the reason ] (]) has outlined. (] (]) 03:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC))
	*'''Strong Oppose''' WP:NOTNEWS among others come to mind and as already fell to superfluous details and now shortened to main points to feat this article's scope; not to mention thankfully much neutralized in the description of breaches or attempts of rules breaches by different sides and delegations; as been said somewhere above for root causes e.g actions deemed to breach the EBU a-political rules, therefore more details pertaining to each delegation should be covered still succinctly for and according to several sources notability, at the respective 2024 countries articles. ] (]) 10:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Oppose''' Currently it's only 1,300 words and some of the controversies are already split off into their own article. I see no good reason to have it so we have three (possibly four if the singer's page has it) pages with near identical content. It may be better to have separate articles for more of the individual controversies (assuming they meet notability on their own), but I fail to see the need for a general controversy article. ] (]) 16:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Supportive''' - It is clear at this point that the Incidents and controversies section has is a primary focus of this article, for better or worse. Given the multiple removed or trimmed sections, sanctions imposed through the contentious topics rules, and the number of pages that readers would need to visit to read each controversy due to how some or all of the details are on country sub-pages, it would be much better to have an article focused entirely on the various controversies. This would allow the main article to just focus on summaries of the most prominent controversies and allow the country sub-pages to get less bogged down with all of the issues. --] (]) 10:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
	::I'd be supportive of keeping everything on this article in detail, and redirecting to this article from individual country articles — ] ] 10:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::I get trying to keep everything on the main article, but given all the cutting and the issues, I don't believe it is practical at this point. I think it is better to split off and give the proper ] to the various issues that occurred than to try to manage this odd system of splitting things between this article a dozen sub-articles. --] (]) 10:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

	: '''{{red\|D}}{{azure\|A}}{{orange\|T}}{{green\|A}} {{magenta\|!!!}}''' To place the relevant section in context, it is around '''1260 words''' long. The entire article, excluding headings, images, tables, and references (but not the list of presenters or notes) is around '''5680 words''' in length. The section therefore comprises approximately '''22%''' of the article text. The images and tables, however, add a considerable amount of bulk. Scrolling through the whole article on my mobile phone, excluding only the references and anything below them, then the section in question takes up about '''10%''' of "column inches". (] (]) 04:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC))

	=== Move "political controversies" to just "controversies" ===
	{{archive top\|Discussion has been moved to ] ] (]) 08:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)}}
	An alternative solution would be moving the ] to ] and then expanding it — ] ] 11:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

	:This is a can of worms proposal and would be so large potentially, that it would be unmanageable. The reason political controversies are separate is because of the apolitical nature of the contest. ] (]) 13:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
	::I would tend to agree, I think keeping the subject of this article to just those controversies where politics played a part, and in particular providing context for longer-term controversies, is more relevant and more useful to the reader. There would be several "controversies" in part editions which I believe would fall under ], so keeping a focus here on political trends and addressing individual controversies which occured in a specific year on those individual articles is a much more useful way of approaching the situation. ] (]) 20:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
	:{{ping\|ImStevan}} Why are you directing discussion for this on this talk page and not on the respective article's talk page? ] (]) 20:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
	::The discussions are linked in my opinion — ] ] 20:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
	::While that makes sense if there wasn't a move discussion created on that page, the fact is that there is one right now. That could lead to a problem where consensus forms on one page to move and on the other page not to move. --] (]) 06:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Support''' as creating numerous "controversy" pages for Eurovision could lead to a controversy of its own. ] (]) 00:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
	{{archive bottom}}

	== Removal of scare quotes around "genocide" ==
	{{Edit extended-protected\|answered=yes}}

	<!--Don't remove anything above this line.-->


	* '''What I think should be changed:
	Remove quotes around "genocide":
	{{TextDiff\|Fred Leone, the didgeridoo player for Australia's performance, had a stylised watermelon painted on his chest in condemnation of the Gaza "genocide".\|Fred Leone, the didgeridoo player for Australia's performance, had a stylised watermelon painted on his chest in condemnation of the Gaza genocide.}}

	* '''Why it 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 ]). I believe this is not Misplaced Pages's call to make, and removing the quotes is faithful to how both the and sources phrased it. The current phrasing was introduced in revision {{oldid2\|1222874763}}.

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

	] (]) 10:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


	<!--Don't remove anything below this line-->
	: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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages 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). ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages to decide on this. There are plenty of other words you can use, such as the more neutral word 'conflict'. ] (]) 15:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:Leone was protesting what he considers genocide, and if Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages restatement. ] (]) 15:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
	*::What individual acts consider genocide does not mean Misplaced Pages goes that is genocide. Additionally Misplaced Pages is not here ‘to cover everything’ that is for news companies and not an encyclopaedia. ] (]) 16:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:::No, and that's why there's quotation marks. Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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. {{small\|(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. ] (]) 16:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
	*::::It’s promoting their opinion above others which is undue weight and undue bias. ] (]) 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. Misplaced Pages 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 {{tq\|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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages's voice.''' ] (]) 15:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
	{{reftalk}}

	== Additional incidents related to the final ==

	* "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."
	] (]) 12:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

	:Regarding the first bullet: "The EBU has not uploaded Portugal’s performance to the official YouTube channel." ] (]) 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.
	:] (]) 12:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

	== Split proposal: Grand Final content ==
	{{atop
	\| status =
	\| result = '''Not split'''. <small>(])</small> ] (]) 18:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
	}}



	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. ] (]) 16:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

	===Discussion===
	People are suggesting that we remove information instead of simply splitting the article. That makes no sense.--] (]) 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. --] (]) 00:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

	===Survey===
	*'''Support''' as nom. ] (]) 16:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' - would rather support a controversies article ] (]) 16:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:You can support both. ] (]) 16:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
	*::I don't think the final needs a separate article at all ] (]) 16:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' - As noted above (and as can be seen ) 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. –]<sup>]</sup> 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 ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 18:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' Not really any need, not longer than for previous years. ] (]) 19:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' It's about the same length as all other recent years, no need for it ] (]) 19:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Strongly Oppose''' Just because the article is long doesn't mean it needs to be split up. ] (]) 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 ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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.] (]) 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. ] (]) 02:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
	::@] 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 ] (]) 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. ] (]) 08:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
	::Absolutely not. We need the participants tables — ] ] 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? ] (]) 10:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' I don't feel it is necessary to make a separate page for the finals. ] (]) 06:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' instead of ] out the final article, maybe remove the ] like the "postcard" table, complete voting list, and lists of spokespersons, so that the article isn't so long. ]] (]) 10:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
	* '''Oppose''' no necessary to do this. ] <small>(]-])</small> 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. ] (]) 14:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
	* '''Oppose''' as being redundant. ] (]) 09:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' per the arguments above. It would seem to be totally redundant. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 03:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
	{{abot}}

	== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 May 2024 ==

	{{edit extended-protected\|Eurovision Song Contest 2024\|answered=yes}}		{{edit extended-protected\|Eurovision Song Contest 2024\|answered=yes}}
			Please change Ukraine televote in Semi-Final 1 from blank to 5 points to Australia. ] (]) 13:54, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
	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)" ] (]) 17:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

	:{{not done}} I've added a bit more to the spokesperson section, but we need a ] 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 ], on when non-main languages are to be included and what sourcing would be required. ] (]) 17:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
	::Regarding Österdahl, I believe . --] (]) 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. ] (]) 11:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
	::::Looks like the entire section got axed for some reason. Will look into it. --] (]) 05:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
	::::Found it. ] said the section was UNDUE ].
	::::Personally, I don't agree with the assessment given and with it apparently tied to a . --] (]) 07:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

	== Israel controversies ==

	The section can be reduced to a single paragraph, . This article isn't the main article for the controversies involving Israel, so ] can be applied and most of the content transferred to ]. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 08:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
	*::If it was unclear, I was agreeing with the split suggestion, which I see has already been done. ] (]) 11:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:::<nowiki>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! ~~~</nowiki> ] (]) 11:16, 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. @] 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. ] (]) 19:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

	:@] That is because "the same number as " hasn't really been included as a line for previous years' articles. Returning countries are also often mentioned first before non-returns/withdrawals ] (]) 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. ] (]) 08:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::@] 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 13:41, 14 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" ] (]) 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 ] (]) 21:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
	::] covers what we can use tweets for as sources. Do you have a different source that can be used? --] (]) 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. ] (]) 23:56, 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 ] (]) 21:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

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

	== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 May 2024 ==

	{{edit extended-protected\|Eurovision Song Contest 2024\|answered=yes}}
	Update table to reflect that Latvia awarded 12 points to Estonia in the second semi-final of the Eurovision Song Contest 2024. ] (]) 00:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
	: {{done}}<!-- Template:ESp -->. ] (]) 16:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

	== Add info ==

	Please add that ] was disqualified for breaking a ] camera in the finals. ] (]) 07:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

	:The damage to the camera . --] (]) 10:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

	== Article should mention Moroccanoil sponsorship ==

	The article doesn't mention that the primary sponsor of Eurovision is ], 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/ ]] 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 Misplaced Pages and an example of the dangers of such sections or separate pages about ‘controversies’. Misplaced Pages 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 ]. ] (]) 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. ]] 15:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::Metro is a deprecated source and must not be used. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ''"] 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? ]] 16:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::::It’s excessive detail and cruft. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia and minutiae like who sponsored what year and so on is just not encyclopaedic content. ] (]) 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 ] for Eurovision, like with the yearly ] in NASCAR or the 2017 ] for MLB. They may be a primary sponsor, but that doesn't seem to be enough. --] (]) 11:22, 20 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? ] (]) 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. ]] 15:26, 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 , 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 — ] ] 17:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

	:That information is already being added to the individual country articles for this year (see ] 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. ] (]) 09:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
	::Good — ] ] 13:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

	== A biased POV about Israel throughout the article ==

	Particularly this one is striking: "there was targeted online hate directed towards the Israeli entrant, Eden Golan, throughout the contest."

	No. The hate was not directed towards the singer. There was a discontent regarding the inclusion of Israel in the contest due to the well-known reasons. The source of this alleged hate is... a descrpition of an interview Martin Österdahl gave.
	This sentence should be rephrased or removed completely. ] (]) 14:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

	:Do you have a reliable non-depreciated source to back up what you are saying as the current sentence is properly sourced. Otherwise it is the realms of original research. ] (]) 17:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
	::What Mr Österdahl claims doesn't prove anything. It is just his opinion. This is why I raised concern about neutrality of this particular sentence. It's clearly biased, and, in addition, it is not supported by a reliable source.
	::If Österdahl's words are used as reference to the "hate towards the entrant", we might as well cite Jehoshua Kaufman's opinion, i.e., "Golan was coming to very hateful surroundings" (vía ).
	::This still doesn't mean there was hate directed at the singer. There are countless publications about why the protests were being held and why, in the first place, (social) media outrage was sparked. ] (]) 20:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::Perhaps using in-line attribution ("Österdahl said...") is a good compromise here? ] (]) 22:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
	::::Agree. ] (]) 11:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

	== Israel campaign for votes ==

	From , or , we see that Israeli government officials admit to have "campaigned" for votes in favorable audiences. Is that worth noting ? ] (]) 15:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

	:Yes, it is. ] (]) 16:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

	::Under no circumstances is this anything more than speculation and cruft. So no it cannot go in as this is the problem with wanting to include everything against the country which is the centre of attention at the moment. ] (]) 17:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::Additionally are the sources even reliable? And do they even say what is claimed? ] (]) 20:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
	::::Ynet is usually rather reliable from what I know. RTVSLO is the national slovenian broadcaster but they seem to be citing ynet as well as the TImes of Israel. ] (]) 20:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::::Based on Google Translate, they are citing both ynet and the Times of Israel, but I am not finding in --] (]) 00:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
	::::So first you accuse of "speculation and cruft", and then you wonder whether the source is actually reliable.
	::::These news are concerning, thus deserve a special coverage in the article. ] (]) 20:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::::Please do not comment on the contributor and always assume good faith. I see you created your account today to comment here but you must always assume good faith and being a new user is not free pass. ] (]) 23:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
	::::::Picture, I don't see much of a problem. If the issue was with the specific words used, then you might need to be clearer. (Additionally, we do have an essay regarding ].)
	::::::In any case, the sourcing seems to be a problem, though I am looking into what Yoyo360 has said. --] (]) 00:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::@] It would seem that, in the rtvslo article, all quotes from Saranga are taken from Ynet. In the Times of Israel, found this quote : "The truth is that there was obviously an organized, dedicated effort by Israel supporters to give their votes to Golan in the face of intense threats and hatred, and it clearly drew votes from many who don’t otherwise tune into the Eurovision each year" but that's more of an opinion statement than something factual. But Ynet quotes do exist... ] (]) 12:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::{{reply\|Yoyo360}} Whoops, sorry for the delay. Looking into this a bit more, I think I got Ynet at (ynet.co.il) confused with Ynet at (ynet.com), which is a different one. It looks like it would be fine to source to the Ynet you mentioned. --] (]) 11:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
	::::::Picture, in the nicest way possible, you are stretching the limits of good faith - I already noted that you have a tendency to comment in a way that tries to minimise heavy criticism of Israel. A friendly reminder that NPOV works both ways, and your somewhat argumentative replies to every individual comment (not just stating your piece and letting others comment in kind) that either supports including information critical of Israel, or opposes including information kind to Israel {{small\|(as in ])}}, could very soon be seen as ]. Your contributions to discussion are appreciated, but let's keep it open.
	::::::FWIW, up to "2022", I wholeheartedly agree with your (standalone) comment currently at the bottom of this section. ] (]) 22:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
	:I would say so — ] ] 17:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
	::Is that a !vote for inclusion or exclusion? ] (]) 19:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
	:This should definitely be included. ] }</b>]] 21:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
	::What is the relevance of this information? and how does it rise to the level of inclusion? Does it break any rules or is it just disliked and frowned upon? ] (]) 23:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
	:It might be worth noting, but the sources are not the best. If there are any ], then we could consider adding it. --] (]) 23:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
	:This all seems to be that it was not from the Israeli delegation the self but from people who tuned in specifically to support Israel and got others to do so. Which is not worth including. It is potentially no different to previous years people have been fired up by outside events to tune in. A recent example being Ukraine in 2022. So I think inclusion is POV to push that Israel somehow acted nefariously which is unsupported, from what I have seen, There is no evidence that I have seen which says rules were broken. This feels a lot like people looking to fill column inches and another story of the big bad Israel does that nicely. ] (]) 15:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Include''' - It's relevant, it's well sourced (Ynet), and the source is pretty direct - ''"The support Golan received from the European audience was preceded by a campaign by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the government publicity office for Eurovision fans, in which the Israeli representative addressed them in French, Italian, Spanish, German, Czech, Latvian, Estonian, Albanian, Georgian and English - and asked them to vote for her. The campaign states that "in view of the wave of hatred and Muslim demonstrations in Malmö, a counter-reaction of the silent majority is taking place.""'' (via google translate). A government ministry addressing people in different languages instructing people to vote based on political aims is relevant. ]] 09:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
	::Gonna need better sourcing as described above. Also this would if sourceable better, better be included on the Israel subpage here. It feels very much like singling out one country where other countries are well known to have done this. also there has not been any suggestion rules have been broken. Have any rules been broken? ] (]) 15:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::Hi Picture - I am aware of your opinions because this is the seventh comment you have posted in this section. Please let people voice their own opinions without repeating your own. You are ]. ]] 15:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
	::::The number of comments by one user is irrelevant please focus on the context. ] (]) 16:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::Ynet is a reliable source and they cited someone from the government, and the whole thing has been recited by another reliable broadcaster (RTVSLO). I ca also add and who released articles earlier today. So what now? ] (]) 16:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
	::::Have any Eurovision rules been broken? ] (]) 16:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::::Rules broken or not, that's irrelevant. The israeli '''government''' admitted to campaigning for political purposes and reliable sources have been found. ] (]) 16:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
	::::::Yes rules broken does matter or it’s not notable for this article as inclusion is pov pushing. This a Eurovision article not an analysis and inclusion of everything Israel did at Eurovision. This is not a regurgitation and inclusion of news reports people like. There must be some real reason for inclusion, such as the actions broke Eurovision rules.
	::::::So I ask again, have any rules been broken? ] (]) 16:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::Under the section of the contest rules, " Participating Broadcasters shall be responsible...to make sure that the ESC shall in no case be politicized and/or instrumentalized and/or otherwise brought into disrepute in any way." Moreover, in 2017, the EBU made a statement (which applies to future editions as well) that any form of political propaganda during the event or any political content included in the songs are prohibited. See sources and . ] (]) 11:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
	::::::Yeah, that's why I also thought that a mentionig this is relevant in the article of this year's ESC specifically. Amidst a war, a government of a participating country confirms that they campaigned for vote collection, when it is known that a large amount of public votes in the show can be interpreted as public support (e.g. see the situation with Ukraine 2022). ] (]) 16:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Include''' per comments made above; indeed, there seem to be several reliable sources discussing this incident, so a mention seems warranted. ] (]) 16:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
	::This is not a news site and Israel are not this articles focus. Simply including something in print does not warrant inclusion per se. The information must meet wikipedias inclusion criteria. As o can see this does not break Eurovision and its inclusion could easily be seen as POV pushing to try and somehow make the votes Israel got lesser or tainted and wikivoice must not do that. ] (]) 16:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::No one said that this should become the main focus of the article! I (and I think everyone else) simply thought that this is worth including in a brief sentence. ] (]) 16:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
	::::There is an entire section on what you have complained about me removing. ] and an example of the outside view of this article by another user . I suggest not making assumptions, and broad claims before you are abreast of them all. ] (]) 17:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::::Excuse me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember complaining about you removing anything; we barely had any interactions in this talkpage prior to that. In my reply above, I was just referring to the vote campaign, which is the subject of this section, and not to Israel participation in general. ] (]) 10:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
	::::To your point "simply thought that this is worth including in a brief sentence" - Yes, but why is it relevant to this article? Beyond simply being nice to have, it has to have encyclopedic content and not just be a news story some users like. So I ask a third time do the claimed actions of Israel break any Eurovision rules? ] (]) 17:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::::I still believe that this information is relevant to this article, especially when it's not just "claims", but we have high quality sources confirming it. Government involvement in Eurovision seems to me like an incident of major importance, especially in 2024. Excuse me if I'm wrong, but the argument you present for exclusion seems like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. ] (]) 10:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

	As a consensus seems to have been reached, could someone add the info to the article? ] (]) 08:15, 21 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 — ] ] 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 — ] ] 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 ]] 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. ]] 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. ] (]) 15:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

	== BBC article ==

	Should the israeli reaction given be added for POV neutrality? ] (]) 15:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

	:Done — ] ] 16:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

	== Intro paragraph of incidents ==

	@] 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? ] (]) 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.

	:] (]) 19:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

	::Well sorry for not agreeing with this change and wanting to bring it here. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 — ] ] 05:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::::I suggest you read ] with a focus on ], before continuing to push, this angle of what you consider 'controversial'. ] (]) 14:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
	::::::In 10 years, this contest will still be considered controversial compared to the contests prior — ] ] 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 ] violation.
	:::::::] (]) 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. — ] ] 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. ] (]) 18:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

	== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 May 2024 ==

	{{edit extended-protected\|Eurovision Song Contest 2024\|answered=yes}}
	Under "Dutch entry disqualification", please remove this sentence:

	<blockquote>Klein performed what the woman described as a "threatening move" following the female camera operator's recording of Klein in the green room, where filming was not permitted.</blockquote>

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

	# The Avrotros statement says "Joost was filmed when he had just gotten off stage and had to rush to the greenroom". He was not <i>in</i> the green room.
	# 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.
	# The sources do not claim the <i>woman</i> described it as a "threatening move" - these are the words of Avrotros in describing Klein's actions. ] (]) 02:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

	:Do you have a proposed replacement wording, which better reflects the sources? ] (]) 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:
	::<blockquote>In a statement, AVROTROS described Klein making a "threatening movement" towards the camera.</blockquote> ] (]) 06:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
	:{{partly done}} Basically, I just reverted the text {{oldid\|Eurovision Song Contest 2024#Dutch entry disqualification\|1223757717\|to an older revision as best as possible}} to resolve the issue. ], 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? --] (]) 11:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
	::its okay with me ] (]) 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. ] (]) 03:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

	:If the sections are ordered chronologically, then it makes the most sense to the reader how things unfolded. --] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 15:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

	== Removal of content ==
	{{ping\|PicturePerfect666}} Please stop removing content off the page. 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 to that section as they were not appropriate elsewhere — ] ] 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 ], it is now in the discuss phase not the revert or bold stage. It’s how editing and discussion works. ] (]) 18:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
	::Israel's participation is everything any publication was talking about, it's not POV — ] ] 19:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

	{{ping\|PicturePerfect666}} You have made the same revert 3 times in the past 4 hours. This breaks the ] — ] ] 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 Misplaced Pages policy on editing. I suggest the pettiness and point scoring attempts from you are dispensed with. ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages 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.

	] (]) 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. ] (]) 19:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::Can you please re-add the paragraph they removed? — ] ] 23:17, 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"<ref>https://www.rts.rs/vesti/smatracnica/5443503/pesma-evrovizije-je-nakon-malmea-na-prekretnici--od-koga-zavisi-na-koju-ce-stranu-prevagnuti.html</ref> — ] ] 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. ] (]) 20:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
	{{reflist-talk}}

	== 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.

			] '''Not done:''' please provide ] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:EEp -->
	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 ] (]) 13:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

			== Obsolete source, verifiability violation ==
	== Postcards ==

			The claim {{Blockquote\|text=Through social media content, Israeli broadcaster Kan also expressed concerns over alleged antisemitism in Malmö, attributing this to the "Islamisation of Europe".}} cites a source that itself only cites a now-deleted Twitter/X account. ] says such posts may only be used as sources if they don't involve third parties, which this does. If this claim can't be substantiated with reliable sources, it should be deleted. ] (]) 08:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
	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? ] (]) 15:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

			:I am not following here. The website ESCplus is used as the source as you mentioned. Thus, TWITTER does not apply here. Additionally, both the and the have been archived. --] (]) 10:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
	:] at ]. Given that there wasn't a dedicated discussion on it here, it likely is fine with being restored. --] (]) 10:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
			:] made ]. To be on the safe side, do you know of a different source IvanScrooge98? --] (]) 10:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I tried to make a quick search and the only other source I found was also directly citing the tweet, though I remember watching the original KAN video making this statement so I’ll see if I can dig it up – unfortunately, many Eurovision websites decided to limit their coverage on Israel in light of the current events so I think it’s going to be hard. In any case I’m also not convinced WP:TWITTER applies when the tweet is included within a larger article from a third-party source. <s>Thanks for linking to</s> As for the archive, at least for the moment that may suffice to substantiate the article content. ~ ] (]) 11:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::That lines up with my searches sadly. No problem regarding the links, I think. (Can I ask why that is scratched out?) --] (]) 11:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Oh, I simply had not noticed the archive link was already included in the page and I was thanking you for providing it :) So I reworded my comment. Btw, if I find anything I’ll update you. Thanks! ~ ] (]) 11:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Oh, so it is... That would have saved me some time. (Off topic, but I just ran the website through the Wayback Machine, which was helpful as that was how I found your edit on March 24th thanks to the auto archiving project archiving on that day. I had tried ]) In any case, thank you as well and best of luck in your search. --] (]) 11:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::A claim of that nature requires much more evidence than one reference; why aren't we seeing more articles on it of it was so impactful? It feels more like a click-bait/reactionary article rather than a news report. Also, ESC Plus is listed as a source ]; it's has not gained its full credit as a ]. The 'investigation' of alternatives really was just an editor's verification of the subject matter when what we actually need is additional reputable sources also reporting on it. ] (]) 15:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::Found this related article by Kan from a few days later: https://www.kan.org.il/content/kan-news/local/730236/. It doesn’t refer to antisemitism when discussing Malmö nor to alleged “Islamization of Europe”, but it cites official travel warnings by the ]. Unfortunately I couldn’t find the original social media video the tweet was reporting. In any case you’re right to say we shouldn’t mention it if it can’t back it up. ~ ] (]) 16:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::My understanding was that it was a program that aired on KAN, but regardless it does seem better to remove given the struggle to verify it. --] (]) 11:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::Ah. Looks like it was already taken care of. Thank you for looking into this. --] (]) 11:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::Ah, didn't know that ] existed. Thank you for the heads up. --] (]) 11:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

	== Revert ~~needed~~ ==		== Revert possible vandalism ==

			I have reverted two edits made by IP address ] that were both disruptive and factually incorrect. They changed Croatia to having won, changed participating countries to 39, and added Montenegro as a returning country. I looked at the IP and these are the only two contributions they have made. ] (]) 13:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	Can someone revert which is part of an edit war performed out of process? ] (]) 01:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 21:22, 3 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Eurovision Song Contest 2024 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:

You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

A news item involving Eurovision Song Contest 2024 was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 14 May 2024.

Misplaced Pages

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Eurovision High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Eurovision, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Eurovision-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EurovisionWikipedia:WikiProject EurovisionTemplate:WikiProject EurovisionEurovision
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sweden Mid‑importance

	Sweden portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television Mid‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Misplaced Pages articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 2 times. The weeks in which this happened:

Request for comments: votes received and how by Israel

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus agreed to include coverage of campaigning for votes for Israel within the Controversies section. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Should the "Controversies and incidents" section contain a section on Israel votes and media reports in connection to this which relate to more individuals than expected or individuals which would not usually have voted. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Please note that as a prominent controversy is related to the Israel-Hamas war, it is subject to WP:ARBECR. Accordingly, accounts with fewer than 500 edits and 30 days' tenure may not participate. Any comment violating ARBECR may be removed by any editor, and edit warring will not be tolerated. Please keep the discussion respectful: comment on the matter in question, not on other editors. Thank you. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 17:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Include per the already above section Yoyo360 (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Include as it definitely impacted the results. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 18:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Can you prove that with reliable neutral verifiable sources? If not it can't be implied through wikivoice. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Didn't mean to prove it or to have that exact wording in the article, but when there are neutral verifiable sources that many non-Eurovision fans voted, and the fact that every vote counts, it is extremely likely that that was the case. Again, not necessarily saying that should be in the article though Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

How do you or the publications for that matter know they are "non-Eurovision fans"? Additionally wikivoice cannot go on speculation re: "it is extremely likely that that was the case". It feels like journalistic license is being employed and potentially so crystal ball activities. It also feels like original though from the publications to come to the conclusions that they have. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The sources are reliable and citing officials from the israeli government. All confirm without a doubt that a campaign for votes happened. This is not subjective. This is factual. The matter at hand here is to decide whether to mention this campaign in the article and a former discussion has already been made. Yoyo360 (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

There is no way to know "All confirm without a doubt that a campaign for votes happened. This is not subjective. This is factual" That all falls under WP:Original Research as it has drawn a conclusion from them which is not necessarily one supported widely. It draws the reader to conclude the votes for Israel are some how tainted or that rules were broken. Which a non-neutral POV.

Nowhere is it stated any actual rules were broken, or that mass voting by bots happened or similar. It just seems people in other countries got messages about the Israel entry and decided to exercise a vote this year. It doesn't feel like anything more here, the claims additionally feel extremely tabloid. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Once again, the matter at hand is whether or not israel had a voting campaign. And the answer is undoubtedly yes, the several sources provided in the former section confirm it, citing a government official. The impact on the voting is not the topic of our discussion. Yoyo360 (talk) 19:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The issue I have is a misuse of wikivoice and the non neutral implications of the section. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Once again, as long as we use the sources provided in the former section, the inclusion won't cause a problem as we will just be relaying a fact: Israel campaigned for votes. It is factual. The fact that you see non neutral implications behind this type of sentence is problematic because there is not. And if you think that there's an indirect implication that israel got their points from this campaign, read the sources and ponder one minute... because isn't that what our sources exactly imply already? Including the israeli source ynet. Yoyo360 (talk) 05:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

If all of the RS support there being a campaign to mobilise votes for Israel for political reasons then I don't see how it's an issue to state it in Wikivoice. AlexandraAVX (talk) 13:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Here is an explanation from a reliable source that it was just turnout, ability to vote multiple times without restrictions, and lots of other options.] Not some nefarious political campaign at the heart of why Israel polled well. Only having Israel is the big bad wolf style article belies the more benign and boring reasons set out in the article above. Also remember how in 2016 Eurovision changed to its current format of voting because it was all neighbours voting for each other. This is a storm in a teacup to claim that people voting en mass and multiple times is new. it also belies that mundane reasons exist as well as the nice sexy claims of the big bad Israel trying to rig the contest.

PicturePerfect666 (talk) 14:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

That RS doesn't say there was no campaign, it explains how low support in numbers for a contestant can still result in a unusually good result for them. If anything the source explains how the voting system and the nature of public votes could enable a campaign.Second, we have to take into consideration 'motivated reasoning'. "We see this in politics when it comes to turnout in elections and turnout in referendums", explains Cunningham. "When we see turnout in referendums become very low we notice that the results become quite skewed. If turnout in a referendum gets lower than 35% the people who are more motivated, more interested, tend to influence the outcome a little bit more".
AlexandraAVX (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

No source is going to say “there was no campaign” that is like asking for proof of a negative. What it shows is not all RS are singing the same hymn on Israel and there are plenty of other valid reasons for the televote results beyond the claims of what are essentially Israel rigged it. I think there is a potential blinding to stuff outside of the Israel contentiousness when boring and benign reasons also exist. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

If it is to be included the boring and benign reasons need the same weight on the section as the juicy and sensational claims. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Thing is, once again, these are not claims. They're facts. Several sources, including some coming directly from Israel, cite an Israeli government official and diplomat who stated the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs campaigned. Some go as far as detailing they shot videos in at least ten languages demanding people to vote and the whole thing getting 14+ million views. Facts. Not claims. Yoyo360 (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Claims of “these are facts” are unhelpful as you don’t know that, no one here does. All anyone knows is what is reported so a better statement is “as reported in ” not “these are facts” the latter implies infallibility of the sources. Additionally alternate reasons in an RS has been presented. Wikivoice cannot only give one side, as it currently seems to claim Israel votes were nefarious as opposed to the boring and benign reasons which are also a possibility for the televote results. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

No one can know 100% and there are no infallible sources, but we still write statements of fact in Wikivoice. We don't keep repeating "According to Charles Darwin, humans evolved from apes" any time we talk about evolution, even if plenty of people pushing WP:FRINGE theories think it will be disproven any day now.If there's RS reporting that there was a government-sanctioned campaign that didn't actually exist then there would be plenty of reason for other RS to report on how that isn't true or it was uncertain/unclear. If there was a significant disagreement on whether there was or wasn't a government-sanctioned campaign then we should be more careful about using wikivoice. In the absence of any reliable or significant claim that a campaign didn't exist I don't see why we can't state it in wikivoice. AlexandraAVX (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I do not think that the Irish source from a professor is a fringe theory. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 19:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Thing is we are talking about a campaign for votes. Which according to numerous sources, definitely happened. Which is worth inclusion. We are not talking about how israel got their results, which would very much indeed necessitate all possibilities to be accounted for. We are talking specifically about whether or not to mention the campaign. Which, once again, did happen according to several sources. No matter its influence, the existence of this campaign has been established. So your Irish Independent reference is irrelevant in this specific context. Yoyo360 (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Include per others and the already-had discussions { } 20:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Include, obviously. We've already been over this. This is not a proper RfC. See WP:RFC, in particular WP:RFCBEFORE. RfCs are for getting broader community input to help resolve matters for which no consensus can be determined after extensive "local" discussion. But there is no failure to come to a consensus here. "One editor doesn't like the result" is not a consensus failure, and RfCs are not for "asking the other parent" in hopes of getting an answer one might like better. (Aside: RfCs are also for seeking broad community input, from the start, on a proposal that has site-wide implications, like changing a policy or introducing a new guideline. But that is of course not applicable to a minor discussion like this.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

include, as I have mentioned in older discussion. A confirmed vote campaign with government involvement taking place in a song contest with huge and international cultural impact is an incidence of major importance, and something uncommon for the ESC. Inclusion can be warranted, in my opinion. Piccco (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:ARBPIA –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Do not include since his is not new nor unheard of. Participating countries frequently advertise their contest entries, and the reason why it's done more heavily this year has far more to do with the voting window opening early than anything else. Either way, it's not provable without a reasonable doubt, and has no precedent, so should not be included. LivLovisa (talk) 05:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Include. The issue is not that participating countries advertise their contest entries. That's a no-brainer. The issue is that a government is involved with and admitted that there is a campaign by Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs to vote for them. “The truth is that there was obviously an organized, dedicated effort by Israel supporters to give their votes to Golan… and it clearly drew votes from many who don’t otherwise tune into the Eurovision each year.”

WP:ARBPIA –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

As provided under the "ESC Title and Values" section of the contest rules, specifically under the "Non-Political Event" subsection, " Participating Broadcasters shall be responsible...to make sure that the ESC shall in no case be politicized and/or instrumentalized and/or otherwise brought into disrepute in any way." As what @Yoyo360 have already mentioned, we are specifically talking about whether or not to mention the campaign, which have already been established (sources here, here, and here). "No matter its influence, the existence of this campaign has been established." F1xesc (talk) 07:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

To be honest, I think that the amount of promotion for this entry was, indeed, something new and unheard of. At some point, you couldn't watch a Youtube video without an ad popping up. Piccco (talk) 11:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Include per the previous discussion. Also, as SMcCandlish mentioned, I'm still confused about the need to open a RfC when consensus was already pretty clear. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 23:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Include: The exact wording to be added hasn't been fully discussed, but it is clear that there is support for including in the earlier discussion. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:ARBPIA –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Include: As others have mentioned there is support for including this Fener8819 (talk) 12:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 August 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add the following paragraph to the end of the "Disqualification of the Netherlands from the final" section, they explain challenges from Serbia, Slovenia, Portugal, Croatia, France, Norway, Spain, as well as a subsequent criminal investigation that was dismissed today.

(taken from Netherlands_in_the_Eurovision_Song_Contest_2024#Incident_and_subsequent_disqualification)

Ivan Simonović, a member of Serbia's delegation, called the disqualification "unfair", while Slovenia's broadcaster RTVSLO demanded clarifications from the EBU. Portugal, Croatia, France, Norway and Spain also demanded explanations from the EBU regarding incidents that occurred during the contest. The Swedish Police Authority launched an investigation into the incident on the day it was reported, and the case was subsequently handed to the Swedish Prosecution Authority. The investigation was closed on 12 August, with the senior prosecutor Fredrik Jönsson citing a lack of evidence to prove that Klein "was capable of causing serious fear or that had any such intention". Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Done with minor edits for WP:NPOV — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Simonović, Ivan (2024-05-18). "Песма Евровизије је након Малмеа на прекретници – од кога зависи на коју ће страну превагнути" . RTS. Retrieved 2024-05-18.
"RTP pede à Eurovisão uma reunião para esclarecer incidentes" (in Portuguese). RTP. 2024-05-15. Archived from the original on 15 May 2024. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
van Eenennaam, Alexander (2024-07-15). "Verhoren in zaak Joost Klein afgerond: Nederlands OM brengt Zweedse collega's deze week op de hoogte" . Algemeen Dagblad. Retrieved 2024-07-15.
"Investigation concerning illegal threats in Malmö has been closed | Swedish Prosecution Authority". via.tt.se. 2024-08-12. Retrieved 2024-08-12.
Blomberg, Linnea (2024-08-12). "Förundersökningen mot Joost Klein läggs ner" . Aftonbladet (in Swedish). Retrieved 2024-08-12.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 August 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change Ukraine televote in Semi-Final 1 from blank to 5 points to Australia. Aero89012 (talk) 13:54, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.

Obsolete source, verifiability violation

The claim

Through social media content, Israeli broadcaster Kan also expressed concerns over alleged antisemitism in Malmö, attributing this to the "Islamisation of Europe".

cites a source that itself only cites a now-deleted Twitter/X account. WP:TWITTER says such posts may only be used as sources if they don't involve third parties, which this does. If this claim can't be substantiated with reliable sources, it should be deleted. LivLovisa (talk) 08:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I am not following here. The website ESCplus is used as the source as you mentioned. Thus, TWITTER does not apply here. Additionally, both the post itself and the article have been archived. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

IvanScrooge98 made the edit in question. To be on the safe side, do you know of a different source IvanScrooge98? --Super Goku V (talk) 10:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I tried to make a quick search and the only other source I found was also directly citing the tweet, though I remember watching the original KAN video making this statement so I’ll see if I can dig it up – unfortunately, many Eurovision websites decided to limit their coverage on Israel in light of the current events so I think it’s going to be hard. In any case I’m also not convinced WP:TWITTER applies when the tweet is included within a larger article from a third-party source. ~~Thanks for linking to~~ As for the archive, at least for the moment that may suffice to substantiate the article content. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 11:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

That lines up with my searches sadly. No problem regarding the links, I think. (Can I ask why that is scratched out?) --Super Goku V (talk) 11:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I simply had not noticed the archive link was already included in the page and I was thanking you for providing it :) So I reworded my comment. Btw, if I find anything I’ll update you. Thanks! ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 11:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, so it is... That would have saved me some time. (Off topic, but I just ran the website through the Wayback Machine, which was helpful as that was how I found your edit on March 24th thanks to the auto archiving project archiving on that day. I had tried using the Who Wrote That tool, but that has been down for hours.) In any case, thank you as well and best of luck in your search. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

A claim of that nature requires much more evidence than one reference; why aren't we seeing more articles on it of it was so impactful? It feels more like a click-bait/reactionary article rather than a news report. Also, ESC Plus is listed as a source we should use with "caution"; it's has not gained its full credit as a WP:RS. The 'investigation' of alternatives really was just an editor's verification of the subject matter when what we actually need is additional reputable sources also reporting on it. Grk1011 (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Found this related article by Kan from a few days later: https://www.kan.org.il/content/kan-news/local/730236/. It doesn’t refer to antisemitism when discussing Malmö nor to alleged “Islamization of Europe”, but it cites official travel warnings by the National Security Council. Unfortunately I couldn’t find the original social media video the tweet was reporting. In any case you’re right to say we shouldn’t mention it if it can’t back it up. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

My understanding was that it was a program that aired on KAN, but regardless it does seem better to remove given the struggle to verify it. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah. Looks like it was already taken care of. Thank you for looking into this. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah, didn't know that WP:ESC/S existed. Thank you for the heads up. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Revert possible vandalism

I have reverted two edits made by IP address 102.119.220.21 that were both disruptive and factually incorrect. They changed Croatia to having won, changed participating countries to 39, and added Montenegro as a returning country. I looked at the IP and these are the only two contributions they have made. Ktkvtsh (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories: