Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 10

Semiprotection for 'Eurovision Song Contest'

Given the amount of vandalism this article has been through recently by new users and unknown IP adresses, including replacing al the content with "makedonija" and "1", which I and other users have had to revert, I think we'd be fully entitled to request semi-protection. I'd like to get some feedback from other editors before I make the request. YeshuaDavid (talk) 20:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Go for it. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree it does need to be semi-protected. I had to fix part of it that an unknown IP user meddled with, the IP in question even sent me an email arguing the fact that Italy isn't part of the Big 5 - despite the fact that [A] I found 2 reliable sources; and [B] Had previously checked with Grk1011/Stephen (talk) if it would be OK to include Italy, considering I had found numerous sources to back this up. Random IP vandalism is getting beyond a joke now. The only way to stop this, is to semi-protect it. (Pr3st0n (talk) 00:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC))
It had been protected for a week ending June 8. I would suggest you put in another request for protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I've put in another request for semi-protection of the Eurovision Song Contest article on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Hopefully this will work. (Pr3st0n (talk) 15:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC))

Junior Eurovision Song Contest now GA

Junior Eurovision has been listed as an arts good article. Well done to everyone involved... and myself! Does this mean that it will automatically go up to GA status under WikiProject Eurovision's quality scale? It's currently rated as B-class.--gottago (talk) 22:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

FAR notice for Eurovision Song Contest

I have nominated Eurovision Song Contest for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.Cirt (talk) 09:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Newsletter

I believe that the WikiProject Newsletter is a very important aspect of our project. It pushes members to do more and lets them know what is going on. Sadly, I don't believe I can continue to produce it each month on my own and would like someone to take it over. I will be editing sparingly and will not have the time to do the labor intensive tasks that I used to, but will be able to edit here and there. You may find more information about the newsletter here. I will be on MSN and AIM and around to help out and answer any questions. Thanks. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Gee, don't everyone jump to volunteer ;) Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
This is a small project to have a newsletter, though I agree it would be great to keep it going if possible. I would like to do the 'from the members' section this next month anyway since I have not done it for a very long time and I have plenty to say. I could also help with the writing for the other sections. I would probably need some help on the distribution though. Camaron | Chris (talk) 17:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I have an text list (notepad, wordpad, etc) of members so I can deliver using AWB. I don't mind delivering if I have to, it's just making the entire thing by myself that i don't have time for. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, I will take over a bit more with the writing and leave the delivery to you. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Contestant Reassessment

I'm not sure where else to request this, and please tell me if I'm in the wrong pew, but I would like to request that an editor who has not worked substantially on the article for EV contestant David D'Or reassess it, as I believe that with additional changes it is we above the C at which it is now rated. Thanks.--Ethelh (talk) 02:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree and have given the page B-class status. Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Switzerland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008

I have concluded the reassessment and delisted the article for the Good Articles list. Reasons are at Talk:Switzerland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008/GA2. If you disagree with this decision please take it to WP:GAR. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

RfC on reliable sources for Eurovision articles

Closure of RfC
Before explaining my reading of the consensus of this debate, let me note that per the guideline at Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion and policy at Wikipedia:CON#Community discussions, simply putting your name under a "reliable" or "unreliable" heading carries little weight if you do not explain your rationale. Consensus is not determined by numbers, but by opinions backed by reasoning. Accordingly, those contributors who did not explain their reasoning do not add much to the closure decision.

Let me also note that the whole concept of "semi-reliable" is not defined by policy. Several contributors here have correctly commented on the fact that "reliable" is not a yes/no proposition. For instance, Wikipedia:V#Reliable sources says, "As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable the source is." I presume that what is meant by "semi-reliable" is something higher than "questionable" but lower than "high quality"...in other words, something that may be used, but would not be acceptable for contentious material (BLP particularly; see Wikipedia:BLP#Sources). Contributors should understand that a "semi-reliable source" is unlikely to meet the rigorous requirements of "featured article", for, as David Fuchs rightly advises, "FA" criteria call for "high-quality reliable sources". It is my personal opinion that any source that is regarded as "semi-reliable" should be replaced as soon as possible with something that does not bear that taint.

I trust contributors also realize that consensus can change. The project should remain alert to the evolution of these sites. There is always a possibility that a source will evolve into a "high-quality reliable source" or be downgraded to "questionable" down the road. Future discussions of these sites should keep that in mind.

All that said, I read consensus as follows:

  • ESCTime: Unreliable. ESCTime was little discussed in this RfC. However, there is no support of it as a "reliable source" and no reasons given that it should be regarded as even a semi-reliable source. In spite of the shortcomings of polling, numbers are clearly against it. The only arguments given are arguments that dismiss its usability as a reliable source.
  • ESCToday: Reliable. Among the remaining sources, ESCToday has the clearest support. User:Jezhotwells makes a strong case against consideration as a reliable source, but others report that the site has some reliable media presence and that the opinions of at least Barry Viniker have been quoted in reliable press. Knowing nothing of it aside from what I've read here, I would myself use it with care, in line with User:SilkTork's suggestions. I would be prepared for it to be challenged at FA, as this conversation suggests it is unlikely to be viewed as "high quality." With this one in particular, I would suggest contributors to the project keep an eye on evolution. If the contributors to this conversation are correct, it may be evolving into a fully reliable source, but I suspect based on the opposition discussion it did receive that there would be others within the wider community who would continue at this point to view it with suspicion.
  • ESCKaz: Semi-reliable. ESCKaz received less discussion than ESCToday. Contributors to this discussion assert that it has editorial oversight, but the majority of those who support it indicate that it is at best "semi" reliable.
  • Oikotimes: No consensus. Oikotimes receives no full support. Numbers are slightly with "semi-reliable", but the arguments are unclear. Even arguments for reliability note more problems with the source than with the others. Policy asserts that the burden of evidence is on those who wish to add material. Contributors should be very cautious if they choose to use this site, particularly as involves biographical material related to living people. Again, contributors might want to keep an eye on it to see how it evolves. I myself would treat it as a "questionable source."

I'd like to note that the contributors here did a good job keeping cool over what could have become a heated conversation. Please feel free to stop by my userpage if you would like further elaboration of my rationale. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

What sources are considered reliable and can be used in Eurovision articles? Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

There was previously an RfC for determining sourcing for this project in October 2008, it can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 3#Reliability of ESCKaz. It primarily focused on ESCKaz but other sources were mentioned. Since it appeared nobody was going to close the debate I closed it with the following conclusions:

It is clear we are going to get no more input so I think now would be a good time to conclude the RfC. Input was mixed with varying levels of merit, with both new users and older ones participating. Few or none of the participants were from outside this project. After reviewing the debate it appears:

  • There is rough consensus that ESCToday and Oikotimes are generally considered reliable sourcing, though ESCToday was usually preferred over Oikotimes.
  • Views of ESCKaz were mixed, with many users arguing it was an unreliable source as there was not clear fact checking, while others stated it had a history of being reliable in the Eurovision community so should be considered such on Wikipedia. Later in the debate it was pointed out that fact checking does occur, though there was little input after this surfaced, so per WP:SILENCE, it can be assumed it is reasonably accepted that this source is reliable. Issues over the content being on one large page was not fully resolved however, so preference of other sources over ESCKaz may still be desirable due to this.
  • The issue of WP:BLP content requiring high quality sourcing was not challenged, so again per WP:SILENCE, it can assumed this is accepted. The issue on if ESCKaz and Oikotimes (after new information surfaced) is acceptable for BLP sourcing was not directly addressed.

I think that covers it all. If you disagree with my conclusions, given that I was involved, please point it out. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It has become apparent that the issue on what sources for Eurovision articles do or do not pass the Wikipedia:Reliable source guideline has not been resolved. The issue appears to have come up once again relating to granting Wikipedia:Good articles status. This project currently has 12 GA articles they are:

There is also two FLs:

and three FAs:

Lets look at some recent nominations:

  • ESCT = Article uses ESCToday as a source at least once. Website
  • OT = Article uses Oikotimes as a source at least once. Website

The above list is intended to be factual, if there are any errors or major omissions please point this out. It is pretty clear from this that the use of sourcing needs to be reviewed. ESCToday and Oikotimes are used by many articles in this project and this has been the case for many years. So the questions for this RfC are:

  • What sources are considered reliable and can be used in Eurovision articles?
  • Is Oikotimes a reliable source?
  • Is ESCToday a reliable source?
  • Is ESCKaz a reliable source? (Main topic of the previous RfC, this will probably need re-addressing again, so I am adding it as an additional question. Website Camaron · Christopher · talk 18:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC))
  • How much variety of sourcing should Eurovision articles have e.g. is 50% of sources from ESCToday in an article acceptable?
  • If ESCToday and Oikotimes are not reliable sources then what alternative sources should be used?

I will be listing this RfC at WP:RfC and mentioning it somewhere in the project newsletter. I will personally notify any user mentioned in the listing above for courtesy. I am aware that there has been some discussion on this at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard; however this is very much a project issue and most discussion on this in the past has been here, so I think it is best discussed here. Any user from both outside and inside this project, registered or unregistered, is welcome to comment, though please keep it civil. Camaron · Christopher · talk 15:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I will also notify all participants of the previous RfC, who are likely to be interested in re-commenting. The project newsletter and watchlists will cover the remaining project members. Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I was not originally planning to contact all active members of the project, however the newsletter is not going to be published for another week and I think it is only fair that all Eurovision editors are contacted relatively quickly on an RfC of this magnitude of importance for their editing. I will be sending out a direct neutrally worded notice to all those on the active users list, as was done for the last RfC. Camaron · Christopher · talk 08:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

  • For me, both ESCToday and Oikotimes are reliable - they extensively source their information for many of their articles, and give links to their original location on most occasions. I think ESCKaz is also reliable, given that they seem to source their information as well. With regards to variety of sourcing, it really depends on the date of creation related to the date in which the occasion was involved - for example, it would be hard to find many sources related to a 2000/2001 article compared to one for 2008/2009. In many occasions websites delete articles/information after a year or two, and so it can be difficult to source information from those years. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: I won't repeat in detail the criteria at WP:RS, I will assume that editors here are familiar with them.
I believe that oikotimes is not a reliable source because:
it has no statement of editorial policy, unless "We are some friends from Greece and around the world who want to have a webpage (without any restrictions among us) which will include news, rumours and many collaboration projects with other major or not websites." is counted.
It appears to be a self-published source / fan site / collective blog.
I find no evidence of it being used by "accepted, high-quality reliable sources" as a source, no statements of reliability or fact checking, etc.
Oikiotimes does often cite other sources, but not always in enough detail for verification. I am not sure why the sources quoted by oikiotimes are not used in articles as they sometimes appear to be RS. Example: This story on oikotimes [1] is cited to this story [2] on RussiaToday (which may well be an RS). So the original source should be used.
I believe that esctoday is not a reliable source because:
Once again there is no statement of editorial policy. No suggestion of fact checking. There are appeals for donations.
Barry Viniker is cited by RS as running "the Eurovision fansite ESCtoday". He is cited for his personal opinions, but there are no RS about the reliability or accuracy of the website.
It appears to be a self-published source / fan site / collective blog.
ESCtoday does cite sources, but in less detail than oikotimes so verification is not possible.
The burden of proof that these sites are RS lies with those citing them. So far none has been produced. Agreement that they are good sources within the Eurovision Wikiproject does not over-ride WP:RS. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Nobody here has yet proposed overriding WP:RS, this is really about interpretation of the spirit of the guidelines. In the previous RfC yes there was a bit of a dissent present between the lines from a few users that Eurovision articles can opt-out of policies and guidelines, but nothing significant. I have not yet decided my current opinions on use of the sources. One thing the previous RfC does show however is that things will turn very nasty if there is not full co-operation between users on what sources are reliable and which are not. There is a strong status quo of using ESCToday and Oikotimes as a source which is obvious from the evidence above, and if that is to be broken more support will need to develop for doing so. This RfC gives that a chance of happening, or alternately of a strong opposition developing. In any case the aim here is to avoid the issue being in permanent limbo. There are still some plans on the table to develop some kind of guidelines for Eurovision articles as many projects have, and a clear resolution to this will help those one day develop. Camaron · Christopher · talk 18:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Further comment: It is obvious that some editors regard these sources as reliable, but unfortunately statements such as For me, both ESCToday and Oikotimes are reliable - they extensively source their information for many of their articles, and give links to their original location on most occasions. and for example, it would be hard to find many sources related to a 2000/2001 article compared to one for 2008/2009. do not cut the mustard for WP:RS. If RS can't be found then the statements shouldn't be in Wikipedia. It really is as simple as that. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Users are free to make their opinions known, whether they fit with guidelines or not, and they can be given appropriate consideration when conclusions are drawn. As I have already said this is a status quo lasting several years which has been accepted up to now by those both inside and outside the project without any real questioning - breaking it will not be simple. While I have described this as not aiming to override WP:RS, which it isn't, it is aiming to resolve a dispute, I am not ruling out anything at this stage. This includes both in what can fairly be described as the nuclear options. The first being to completely eliminate ESCToday / Okiotimes from articles as soon as possible in a massive project drive. In return however the alternative nuclear option is not off the cards either - which is to invoke WP:IAR and hence as policy override the WP:RS guideline, citing that bureaucracy is getting in the way of things, which can happen if there is support for it. There are plenty of other more compromising options out there though. Camaron · Christopher · talk 08:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the contact, I will again express almost unchanged opinion. As per regard to WP:RS I consider all of the above mentioned sources as reliable as being "produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", the question is only whether the information there can be "trusted", which on my opinion Oikotimes fail. I'm backing ESCToday and ESCKaz as generally highly reliable sources on the Eurovision Song Contest, and ESCKaz as the prime source for Junior Eurovision Song Contest and Eurovision Dance Contest. My experience with Oikotimes has clearly shown that high percentage of the articles published there tend either to be sensationalist with tabloid approach, being not fully correct or are reprinted from other sources without proper mention of source. In all possible cases, references to these sites should be backed by source from either official site or site of broadcaster, while in Oikotimes case I'd suggest this to be a must (as per above mentioned example with Russia Today). From English language websites I'd also mention Eurovisionary.com and Belgovision.com as respected sources. Fan-sites cleary have to be kept used as sources for the information on the Eurovision contests as in general they tend to publish correct information quicker and in more details than official site of the contest or local general press which do not possess enough of experience in the subject compared to the sites run by "established experts". Relegating those sites as proper sources will not lead to extension of reliability of Eurovision related articles of Wikipedia. AlexeyU (talk) 13:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the above. Might I ask where is the evidence to back up the statement: I consider all of the above mentioned sources as reliable as being "produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications",...? Whose work has been published and where? These sites both have many contributors. Are they all experts? Do we have evidence that they have published in reliable third-party publications and are regarded as experts?. If so, then please bring the evidence to the table. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I see Eurovisionary and Belgovision are now introduced as reliable sources. Please! These are fan sites, just like Oikotimes and ESCtoday. Reliable sources for artciles on Eurovision should be able to find enough material at the offical Eurovision sit, National broadcasters sites, the press of each country. Yes it may be a little harder to find the information, but at least it will be verifiable which it is not now. I said I wasn't going to quote WP:RS, I would assume that editors had read it and understood it, but aparently they have not. I will quote from WP:Verifiability: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The sites in question are what have historically been considered reliable sources through which the information in the articles can be verified. We are not here to debate whether sourcing guidelines should be ignored, but to decide if these sites are reliable for inclusion. The quote from verifiability relates to statements with no source at all, not ones that you feel are inadequate. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • RELIABLE I agree that those sites mentioned above are reliable sources of information, and help us to improve a true and accurate article for readers viewing Eurovision articles via Wikipedia. ESCToday and Oikotimes seem to show similar news bulletins which suggests to me that they copy from each other. The obvious one (eurovision.tv) also seems to show same bulletins which suggests to me that ESCT and OT get their sourcing from there. I would also like to point out an additional type of sourcing that we could consider using; and that being national newspapers who also have "electronic versions" via the web. They do have reporters who work hard to obtain information to make editorials for their companies; and such write-ups could be deemed useful for future Eurovision articles. Also have we considered using each individual OGAE site as useful sourcing? I have noticed quite a few of those sites hold valuable information which may help build a stronger and more accurate articles for Eurovision Wikiproject. (Pr3st0n (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC))
  • May be reliable, but we should add other sources. ESCT and OT were discussed at WP:RSN archive 36. I suggested that both appear to have an editorial staff. Even if it's on a volunteer basis, an editorial board is what makes the difference between a self-published source and a reliable secondary source. My opinion was the real issue was that the Norway and Portugal articles relied almost entirely on ESCT and OT with dozens of cites to each. I suggested other types of sources be used as well. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes I would certainly agree that more variety is needed wherever possible, and I am sure I have mentioned this before somewhere. It helps with any Wikipedia:Notability concerns, WP:NPOV issues, reduces copyright violations, and helps the article seem more credible and reliable as a whole. This project is clearly a big fan of Okiotimes and ESCToday but even if they are the most reliable sources on Earth we should look elsewhere as well. I can't find any numerical recommendation but I would say an article should cite no more than 25% one source. One way of doing this already mentioned above is to look at the sources for ESCToday / Okiotimes stories and try and use those as well and ESCToday / Okiotimes direct. Camaron · Christopher · talk 17:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Further comment on unreliability: No-one in this discussion has addressed the basic point of how Oikotimes and ESCtoday measure up against the reliable source criteria.
  • News organisation, Are they? No evidence has been produced. To take examples from the apparently good article San Marino in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008:
  • Reference #1 ESCtoday, cited source = OGAE Italy, which is a fan site at {http://oage0.tripod.com/}. Not a reliable source. Does this support the statement that that it was considering entering the Eurovision Song Contest for the first time in 2008, all depending of the share holders of San Marino RTV? No it doesn't!
  • Reference #2 Oikiotimes, cites {http://www.sanmarinortv.sm/} and ESCtoday, so where is the San Marino TV article? (This is supposedly supporting the same statement as above)
  • Reference #3 ESCtoday: supporting Half of the stock of SMRTV at the time belonged to Radiotelevisione Italiana (RAI), the Italian broadcaster which withdrew from the contest in 1997. SMRTV, however, officially announced its participation at the Eurovision Song Contest 2008, held in Belgrade, Serbia Source ESCtoday???
  • Reference #4 Oikiotimes, supporting the same statement - where is the San Marino TV article?
  • Reference #5 from the European Broadcasting Union (hurray). Statement supported is As the Sammarinese broadcaster of the event, it was SMRTV's job to organize a process to select the country's entrant. Where is this supported by {http://www.eurovision.tv/page/history/by-country/country?country=53}?
  • Reference #6, supporting For its first Eurovision appearance, SMRTV sought to host an internal selection process and A jury, headed by singer Little Tony, was appointed to select the entry from a pool of songs submitted by those interested; the deadline for songs to be submitted was set at 25 February 2008.. ESCtoday cites STV, presumably meaning Sanmarinortv.sm and possibly this item: "Il 20, 22 e 24 Maggio, a Belgrado in Serbia si terrà la 53a edizione di Eurovision Song Contest. La Repubblica di San Marino partecipa per la prima volta, e a rappresentarla sono stati selezionati i Miodio con la canzone Complice. Alle selezioni sammarinesi hanno partecipato alcuni artisti della Repubblica. Li conosciamo meglio in queste interviste realizzate in studio da Lia Fiorio." No mention of the dealine or the appointment of the jury or "Little Tony".
  • These so called references are no better than made up ones. Please read WP:Reliable sources, read what Jimbo Wales has said about verifiability and reliable sources. Members of this project making statements such as "I agree that those sites mentioned above are reliable sources of information", "I'm backing ESCToday and ESCKaz as generally highly reliable sources on the Eurovision Song Contest", "I consider all of the above mentioned sources as reliable as being "produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications"" (no evidence of where such opinions have been published by reliable sources, I note), "For me, both ESCToday and Oikotimes are reliable - they extensively source their information for many of their articles, and give links to their original location on most occasions." are simply not good enough. These sources do not meet the criteria at WP:RS and no amount of fooling yourselves that they do will make them reliable, Please use the media of the nations that enter the ESC, the broadcasters and the European Broadcasting Union, but do not rely on third hand agglomerations of these sources, such as ESCtoday and Oikiotimes. If you cannot support statements about what clothes the contestants wore, etc., then do not include that information in the article.
  • WP:Verifiability states: Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources that meet those criteria should be used and no other. Self published sources; Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable. Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. Please read and understand these policies as they are at the core of the whole Wikipedia project. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The allegation that this is just some kind of internal project fooling of each other that ESCToday and Oikotimes are reliable not stand up to the evidence. Numerous GA reviewers have passed the sources as reliable without comment or concern - why? A mistake perhaps? Seems unlikely given the amount of times it has happened. They were forced to by the project? I don't see any evidence of that. They thought they were reliable? Perhaps. I would be interested in hearing from some other GA reviewers on why they passed the articles if they were as bad as being alleged. There is also hardly being a rush of condemnation from outside the project on these sources either. I think I have already made clear that this is about interpretation, and WP:RS guideline is intentionally not rigid. I am trying to get everyone who edits the Eurovision articles to state their honest opinions, they will be after all be the ones writing the articles. I would appreciate if users respect that, even if they do not conform to some individuals interpretation of policies and guidelines. I have already had one message on my talk page saying that they felt unable to post here, to be frank I was not very impressed. At the end of the day while unanimity would be desirable, I do not consider it a requirement. Camaron · Christopher · talk 08:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a little unusual, but it was done by Grk1011 in the last RfC and it produced results: ask the sources being discussed for their opinion. Obviously they will be a little bias, but it would help us get some insight into the websites and how they work, hence relying on less speculation here. I will try and contact Oikotimes and ESCToday some time today. Camaron · Christopher · talk 08:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

  • I may be repeating myself a bit, but I'd like to reinforce my opinion - in my opinion, ESCToday, Oikotimes and ESCKaz have the reputation of being reliable. In ESCToday's case thay have a list of editors and staff on their team (see here). As for the response on not being experts in the field, how do you know they are not experts on Eurovision, or Eurovision-related topics? They may not have their work published by a third-party source, but we don't know.
    In my personal opinion I would not call these websites fansites (particularly ESCToday and Oikotimes), mainly because, for most of the people on the team, this is their regular job (albeit a volutary one), with many of the staff going on to other jobs in their respective fields (as can be seen here).
    Futhurmore, I completely understand the reliance of these two websites solely on the three articles I have edited, and I will try harder to diversify the sources in the articles. However, I still do not understand where you are coming from when you say they are not reliable. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 10:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Well I have contacted ESCToday and Oikotimes explaining the issue and the disagreement, asking for more information. Hopefully I should receive a response by e-mail or direct to this page. Camaron · Christopher · talk 10:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Having read the above comments and looked carefully at ESCToday and Oikotimes, it appears that the sites contain information which is useful, but that there is not enough evidence that the information is reliable. There are other such sites - IMDB for films and RateBeer for breweries, for example - where editors have decided that such sites can be carefully used for broad detail, but not for specific detail, not for notability, and not for contentious statements. I would say that the trend of this discussion is moving in the right direction - that the sites can be used with care, but that other sources are found to support important data and statements. You can probably work up some kind of guidance statement to that effect and keep a record of it for other editors to consult. SilkTork *YES! 07:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes reliability is not just a yes and no question, as a past films article editor I know what you mean about the IMDB. I think it is more clear now that the extreme options e.g. allow exclusive use of ESCToday / Oikotimes in articles, or blanket banning them, are not likely to be workable or gain consensus. The option of allowing ESCToday / Okiotimes as a source but suggesting alternatives for more controversial statements is a proposal I would certainly consider supporting. Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I am happy to report that I have received a reply from Barry Viniker of ESCToday, I will ask permission to disclose the contents of the e-mail onto this page as there is a lot of useful information given. Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Barry has requested that I keep the inner workings and practices of ESCToday confidential, for courtesy I intend to comply with that request, and hence I will not disclose the full contents of the e-mails here. I will say however that ESCToday considers itself neutral and impartial, does have editorial staff, and does only use only reliable sources for its information both externally and internally. It is a well known and popular site and has a good relationship with other broadcasters. Camaron · Christopher · talk 09:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't dispute anything you say above but it doesn't do anything to make ESCtoday a reliable source. If their articles were widely used or cited by other reliable sources that would be good, also if their contributors were published in other sources. So far in this RfC we merely have lots of opinions and no facts and the case of the communications paraphrased above merely the website's own opinion about itself. All the references that I can find to ESCtoday in reliable sources mention it as a fan site. Barry Viniker is mentioned in passing by The Guardian and his opinions are quoted by ABC and The Telegraph. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Here is what I found for references of ESCToday in the articles of reliable sources: The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel says "an unofficial, but detailed site is www.esctoday.com, an independent Internet news site that covers Eurovision with stories, audio and video..."[3](first link), BBC News has an article about the chief editor of ESCToday, who talks about team of eight full time editors and how the site is his job [4], MTV references esctoday article as a source for their information [5], Racing Post suggests that "Those wishing to make a more detailed study should go to www.esctoday.com" [6][7], and more, just search google news. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Interesting - when I click on the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article from Google News I do do not find anything about ESCToday. The BBC quotes the opinions of Sietse Bakker, it does not say anything about the reliability of ESCToday as a source. I can't access the Racing Post article. Searching Google News has been specifically mentioned as not a way of determining reliability at WP:RS/N. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Google News Archive and advertisements. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Since they are pay articles, I provided the google search link which showed the text I'm talking about. All of the proof is there and accessible in some way. Also, your google news discussion link is irrelevant. We are using the articles themselves, not the number of hits. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, I have accessed the article via Nexis. This is what it has to say about ESCtoday: An unofficial, but detailed site is www.esctoday.com, an independent Internet news site that covers Eurovision with stories, audio and video. Nothing about reliability, crdibility or whatever. The Racing Post article cites an online fan poll on esctoday: If you are looking for a country to beat long-time favourites Russia in Saturday's Eurovision Song Contest, fan site www.esctoday.com has been conducting a poll to predict the winner.. That's it, a report that a fansite is running a poll. Sorry this nowhere meets the criteria in WP:RS. What is needed is credible information from reliable third party sources that esctoday and oikotimes are reliable. Please read Reliable sources in content review processes. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I think there is enough coverage to more seriously consider creating ESCToday its own article. There inner working details are enough to convince me that they are reliable at least within SilkTork's proposal. Blanket bans of ESCToday seems pointless in trying to improve the accuracy of articles, and clearly is not going to gain consensus here. I also don't see anything in WP:RS which says that there has to be lot of other sources which specifically says ESCToday is reliable, a general reputation and evidence of reliability on how they operate is enough as far as I'm concerned. The guideline does say Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process. ESCToday has been used for years on this project and I am not aware of any major incidents in which the articles it produces turned out to be inaccurate or wrong, so continuing to use it seems logical and I consider that editorial judgment. Camaron · Christopher · talk 10:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • As an outsider to this project just looking in because of a discussion at WT:FAR, I'm going to have to agree with Jezhotwells' analysis at the beginning of this section that the refs are unreliable. There is nothing on their sites that suggest they have a dedicated editorial staff or evidence of fact checking, and I'm not seeing enough significant mentions in clearly reliable media that can vouch for their veracity. The FA criteria now require high-quality sources, and it appears these are anything but. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 12:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Well unless they were lying when I contacted them they do have editorial staff and fact checking. There was more detail provided on how this works but on request of the website itself I have been asked not to publish all the information I received. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Camaron, maybe you haven't contacted lots of site owners before, but they all say that when you ask them. Of course they want their links on Wikipedia and want to pretend to be a legitimate site for reliable information. Their word means nothing. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I find very difficult to believe that they have made up all the details they gave when they responded. I also found nothing in the e-mails which suggested any desperation to be linked from Wikipedia, and they certainly have not seen any evidence of this occurring in the past. I have interpreted them as a good faith attempt to answer queries I made on how they operate. If they had just responded with 'yes we are reliable' then yes I would question the usefulness of that evidence, but no they didn't, they gave specific procedures and details on how things are done. There is evidence on their website that supports some of their claims, such as their staff list. They even gave directions on who to go to verify their claims, and I may just pursue those. Also, no, not all websites want to have links on Wikipedia, I got no response from Oikotimes when are queried how they operated. Camaron · Christopher · talk 15:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Their staff list doesn't tell us anything (and I find it curious that their team consists only of editors, but no actual writers?) that suggests they are reliable. Are any of the chief editors notable on their own, or has their work appeared in notable publications? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
These sources quote Barry Viniker's opinions. So it would be fine to use them to back up references to his opinions. None of them say anything about the reliability of ESCToday however. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Almost all of them mention ESCToday, and the GayDarNation one does praise ESCToday. The fact these sources clearly see the cheif editor of ESCToday as a reliable source on Eurovision information is evidence of reliability of ESCToday itself as far as I can see. Yes it would be good if they give more of a judgement on ESCToday in their articles, but I would not expect many sources to put 'yes ESCToday is reliable' in the middle of them, that is simply not how they work. Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, GaydarNation is a gay dating site [8], not an RS. Reliablke sources have to be established as such by their being cited by other reliable sources - that is how it works. Barry Viniker is a RS for 'his own opinions - no more. His website is not. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I had gathered that, but ESCToday has been cited by other reliable sources as much as should be expected as shown by the evidence above. The Chief Editor has quite an influence on a websites reliability, and only confirms the almost unanimous view of this project that ESCToday has served Wikipedia well as a reliable source of information. Lets think about this practically for a moment, there are probably hundreds of articles, perhaps into the thousands, which cite ESCToday. How much effort is it going to take get rid of ESCToday as proposed? A lot. Who is it that is going to have put that effort in? This project. Who are the ones that are going to be asking what is the point? This project. All answers point to the conclusion that this suggestion is not practical, that has been clear from the early days of this debate; I think I have ignored this reality for too long. I still fail to see how ESCToday is not reliable within the WP:RS guideline after reading what is written on that page, but a problem is that the RS guideline is intentionally not strongly detailed, leaving people to make-up their own criteria. Another problem that is it is not really possible to prove that a source is reliable, as it is opinion on what 'reliable' is, and you can't prove opinions. I think this RfC has been going long enough to show that this project has made up its mind over its interpretations of the RS guidelines and other policies. There are more realistic and compromising solutions which are easier and will probably will get greater support, such as SilkTork's proposal, encouraging more variety, and others which have not been thought of. Oikotimes is perhaps more debatable, but ESCToday is not going to be gone from Wikipedia any time soon, and to reviewers who object to that, I am sorry, but that is the reality of the situation. Camaron · Christopher · talk 21:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

For transparency I think it should be noted here that Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations, Wikipedia talk:Featured article review have been notified of this discussion by Jezhotwells (talk · contribs). Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes as discussion have started on other boards i thought it would be good to do this. Then they switched the power off at work, so I didn't get a chnace to get back here. I thought it best to remind otheres that there is an open RfC here. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I see, well that was good thinking in any case, I didn't think of those when I was thinking on who to notify. Camaron · Christopher · talk 17:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
This has been brought up before on RSN, result was no consensus.[9] I'll repeat a few of the arguments I made there, that the sites do have an editorial staff. I'd prefer that the Eurovision articles use a wider variety of sources, but I certainly wouldn't have a problem with a few cites to ESC or OK, as long as this wasn't for anything controversial, especially as these are much more than "fansites" and per above their editors are starting to earn a postive reputation in the press. We seem to be getting bogged down in academic standards for a non-academic topic. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
That is a good point, Eurovision is not an academic subject as far as I know and hence it is more difficult to determine who the experts are. As I said I think the more variety, use alternative/more sources for controversial things, is the most realistic and most practical proposal which has been made, and the evidence presented does not make this badley placed. The world is not devided between compleletly non-reliable and 100% reliable sources, most are inbetween, and I think a decision here should reflect that. Camaron · Christopher · talk 21:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
And per Jezhotwell's line items above, we actually do have an article on San Marino TV, which we should as it is a national broadcaster. Also, there's nothing wrong if a source we cite, in turn cites a source that wouldn't be an RS on WP (this is in reference to the first line item). One example would be a newspaper getting its information from a tipsheet, blog, or confidential source. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me - where have I stated that San Marino TV is not a reliable source? What I said was that San Marino TV itself should be cited as the source. Fan sites citing a source are not RS, the original source should be cited. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Jez, when will you realize that when ESCToday puts something like San Marino TV as there source, there is not necessarily an article? Say the Washington Post gets its information from a source, why does that source need to have an article of its own? ESCToday is fully capable of doing its own research and as the numerous links in this debate have shown us, Barry Viniker is highly involved in Eurovision affairs. Is it that hard to believe that the various networks and news bureaus wouldn't share information with ESCToday through email, telephone, fax, etc which they can publish on their own? Must they always be paraphrasing information from other sources? No. In addition, Sietse Bakker, creator of ESCToday now works for the EBU as "Manager Communicatie & Public Relations" for all Eurovision Contests (Adult, Junior, Dance, etc). Basically he is in charge of the public front for the contest (the news) and unless he severed all ties with ESCToday, I don't see why it would not be a reliable source for Eurovision information. Not to mention that a few ESCToday editors also write for both ESCToday and eurovision.tv. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Articles such as [[10]] with remarks such as "Until then we just served you the latest hot rumour from Turkey as presented in various local gossip papers." makes me wary of relying upon www.oikotimes.com per se for future events. I haven't explored the site sufficiently to make a hard and fast decline. Note that this ref has just been used in the 2010 article to include Turkey as a reason for inclusion of Turkey as a participating country, but I prefer to leave it up to more experienced editors to make the judgement call. AlexandrDmitri (talk) 10:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes I think that sourcing is a little dodgy as well, and Oikotimes does have the tendency to focus on rumours a little. Last year if I remember correctly it pre-maturely announced Moscow as the host of the 2009 Contest (and the wording, can't find the article now, implied it was a rumour) which caused problems for editors at the time as users kept re-adding it as a source to confirm Moscow as the host. The final confirmation of the host didn't actually come till later, it so happened to be Moscow but it could easily have been wrong. Like ESCToday it will be difficult to completely end use of Oikotimes, but I think it would be reasonable to expect more than Oikotimes sources for important and controversial information. Camaron · Christopher · talk 12:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I will bring one more example from JESC, section I'm keen on. [11] has rumoured that host of the 2008 will be singer Sarbel. [12] has initially singer Alex Panayi confirmed as host (and this has immediately reached wikipedia as I remember correcting it but being answered back that Oikotimes is reliable, as if), which later, after CyBC categorically denied it has been finally changed to real host, Alex Michael. This year we already have this [13] when there is no sign of any confirmation. Same as we usually have there numerous articles on rumours of "already selected potential artists". Sorry, pals, it's not proper journalism, and these are not verifiable facts. Thus I strongly consider Oikotimes as a tabloid mass-media whose publications can not be considered as facts before being confirmed by other sources. AlexeyU (talk) 02:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
You links are from the rumors section, not the news bureau. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 11:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The problem is it does not seem to be obvious when you are given a direct link to the article what is from the rumours section and what is from news. Camaron · Christopher · talk 12:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I have just put my votes on the straw poll, and I thought I should add a rationale here. ESCToday: Per evidence above, which was better than I expected, I am swayed towards pushing for full reliability. Oikotimes: Experience with use of this source counts against it, and grammar/spelling issues in their articles does not help. However the source is used a lot and getting rid of it instantly won't be possible, so I will be happy to tolerate it for non-controversial information, though if community support exists it can slowley be phased out. ESCKaz: Previous RfC suggested they do having editing staff and may be reliable, but long page issues and lack of the evidence that exists compared with ESCToday means I would still discourage its use. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

  • I too have voted. No to all of these sources for the simple reason that none of them meet the WP:RS criteria. No credible evidence has been produced thrughout this discussion. I would remind editors that the burden of proof lies upon those using sources. I not also that many of htose voting here have not contributed in any way to the discussion by producing rationales. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

This is my rationale: Looking through some of the provided sources that supposedly cite ESCToday, most of them are just mentions of the site or people on the site. For example, this dailystar page and the telegraph article simply contain quotes, not actual information or proof of reliability. Arguments such as FAs/GAs have used it don't fly, as FAC didn't actually check source reliability until about last March, and GA varies widely depending on the reviewer. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

After reading the guideline on reliable sources, I don't see anything that immediately disqualifies these websites as strongly as Jezhotwells seems to suggest. There have been no incidents where any of the sources have been wrong and there is ample evidence that exhibits not only their overwhelming use as sources for Eurovision articles, but reputation as a first for news regarding the contest. Additionally, some editors (three I believe) from ESCToday write articles for both ESCToday and the official Eurovision website. Their workings are so intertwined that I don't see how accessing the information through one site is wrong while the other is praised. Not to mention that both ESCToday and Oikotimes were at the contest reporting first hand and even had seats on the jury that decided the Greek entry several times over the years. They are not just websites for fans to get the latest gossip, they are full service news websites with the inside scoop on Eurovision established through their connections with the EBU, broadcasters, etc. The RS guideline is a guideline, not a policy and it clearly states that common sense must be taken into account. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's most likely a duck. The same is true here, most of these sites have never let us down so I don't see how we can seriously consider them to not be reliable. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Stephen, have your read WP:V. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. That's why you need a source for the information, which we have provided. WP:V is for when someone adds information without saying where it came from. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, you missed the bit about reliable sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
No, I've read it and proved that it is reliable already. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Can you please name those three editors involved in both ESCToday and Eurovision.tv at the same time currently, as I believe one of conditions of joining EBU volunteer team is not to be associated with other mass-media (however, that may apply only to Eurovision week live coverage). On another issue, I have heard several unconfirmed reports that Oikotimes editor-in-chief has been denied accreditation for several major Eurovision events, including JESC in Cyprus, though I can not find a proper confirmation for this as well, so I can not back this, let it be rumour in a best Oikotimes tradition. AlexeyU (talk) 02:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, they used to work for ESCToday but now work for the EBU, but they are still used to exchange information between the two organisations. I am not going to name the actual people as ESCToday requested that some details remain confidential (see above). Camaron · Christopher · talk 12:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The Arizona Daily Star, a "major morning daily newspaper" used ESCToday as one of its sources in its article "Mapping the news" published on May 12, 2004. (Need NewsBank membership to access). The more I look, more and more proof that esctoday is a reliable source shows up. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone can really have doubts in general reliability of ESCToday. Well, yes, sometimes certain facts can be wrong, but we do not need to check each and every FACT passing the guidances, we need to check reliability of the source in general. As Russian speaking I can bring plenty of facts proving same for ESCKaz. Major Russian search portal [14] and official site of Channel One [15] name ESCKaz as "for many years being source of valuable information and exclusive content for the fans of the contest". Major pop music site had interview with chief-editor of ESCKaz [16] stating that site "provides most full and authoritative information about the contest for many years". If digging we can find dozens of examples that can prove experience of those sites and their stuff. However, what is more important is that EBU also recognizes all these 'unofficial' Eurovision websites and lists them on it's web [17], and it even has broader list of links, where even smaller sites are included. EBU also provides accreditation to those websites to Eurovision events as legitimate and recognized press. If possible, I'd like to request some of Wikipedia editors mailing EBU and asking them to provide their view on the subject of importance and reliability of unofficial websites. AlexeyU (talk) 22:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles like Panellist Reveals He's Bisexual, to apply for EBU membership which say that Lichtenstein may be in the Eurovision soon (this has been used as a source for Possible entries in the 2010 competition) and to release album in mid-July inspire little confidence in me as to the usefulness of this site. I'll update on the other sites when I get a chance. -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 10:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I found one article of interest by ESCTime on the EBU website here, though it does just seem to be a blog entry. As a whole I am not convinced by ESCTime's reliability, and will default to no for now. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The RfC has now been going for over a month and since it seems to have run out of steam I think it is now time to think about closure. Consensus now has to be judged, and I believe it would only be appropriate for someone outside the RfC, as well as the GA and Eurovision projects, to be given this task. I hope that while there is nothing to stop future discussion regarding this issue this will mean the result has some acceptance. Many people probably fit the bill for the closer but I will for now ask Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs) who I have had little longterm contact with but I know is trust worthy, and as far as I know she has never edited a Eurovision article. Camaron · Christopher · talk 08:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll

This RfC discussion has now being going for nearly three weeks if I count correctly. A lot has been said with many opinions cited and a lot to scrowl through, and now is good time to start thinking about conclusions and implementation. It would be good to help in this by seeing what the general make-up of opinion is here through a straw poll; some opinions are unclear and some other users may be more comfortable with polls than an open discussion. Obviously Wikipedia is not a democracy and hence the results of this poll will not dictate the conclusions of this RfC that is why it is a straw poll. However, I remain unsure on how these conclusions are going to be made and who is going to make them.

Straw polls can be done in many different ways and I am open to suggestion, but to start with I think it would be sensible to list the sources and the available options. At present three main options have been suggested:

  1. Source is reliable, can be used in Eurovision articles.
  2. Source is semi-reliable, can be used in Eurovision articles but not for citing controversial or important statements.
  3. Source is not reliable, should not be used in Eurovision articles.

Users are free to add other options if they wish. The four main sources discussed are:

  • ESCToday
  • Oikotimes
  • ESCKaz
  • ESCTime

Again, users should be free to add other sources if they wish.

Rationales could be added to signatures on the poll but I would recommend that we just stick to signatures and keep rationales in the main discussion area. I am open to allowing users to vote in more than one option per source perhaps using first choice, second choice e.t.c. I am planning to send out fresh notifications to active project members for this, though users are free to put out more in other ares as they wish. Camaron · Christopher · talk 17:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

  • I am aware of this guideline, and I disagree, making neutral notifications about a project issue to a group of editors that are going to be critically affected by any decision here is appropriate, and I have received complaints for not doing so before for other project issues. This RfC could give the impression that project members agree on everything, but I assure you they don't (see the last RfC for evidence), and contacting editors listed as active for this project is not very selective. It could have gone in the newsletter, but that will not be out for another month. Though I have just thought of contacting other participants in the project, as they are probably not watching it, so I will do that now. I am not aware of any other project talk pages that need new notifications, as those that were sent out recently are still fresh. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I have also added a new note on WP:RS/N as that is directly related to this. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It has been requested on my user talk page that ESCTime is added to the poll. It is not a frequently used source, so practical wise its use can go in any direction. The website is currently down for maintenance but will be back up on Thursday according to Celticfan383 (talk · contribs). I have no opinion on it at this time. Camaron · Christopher · talk 18:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

ESCToday

Is ESCToday a reliable source?

Yes, ESCToday is a reliable source and can be used in Eurovision articles
  1. Nathan | talk 19:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  2. Peterwill 19:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  3. TFOWRThis flag once was red 19:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  4. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  5. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  6. Diggiloo (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  7. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  8. AfroGold - Afkatk 21:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  9. gottago (talk) 22:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  10. Orderinchaos 01:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  11. Rak-Tai Rak-Tai (talk) 06:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  12. AlexeyU (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  13. Sjc07 (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  14. Greekboy (talk) 00:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  15. Pr3st0n (talk) 03:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes and no, ESCToday is a semi-reliable source and can be used in Eurovision articles but not for citing important or controversial statements
  1. Depends on the source of the given news item. Tcharge (talk) 16:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  2. ...
No, ESCToday is not a reliable source and should not be used in Eurovision articles
  1. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  3. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
    Actually, no that is the format of this straw poll. If you read above it says state your reasons as part of the discussion section, though you may add a short rationale if you wish. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
    I see that now. I respect that, although I don't think this would be the best representation of consensus. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Oikotimes

Is Oikotimes a reliable source?

Yes, Oikotimes is a reliable source and can be used in Eurovision articles
  1. ...
  2. ...
Yes and no, Oikotimes is a semi-reliable source and can be used in Eurovision articles but not for citing important or controversial statements
  1. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  2. Generally poorly written articles, but usually more in depth than other sources and consistently correct in terms of facts (1st choice). Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  3. Diggiloo (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  4. 1st choice. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  5. AfroGold - Afkatk 21:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  6. gottago (talk) 22:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  7. Poorly written, but offering numerous statistics and reception information that others don't, however, care is needed because some of the opinions are of the authors themselves and not critical or audience perceptions. GreekStar12 (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  8. Sjc07 (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  9. Really depends on the subject. Greekboy (talk) 00:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  10. Pr3st0n (talk) 03:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Articles reported on OT are almost as identical to those reported on ESCToday. Although some articles on OT are mainly rumours and speculations, with only the odd few which are backed-up with valid sources.
No, Oikotimes is not a reliable source and should not be used in Eurovision articles
  1. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  2. Nathan | talk 19:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  3. Peterwill 19:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  4. Misspellings and grammar mistakes makes it seem unprofessional (2nd choice). Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  6. AlexeyU (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  7. Tcharge (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  8. Thinking about it my opinion is more divided and I will accept this option, so I will have this as 2nd choice. Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

ESCKaz

Is ESCKaz a reliable source?

Yes, ESCKaz is a reliable source and can be used in Eurovision articles
  1. Yes, and first choice for JESC and EDC AlexeyU (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  2. Yes. If ESCToday and Oikotimes rely on their information, why can't we? Tcharge (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  3. Sjc07 (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes and no, ESCKaz is a semi-reliable source and can be used in Eurovision articles but not for citing important or controversial statements
  1. Reliable as established through past RfC, but difficult to create the citation because of a lack of dates, titles, etc. Also it focuses more on the other contests than the other two sources and is a valued source for correct information for them. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  2. For the same reasons as Stephen. I'd like to see the reasons for why some of you said ESCKaz wasn't reliable. Diggiloo (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  3. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  4. AfroGold - Afkatk 21:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  5. gottago (talk) 22:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  6. Same as with Stephen Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 01:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  7. Greekboy (talk) 00:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
No, ESCKaz is not a reliable source and should not be used in Eurovision articles
  1. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC) My reasons as someone abobve asked. It is a fan site and there are no indications that it meets the WP:RS guidelines or WP:V policy. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  2. Nathan | talk 19:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  3. Peterwill 19:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  4. Also long pages is a problem. -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 20:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  6. Pr3st0n (talk) 03:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

ESCTime

Is ESCTime a reliable source?

Yes, ESCTime is a reliable source and can be used in Eurovision articles
  1. ...
  2. ...
Yes and no, ESCTime is a semi-reliable source and can be used in Eurovision articles but not for citing important or controversial statements
  1. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC).
  2. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 12:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  3. ...
No, ESCTime is not a reliable source and should not be used in Eurovision articles
  1. ... Clearly not as the site is broken. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Try checking out google cache and the internet archive. Site appears to have been down for over a year. Last good version here, is barely literate. It appears to be a fan site with no indications that it meets the WP:RS guidelines or WP:V policy. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)19:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
    Your link is prejudicial. The site does not look like that. Webarchive strips it off the html code or whatever to save space. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC) But it doesn't strip it of content, we're are not judging on prettiness. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  2. No, as it is even rougher copy of Oikotimes without any own material, plus the site has been virus infected for several monthes without clear warning to the visitors. AlexeyU (talk) 01:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  3. Greekboy (talk) 00:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  4. Pr3st0n (talk) 03:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  5. -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 10:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  6. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision/Article guidelines

Many projects have article guidelines, examples include Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines and Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines, and I thought it would be helpful to have one for this project as well. Grk1011 kindly started a user space draft, following discussion with him I am pushing forward with it, and hence have placed it in the project space. Currently I have tagged the page as an essay as it does not have consensus yet and probably needs more work. Eventually the page could be promoted to a formal Wikipedia guideline. Some potential problems already established include:

  • The RfC on sourcing has gained participation but not enough to draw solid conclusions, which I aim to have in this guideline.
  • The F.Y.R. Macedonia issue has not had much discussion on this project, there seems to have been a consensus up to now to use the name the EBU uses but this seems to be on collision course with Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia/international organizations, which favours using the one Macedonia name used throughout Wikipedia, which may well not be F.Y.R. Macedonia. There has been little involvement in this project up to now in either the arbitration case or the resulting RfC, and I am concerned there could be a wave of re-names in Eurovision articles at some point in the future without project consensus or preparation, which may cause more conflicts. I would be interested in what the opinions of editors are here in context of Eurovision away from the more busy RfC. I considered contacting the three admin referees for the Macedonia RfC regarding my concerns but I am not sure how to approach it.

If there are any other suggestions for the guideline that editors would like to give I would like to hear them. Camaron · Christopher · talk 18:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Eurovision/Archive_4&oldid=1091554547"