Talk:Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest

Assessment

This article has been rated C-class. A C-class article is described as follows: The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup. This article has only been assessed for the Eurovision project as I can not speak for its completeness in terms of other projects. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 00:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

"Ethnicity"

The previous version (as of october 5) see here: [10] contained an unsourced list of performers' ethnicity. I checked the available references in the article and I found no such information, if I missed something by mistake, I apologize and please point me to the right place. How should I know for example that Vlado Kalember is indeed an ethnic Montenegrin as it was written? I thought he's a Croat. Actually I dont know and it doesnt matter at all. At the "Jugovizija", the Yugoslav national ESC preselection, every national Radio-TV service from each of the Yugoslav federal units was sending 2 candidates each year (6 Yugoslav constituent republics, 2 provinces within Serbia, thats 8 stations X 2 songs= 16 per year). The ethnicity of the candidates not always corresponded with the ethnic majority of the federal unit which they represented. For example, Daniel (singer) was born in Montenegro but (as far as I remember, feel free to correct me) he was candidated from Croatia because he lived there or because they liked him, who cares. Or, a candidate from Bosnia and Herzegovina could be an ethnic Serb or Croat or Muslim by nationality or from a multhiethnic marriage or a group consisting of members of several ethnicities. Without having a sence for the complex ex-Yugoslav issues, you started a big problem by opening the "ethnicity" pandora box, hence I had to remove it and please dont put it back unless you have sources. Stop speculating. Btw an interesting website about national preselections, tho Im not sure it can be used as a reliable source: [11], check Yugoslavia --Dzole (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I like that you removed the ethnicity as you're right, it wasn't sourced and it doesn't really add anything to the article. I have considered that there may be a reliability problem with that website, but when there are reliable sources that I find, everything lines up correctly. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

"source"?

An extensive archive for Jugovizija for each year: [12] The site belongs to Eurodalmatia, ESC fan club from from Dalmatia, Croatia. On the about us page its claimed that they are officialy registered ESC fan club recognized by OGAE, in close cooperation with other national ESC fan clubs. It lists not only Jugovizija participants but also the Radio-Television centers from each of the federal units (republics and autonomous provinces) that nominated them: RTV Ljubljana (SR Slovenia), RTV Zagreb (SR Croatia), RTV Sarajevo (SR Bosnia and Herzegovina), RTV Titograd (SR Montenegro), RTV Skopje (SR Macedonia), RTV Beograd (SR Serbia), RTV Novi Sad (SAP Vojvodina) and RTV Priština (SAP Kosovo). These RTV centers can be added instead of "ethnicity" in order to determine the originating federal unit of the song representing ex-YU on ESC.

Note that not all the centers participated from the very start in 1961. Perhaps not all of them had television yet, and also, Kosovo and Vojvodina gained more autonomy within Serbia with the constitutional changes in 1963 (see AP Kosovo and AP Vojvodina), and in 1974 (see SAP Kosovo and SAP Vojvodina), hence they became federal subjects. Also the number of songs nominated by each RTV center varied from year to year (sometimes 1, 2 or 3, making the total number of songs 8, 16, 20+ etc.). During several years in the 1980s it seems that it was standardized to 16 songs (2 per each of the 8 centers).

Example: Jugovizija 1983 (from the website)

Ranking/Title/ Artist/ RTV center/ Points

1. JULIE - DANIEL, TV TITOGRAD (72)
2. VOLIM TE OD 9 DO 2 - "NOVI FOSILI", TV ZAGREB (54)
3. LIDU, LIDU, DU - MAJA ODŽAKLIJEVSKA, TV SKOPJE (46)
4. ADRIANA - MARIJAN SMODE, TV LJUBLJANA (44)
5. NA SVOJ NAČIN - "INDEKSI", TV SARAJEVO (40)
6. RUDY - BABY DOLL, TV BEOGRAD (36)
7. SITNIJE, CILE SITNIJE - LEPA BRENA & "SLATKI GREH", TV BEOGRAD (34)
8. SVIRAJ ZA MARIJU - MILORAD NONIN, TV NOVI SAD (31)
9. TI SI NEMOGUĆ - "SUNČEVE PEGE", TV NOVI SAD (24)
10. POSADI CVIJET - MIŠO KOVAČ, TV ZAGREB (22)
11. VRATI SE - BRANKO MILIŠIĆ, TV TITOGRAD (18)
12. DOĐI DA ME VIDIŠ - "COD", TV SARAJEVO (16)
13. OPERA - SILVA DELOVSKA & KIM, TV SKOPJE (12)
14. SO NAJLEPŠE PESME SO NAPISANE - "HAZARD", TV LJUBLJANA (9)
15. FJALA BEHET ZOG, DIELLI BEHET SY - SHPESHA GASHI, TV PRIŠTINA (3)
16. DASHURIA NE LULEZIM - MILICA & GAZMED, TV PRIŠTINA (3)

Conclusion: the Yugoslav ESC participant in 1983, Daniel, was nominated by TV Titograd from Montenegro, and that can be added to the article instead of his ethnicity.

--Dzole (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Great job with the research. That would work if you want to implement it. Also, this site you mention would be an excellent source to make the yugoslavia articles for each year's contest since there are lot missing, see {{Yugoslavia in Eurovision}}. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

If we're having the broadcasters in the table, wouldn't it make sense to include the Republic of the broadcaster it was based, especially for people who are not too knowledgable on Yugoslavia or Eurovision, or European georgraphy in general. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 21:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I didn't read the whole article - i'll put them in the table anyway Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Changes

I tried to improve the article but there were editors who voluntarily changed it without objecting it on the talk page first as I did. Im not saying they are wrong, but still I will try to rewrite it again. Rationale provided here.--Dzole (talk) 01:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have warned you that that might happen. See Talk:Yugoslavia_in_the_Eurovision_Song_Contest/Archive_1. Maybe you can get more of his views, which by the way I don't believe in. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Mistake?

I think the official website just made a mistake because the actual performance showed the FR Yugoslavia flag. see here. Therefore, I feel that we should remove this sentence: However, currently, on the official ESC country specific page that entry is listed under the general designation Yugoslavia, but with the flag of SFR Yugoslavia. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. But this creates another issue: should the article be split into two separate articles?

1. Socialist Federal Republic Yugoslavia in the ESC
2. Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the ESC

IMHO- yes.

Yugoslavia is a complex issue.

1. Kingdom of Yugoslavia was one story (unitarian kingdom under Karadjordjevic dynasty etc..);
2. SFR Yugoslavia (AVNOJ, Titoism, brotherhood and unity, federalism, worker's self management, non-aligned and YU rock) constituted a second story;
3. Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro only, Milosevic, sanctions, Kosovo War, air raids) is a third story.

Its not just the form of government that makes them different, they represent different concepts. State Union of Serbia and Montenegro is something completely different, so it definetly shouldnt be merged with any kind of Yugoslav article. These different things shouldnt be mixed unless you agree to recognize FRY as a legal succesor to SFRY which (as far as I know, correct me) the international community disapproved.

So back to ESC, there was:

• A questionable "SFR Yugoslav" preselection held in late March 1992 incl. Serbia, Montenegro but also Bosnia, which proclaimed independence on March 1 (?) but was still unrecognized until April 6 (why the Bosnian artists participated then and were they backed up by their official broadcaster?)
• War in Bosnia starting on April 1
• FRY formed on April 28
• ESC held in Sweden on May 9 when SFRY was already gone. FRY was too young (just a week or so) and its not sure whether it was admitted to the EBU or just used the former SFRY ticket to get in, while EBU was caught unprepared and didnt know what to do.

The preselection took place in the shrunk and fading (formally) SFRY, but its winner clearly represented FRY, maybe the article should be split. Also, Eurodalmatia doesnt list Extra Nena in Yugovision. I dunno really, maybe two interlinked articles is a good solution with notes explaining the situation. --Dzole (talk) 04:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Please no lol. This cannot be happening again! There is one article because there was only one Yugoslavia participating in the contest. It was decided that it did not matter who was using the name. The article has to be written in terms of Eurovision and Yugoslavia did not debut in 1992; they had their last entry. That's why the article is named plain Yugoslavia because that's the country name which participated, used by two different political entities however. That is why there are two flags and the sections about each entity using the name. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 12:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again. Stephen (Grk1011) belives only in a "one source policy". This kind of editing borders with POV. Stephen is not from former Yugoslavia so he doesn't know (or he doesn't want to know) that FRY is not a continuation of SFRY. Based on a mediation that was in fact gathering of his Eurovision friends they moved the article Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest to Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest. This move can be reverted if enough editors decide to make a compromise and show support. This "decision" that Stephen speaks of is not carved in stone and should be overruled. FRY is a special case that cannot go into Yugoslavia nor into Serbia and Montenegro. Merging with Serbia and Montenegro would be a lesser evil. -- Imbris (talk) 22:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I didnt know about these issues and Im personally against merging SFRY with FRY, which is supported by Grk1011 (I dont know why?). I explained the timeline of the breakup of Yugoslavia in detail, and thats clear: Extra Nena on May 9th respresented FRY, not SFRY. After all GRk provided a youtube video himself /herself. This issue is not like: Kingdom of Greece and the Republic of Greece. SFRY and FRY is two completely different stories.

However I also disagree with some of Imbris' actions: those entries were submitted in the name of the RTV centers based in the each of the constituent units. Yes, they wanted to represent Yugoslavia on the ESC, no doubt about that, but Yugoslavia at the time was not an unitarian country. Are you trying to impose some sort of "Yugoslav" unitarism or what? How should I perceive your actions? It was a federative country of several constituent nations, each of them having the right to be credited for their achievments. The hard work of the rtv centers of its constituent units should be taken into consideration, as they left a legacy for the broadcasters of the independent states that emerged after the breakup of Yugoslavia. Please stop with voluntaristic actions right now and let be constructive. --Dzole (talk) 02:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. shortly saying: lets split it, this is going nowehere. --Dzole (talk) 03:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If you split the article I will cry. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Important

I checked Mediation Cabal FRY in ESC and now I understand what has been going on previously, and its not right. If you want to make a real encyclopedia, you must stick to the facts, not to "elect" a version that you (in this case a group of people) personally prefer. Its obvious that the opposing party, Imbris, was outnumbered, which doesnt automaticaly makes him wrong, though he didnt organized his "defence" well. I also believe that many of the non-Balkan "pro-merge" editors do not really understand the complexity of the Yugoslav case, which is very irresponsible. Also, I would like to ask the Greek editors involved in this case to assure me that they were neutral and unbiased, knowing that official Greece supported Serbia (dominant part of FRY) during the Yugoslav Wars.

I gathered several sources, and this is my opinion on the matter:

1. On April 27, 1992 FRY was officialy established, and shortly afterwards, on May 9, it was represented under FRY flag by Extra Nena, although she won the RUMP "SFRY" pre-selection held on March 28 in Belgrade. As Jugovizija is not the the most important subject here, but ESC, the case is clear: its FRY that participated in 1992, at a moment when SFRY was definetly dead. While Extra Nena was singing, people were slaughtered in Bosnia already, she surely didnt represented them, actually no one cared about ESC anymore but ran for his/her life.
2. Jugovizija '92 was held on March 28 in a RUMP "SFRY" that still formally existed as "SFRY", and as such it was eglible to participate in ESC (like: the Slovenes, Croats and Macedonians left, but we, Serbs and Montenegrins want to maintain the SFRY federation). EBU is not Nostradamus, so it couldnt predict that FRY will be formed in the meantime (Apr 27), so Extra Nena was scheduled for the event as it won the RUMP "SFRY" competiotion. Its a clear scam, cause while EBU was caught unprepared with this unexpected birth of a new country, Exra Nena got into ESC based on the victory "earned" on a formally titled "SFRY" pre-selection.
3. At that moment, May 9, FRY was freshly formed (~2 weeks) and the international community and organizations such as EBU were caught in suprise and still didnt know what to do with it. It took few months until they finally formed an opinion and decided that: FRY cannot be recognized as a legal succesor to SFRY, it shouldnt be allowed to sit in the Yugoslav chair in the UN automatically, and it should apply for a UN membership as a brand new country. Not only that FRY was not allowed in the UN, but also it was placed under sanctions, it wasnt admitted to EBU and couldnt compete on the ESC. FRY was finally admitted to UN in November 2000, after Milosevic was deposed in October that year, and hence its broadcasters were admitted to EBU but as "Serbia" and "Montenegro" in July 2001 finally. So FRY took the name "Yugoslavia" in 1992, but that was not officialy recognized as valid by the international community.

My conclusion: SFRY and FRY ESC pages should be split, as they represent two different countries. FRY unrightfully participated with a ex-SFRY ticket previously earned with 40 years of hard work by all the 8 federal units. FRY used the turmoil of the moment hence practically tricking the EBU.

1. Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest should be Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest. SFRY participated as Yugoslavia in the ESC for 40 years, and its one of the founding members of EBU. If thats not enough for you, then I dont know what to do.
2. Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest should be something else. It performed only once, and has no right to claim the previous ESC achievments of the other 6 federal units (for example the '89 ESC winners were Yugoslavs, but Croats)
3. Serbia and Montenegro in the Eurovision Song Contest should be something third and unrelated to the previously too.
4. All the articles should include shorter notes explaining the situation and should be interlinked.
5. The official ESC site is not perfect. While the Youtube video clearly shows the flag of FRY, on the website, Extra Nena is bizzarely listed under the SFRY flag.

Sources

--Dzole (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You are missing the point

First of all I am only half Greek, live in American and can't speak Greek. I know nothing about the political situation of Yugoslavia at the time of the competition and to be honest it really is not relevant. I feel like you ignored my explanation of the naming of the article. If it were named "Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest" then we should expect to see "Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" on the roster, but in fact only "Yugoslavia" is listed. Now the official site may be in error by listing the entry under the other flag, but the fact is that we need to write this article in terms of Eurovision, its subject. It is original research to take into account the situation of the country because that does not matter, what matters is that a Yugoslavian entry appeared for the last time in 1992. You can start the article off by saying that the name Yugoslavia was used to represent two different entities if you want, but you cannot split the article because that is not what happened at the contest. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Grk1011/Stephen, I understand your point and Im not ignoring it but I think you are confusing things: Its true that ESC mentions Yugoslavia only and not SFR Yugoslavia or FR Yugoslavia. But I think you confuse some things. They never say: and now ladies and gentlemen- Federal Republic of Germany! Or Republic of France, or, Kingdom of Sweden, or United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland or Third Hellenic Republic, or Swiss Confederation, or, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, or, Principality of Liechtenstein, or, Most Serene Republic of San Marino or Russian Federation. That would be ridiculous. They say Germany, France, Sweden, Greece, Switzerland, San Marino, Russia, Luxembourg and so on. Even during the Cold War, long before the German unification, they use to say "Germany" only, although that was just West Germany,[13] while East Germany wasnt participating at all! Do you understand that the roster you mentioned has absolutely no importance? Do you trust it more than some relevant international documents that i quoted?
2. I made it clear that FRY was not Yugoslavia. It was a self-proclaimed "Yugoslavia" which no major international organization officialy recognized as such. Why should we, mortals, do that? It was not admitted to UN or EBU or anywhere else until 2000/2001, practically it performed illegaly in ESC 1992 using SFRY's previous credentials, while also using the total chaos of the moment to get inside unnoticed. Its like one stealing a dead man's tuxedo to smuggle himself into a party.
3. SFRY performed under the label "Yugoslavia"[14] for 40 years, almost half-a-century. And that same (SFR) Yugoslavia founded the EBU too, and won in 1989. If SFRY doesnt deserve to be equated to Yugoslavia in the ESC, then who deserves? FRY? Please be realistic.

And yes, you can say that was an original research of sort, however I refrained from actually chaning anything in the article before I represented it here.--Dzole (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Here'a a quote from the official history book of the ESC for 1992: "Yugoslavia was in the pack for the very last time, as the member states and provinces broke away from Belgrade and became independent nations". It is true that it wasn't right for FRY to take the name but it somehow did and the article needs to reflect that because that is what happened at contest. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

First, can you please give me more info on this book? Also, who's the author and what are his credentials and knowledge on Yugoslav matters? Does he or she referenced any sources? Not that Im sceptical but still.. Also, the sentence you are quoting is so confusing, it may be interpreted in 100 ways and may be partially wrong: I explained 5 times minimum that at the moment ESC took place, FRY was already established (constitution passed on Apr 27, ESC took place on May 9). What Yugoslavia the author is reffering to? SFRY or FRY? What "provinces" broke away? This is ridiculuous. The province of Vojvodina never broke away neither from SFRY nor from FRY, while Kosovo did, but in 1999 (from Serbia, the constituent country of FRY). Also, its true that an entity called Yugoslavia (whatever it may be), performed for a last time in the ESC in 1992. It can be interpreted as a)SFRY b)FRY, cause the former didn't take part anymore as it died, while the latter, was not allowed to participate anymore due to sanctions and/ or lack of EBU membership (granted in 2001). The sentence is a complete confusion.--Dzole (talk) 22:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Its the official history, ill look up more when i get a chance. You are taking this exactly like Imbris did.He refers to the one and only Yugoslavia that took part in the contest. It only matters who is using the name. You can say for the beginning of the article: Yugoslavia participated in the Eurovision Song Contest 27 times. From 1961 to 1991, SFRY participated under the name, however, with the breakup of Yugoslavia, FRY took the name and participated in 1992 as the last entry under the name Yugoslavia. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the book here. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. I see. Call me sarcastic but, Mr. John Kennedy O'Connor [15][16] who became fascinated with the Eurovision Song Contest at the age of six and who writes books obviously belonging in the category of "Did you know that...?" is a more relevant "source" and more important scientific authority than the United Nations, EBU and all that? what is his knowledge on the Yugoslav matters and did he consult any reliable historical sources to write that ridiculuous statement that you innocently quoted above? When he says "Yugoslavia" - its said! What an authority! Grk, Im sorry for my saracasm. But really..

So, according to you, SFR Yugoslavia doesnt deserve its own article SFRY in the ESC separately of FRY, despite the fact that SFRY founded EBU, despite the fact that SFRY was participating in ESC for 40 yrs and despite the fact that it sent all its most eminent acts there: Tereza Kesovija, Zdravko Čolić, Novi Fosili, Korni Grupa, Kićo Slabinac, Ambasadori, Indexi, Srebrna Krila, Vice Vukov, Vajta etc. According to you, thats "not important", and that "does not deserve a separate article". However, that single entry performed by Extra Nena, an irrelevant turbofolk singer, who clearly represented another country- FRY, you insist that she deserves to be mentioned, and thats why we will quarell for months and Imbris will come again, and so on and so on. This is obnoxious, and I have no other ways to explain it to you except through irony. Im sorry I lost my temper, no personal offence to you or anyone, but this went TOO far --Dzole (talk) 23:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but you don't seem to get that we just can't have an article named SFRY even tho it may infact "deserve" one. With all nationalistic views aside, the contest considers it the same Yugoslavia and that is how we are therefore forced to write an article about how things went down that year, because after all, that is what happened. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

ESC doesnt think that "it is the same Yugoslavia", ESC doesnt think at all, judging by its wrong yugo page, its "official history" filled with nonsence like the one you referenced before, and the folowing confusing info on their "official" website:

1. They placed SFRY flag clearly described as "Flag of Socijalistička Federativna Republika Jugoslavija" above a FR Yugoslavia entry (I remind you of its formation on Apr 27 and ESC on May 9, '92)
2. They placed the folowing information: Population: 23,725,000; Area: 255,804 km², which describes SFRY, while FRY (participating on that May 9, '92) had ~10,000,000 people and ~102,000 km² as it comprised only Serbia and Montenegro.
3. They say: Yugoslavia was formally dissolved in 1992 (de facto dissolved in 1991 with no leaders representing it). The country comprised the area of the present-day independent states of Bosnia & Herzegovina, Croatia, F.Y.R. Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia.. If YUGOSLAVIA was dissolved how come it participated then? Twilight Zone?

I worked my back off to explain you every >single< detail of the issue, but now it seems that you are the one who's intentionaly or unintentionaly ignoring it. --Dzole (talk) 14:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

And this is the second time I've been subjected to the identical argument. Whether its right or not that is how it was. I don't see why they cant be in the same article. The article says nothing about SFRY being FRY just that it participated under the name Yugoslavia. I know that the site represents it incorrectly, but this wiki page is right. There have been countless outside opinions from people who are not involved in either Eurovision or Yugoslav related article and they all agree that there should be one page. You cannot tell me how it should have been back then with dates, because fact is, thats not how it happened. If you want to just leave the page the way it is, then we can just both walk away. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

So how it happened then? You dont provide any serious source, or at least a convincing rationale based on facts, like I did. Outside opinions based on personal taste mean nothing if they are not supported by facts. Yes, incl. dates. They are bloody important. In the case of ex-Yugoslavia, litteraly bloody. I also gave you a bunch of footnotes, pitty that you didn't read them. Filter-out my personal research, take the bare-bone facts and its clear. SFRY and FRY are two completely different countries, both de facto and in the eyes of the international law. There's absolutely no reason to put them in a same basket, unless you consider FRY a legal succesor to SFRY, which is wrong, but Im afraid you do. You suggest me to leave the page as it is a "walk away"? Is it your private property? Im trying to seek admin help, although judging by what happened with the previous "mediation", where you convinced the mediator with that obviously wrong eurovision.tv page, Im not an optimist. This is shocking. --Dzole (talk) 17:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The deadline for joining in on the contest was October 1991, so SFRY entered before it split up. The song was chosen by march, a rule of the contest, also before they split up. So since the chosen participant was from Serbia, the newly formed entity participated. The EBU most likely did not know what to do because Yugoslavia was already scheduled to participate, so the entrant performed. Does that help? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No. SFRY and FRY were different countries, de facto, de jure and according to the international law. FRY=/=SFRY. They must have different articles. They were both announced as "Yugoslavia" but that means nothing. ESC's roster is not higher authorty than the interantional law. I told you, what ESC refered to as Germany before 1990, was only West Germany, full name Federal Republic of Germany, while East Germany didnt participate. On the other hand, Republic of Macedonia is called "FRY Macedonia", well why not just Macedonia then, if West Germany could be just Germany and so on? You see its a complete mess, there's no consistency. Its an entertainment show (not a very intellectual one) you cant use them as serious a source. --Dzole (talk) 18:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC) p.s. another one: they say "Greece" for Greece. Following the "FYR Macedonia" example, they should call it the Hellenic Republic as it is the state's official name in the UN, but thats another story --Dzole (talk) 19:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

International law does not apply to a tv show. If you notice the Greece article is named "Greece" because that is the name under which they participate. If they were on the roster as Hellenic Republic, then the article would be called Hellenic Republic in the Eurovision Song Contest. The same is true for SFRY and FRY, they both used the same name so they appear under the name they participated as "Yugoslavia". Also there are countless sources saying that Yugoslavia's last appearance was in 1992. You have the burden of proof. Where does it say that either the FRY debuted in 1992 or that 1991 was the last entry for Yugoslavia. Also, your FYR Macedonia supports my point. That is not their name, but that is how they participate = page title. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I dont have a burden of a proof, actually its you that haven't provided any serious proofs. Oh, yes, and the international law does apply. FRY used the chaos to smuggle into ESC'92 unnoticed, claiming succession to SFRY, but soon it was kicked out, because after the international community woke up from its sleep, it refused to recognize it as SFRY's succesor, and hence it couldnt inherit SFRY's place in the EBU. FRY was placed under international sanctions and it was not recognised by the International Telecommunication Union, hence couldnt be admitted to EBU, and it didnt participate in the ESC again. You see that politics do apply there. FRY's broadcasters, Serbian RTV and Montenegrin RTV were finally admitted to EBU in 2001 after the fall of Milosevic. Why didnt you read what I was explaining? So much work for nothing. Greece was Greece in ESC 1983 and ESC 1995 and ESC 2007. The same country, nothing changed. But Yugoslavia in ESC 1989 is completely different to "Yugoslavia" in 1992. I mentioned "FYR Macedonia" in a completely different context. It doesnt support any of your points. Its a special case due to the unsolved Macedonia naming dispute. Otherwise, it would probably participate as simply Macedonia, because the ESC announcers do not bother with long names, except for that country, cause Greece would object. They would say shortly "Yugoslavia" no matter what Yugoslavia they refered to; in the 1980s they would say shortly "Germany" and not Federal Republic of Germany (West); they would say "Greece" rather than Hellenic Republic. Do you understand that the way they announce the countries in the show has no importance? The important things happen behind the curtains --Dzole (talk) 21:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It is different and thats what the article says. why should there be two? You don't listen to what I'm saying. You keep telling me all of this political stuff about why it couldnt have been this way or that way, but fail to see that whether or not it was the same Yugoslavia, it participated as the successor. No one is saying that that was right to occur, but it did. This is not the article about the breakup of Yugoslavia, it is about what happened at the contest. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to get that FRY DID take its place and there is nothing you can do about it. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes I do. Thats why we should make a separate article titled: Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest.--Dzole (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

That goes against what actually happened. This is going nowhere, and I doubt that anyone besides Imbris and people who try to bring politics into this will see it in your way. I'm not going to reply anymore. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I dont bring politics. Politics come on their own when Yugoslavia is discussed. Unfortunatelly. Not only a country collapsed and new ones emerged, but people died, cities were burnt, and you want to solve this extremely sensitive issue by putting everything into one basket and wash your hands. Its a shame and its a lack of sence and responsibility. And for what? For the "cult musician" Extra Nena? If you cant stand these complicated matters, at least don't stop me from dealing with them. And by the way, you are leaving the discussion without leaving any serious source behind you.--Dzole (talk) 22:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I really did not wish to take part in this discussion, since it has been discussed to death in the past, with the same arguments going back and forth over and over. Regarding your question on a source, the contest website is the source. Like it or not, even if you think it is wrong, it is the OFFICIAL VIEW as seen by the contest. What you are saying, is that politics must be put into account in this article because it is about Yugoslavia, but you are missing the point that it is about a SONG CONTEST overall. As stated in the archived discussion of this topic, the political situation at the time had nothing to do with the contest. As long as the official site, and the "official record book", backed by the ebu and contest, state what is being stated in the article, then there is really no point in arguing this over and over and over again. As stated by Grk1011, there were outside opinions in the last decision, so don't go mentioning Greek descent as any reason for a decision, which I actually take offense too myself. You could check edit histories or look for past problems of a user regarding being bias, before making such accusations. The last decision was made using outside decisions as well, from people that had nothing to do with ESC or Yugoslavia editing. I understand that a decision can be overturned, but currently there is no source that warrant that. All you are stating is "international law" and politics. But you are missing the point, that the SAME argument was used in the last discussion by Imbris, which the mediation found (with the outside opinions) to be irrelevant to the Contest itself (as it is an Entertainment TV show, and the official site goes against that) I really hope this can be cleared up easily. The last discussion dragged on a long time with the same thing over and over again. Greekboy (talk) 22:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Greekboy, I just wanted to be assured that the Greek editors involved in this article are not politicaly biased. Lets not fool ourselfes, there's lots of chauvinism in Wikipedia and there are Greek, Bulgarian, Serbian, Croatian, Albanian and other Balkan "clans" and "coalitions" of POV-pushers. I've never accused you or your friend personally of anything yet, except of lack of sources. The Yugo page at Eurovision.tv which you fanaticaly stick to, contains some heavy factual errors, which I also elaborated, and it should be used with great care, and possibly compared to other sources. That page is not a supreme authority, OK? Regarding the mediation, I disagree with its result and I wrote to the admin who had closed the case. I dont know what will be, maybe nothing will change, however, yes, I think that it should be overturned since it was not based on convincing facts from your side, but you simply outvoted the only opponent, Imbris. Thats not a fair fight, and thats not how encyclopedias should be written. Back to the subject: SFRY and FRY were 2 different countries, different territories, different constitutions, different flags, different international status, different everything. FRY was never a member of the EBU, at least not before 2001, it never officialy inherited SFRY's EBU seat. It somehow participated in 1992 and thats it. Its not normal to merge these two different countries in a same article. We can't just merge Turkey and Greece, under the pretext that they had certain period of common history (cause they indeed had). The word "Yugoslavia" used by FRY means nothing in this case, I explained that 158 times minimum with sources and all. By the way, something informal, have you noticed that at eurovision.tv, in the comments section: [17], some people had already argued last year whether Extra Nena represented SFRY or FRY? Do you understand how high emotions run when Yugoslav subjects are being discussed? Dont you understand that those people incl. ex-Yugoslavs (Slovenes, Croats, Serbs, Macedonians..) and non-Yugoslavs will probably check what Wikipedia is saying on the matter? Do you understand how important is to write an article that will explain the whole thing properly?

But no, no, you disregard that as "not important", claiming that allegedly, you are against mixing politics with music.

Dont tell me that there is no politics in the ESC:

• [18]- Lebanon Widthdraws from ESC, cause it refuses to broadcast the Israeli entry
• [19] - Conservative Greek organizations accuse Lordi of satanism, the Finnish ambassador to the UK defends them
• In 1976, Greece performed a song about the Turkish invasion of Cyprus- Panayia Mou, Panayia Mou
• Greece always (or often) gives the most points to Cyprus. And vice-versa. If thats not politics I'll eat my hat.
• In 1993 Greece performed the song Ellada, Chora Tou Fotos (Greece, the Land of Light). Depending on perception, the lyrics can be interpreted as nationalist or patriotic
• In 1980, the ESC coincided with Israel's Day of Remembrance for their casualties of war, so Israel decided not to participate.
• The Portuguese 1974 entry E depois do adeus gained fame as one of the two signals to launch the Carnation Revolution
• In 1985 Yugoslavia didnt participate because the contest was held on May 4. That was 5th anniversary of Marshal Tito's death
• According to quotes allegedly by John Kennedy O'Connor, whom I dont trust completely, but anyway: in 1979, Turkey widthdrew from ESC held in Israel, because its participation could be criticized by the muslim nations (my note: Turkey is secular state since Ataturk, but you decided to trust Mr. O'Connor, so thats why Im quoting him to you).
  

etcetera..etcetera..etcetera...--Dzole (talk) 02:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)::

Dzole, I was just making sure you were not attacking. In the past, Imbris had made some remarks that I felt were personal attacks, and def. not needed. (I think they are still on Grk1011's page). Anyway, Grk1011 went ahead and asked for help on the Wikipedia:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard about the official site (www.Eurovision.tv) being considered reliable or not (As Imbris says it is not). This can be seen here: [[20]]. With the help of the users, it was determined that the site is indeed considered a reliable source. Greekboy (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the link, but what I found there was not convincing at all--Dzole (talk) 16:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me see: Correct me if Im wrong, but I see only two users being involved in the discussion, and only User:Itsmejudith supports Grk, without providing any convincing rationale, while the other, User:Soundvisions1 seems to be more careful and suggests: I strongly feel that common sense should be used and information looked at on a case by case basis rather than making a blanket generalization. So how did you "determine" that eurovision.tv is indeed a reliable source? This is obnoxious.--Dzole (talk) 16:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Zvonko supported a merge with Serbia and Montenegro in the ESC. I as the editor who created Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest objected but he (Zvonko) insisted. Also Grk1011/Stephen once supported the merge with Serbia and Montenegro in the ESC but suddenly changed his oppinion. The current sittuation is not carved in stone. -- Imbris (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Our Greek friend clearly did not read or correctly interpreted the http://www.eurovision.tv/index/main?page=67&country=42 which list :"The State Union of Serbia & Montenegro existed between 2003 and 2006. The two republics, both of which are former republics of SFR Yugoslavia, initially formed the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1992. In 2003, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was reconstituted as a State Union Serbia & Montenegro. On 3rd of June, 2006, Montenegro declared independent, 2 days later Serbia did the same. This ended the State Union of Serbia & Montenegro." (bolded by me) -- Imbris (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That just says that FYR was formed in 1992....No one is arguing that. That was said in this discussion a million times already. Greekboy (talk) 00:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

We can argue about Yugoslavia's 1992 entry until the end of time. There seems hot debate as to whether the Extra Nena's entry in 1992 should be Yugoslavia's last ever entry, or Serbia & Montenegro's first ever entry. It appears, as far as the EBU are concerned, it's Yugoslavia's last ever entry and that's that. On the official Eurovision website Extra Nena's song in 1992 is listed as the final entry for Yugoslavia. That's the only source I regard as official for past ESC statistics. However The Diggiloo Thrush lists only entries from 1961 to 1991 on the Yugoslavia page, with a footnote saying the Yugoslavia 1992 entry is on the Serbia and Monenegro page.

If the EBU wanted to be really pedantic about Yugoslavia and its component countries in the ESC 1961 to present, they'd have done the following:

• Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (under then name Yugoslavia): first entry 1961, last entry 1991, had just one win in 1989 and hosted the Contest in 1990.
• Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (under the name FR Yugoslavia to make it clear it was a new, different country to the previously mentioned Yugoslavia): first (and only ever) entry 1992, never won or hosted ESC in its short lifetime.
• State Union of Serbia and Montenegro (under the name Serbia and Montenegro): first entry 2004, last entry 2006, never won or hosted ESC in its short lifetime.
• Serbia: first entry 2007, first win 2007, hosted ESC 2008.
• Montenegro: first entry 2007, never qualified from semi-final to-date.

Things to consider are:

• Exactly when did Croatia, Slovenia and Macedonia break away from SFR Yugoslavia?
• What was the official deadline to enter ESC 1992 (someone reckoned it was some time in autumn 1991)?
• What was the official deadline to pick one's entry?
• Exactly when did Bosnia & Herzegovina break away from SFR Yugoslavia?
• Was Bosnia & Herzegovina officially still part of SFR Yugoslavia on the day of Jugovizija '92 - March 28 1992?
• If B&H was still part of SFR Yugoslavia that day, surely it had a right to be in Jugovizija '92 just like Montenegro and Serbia. If it was no longer part of SFR Yugoslavia, why did it have entries in Jugovizija '92 on 28 March 1992?
• Someone said above FR Yugoslavia officially formed as a new country on 28 April 1992.
• In that case, surely the remnants of SFR Yugoslavia were officially still Yugoslavia on the day Extra Nena - "Ljubim Te Pesmama" was chosen as the Yugoslavia 1992 entry in Jugovizija '92 on 28 March 1992.
• The 1992 ESC took place on Saturday, May 9, 1992. As someone said, that's only a couple of weeks after the date FR Yugoslavia officially formed as a new country. The song had been picked before the official change from SFR Yugoslavia to FR Yugoslavia.

Presumably the EBU felt that, being as the song had been picked, it should still be able to participate under the name Yugoslavia in ESC 1992, and be regarded as Yugoslavia's last ever entry. Looking back, perhaps it would have been better if the EBU had seen the situation with SFR Yugoslavia in March 1992 (before Jugovizija '92) and not allowed Yugoslavia to enter in 1992.

I've noticed FR Yugoslavia never entered the ESC again whilst it was still offically FR Yugoslavia. The same land area next entered under the name Serbia & Montenegro in 2004, and that year was presented as being S&M's first ever entry. Officially when was FR Yugoslavia reconstituted as Serbia & Montenegro?

It's made me wonder what would have happened if Extra Nena had won the 1992 ESC. Presumably the FR Yugoslavia still couldn't have entered ESC 1993, and thus couldn't have hosted it either, so another country would have had to have hosted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PontyCS1994 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

What's the point PontyCS1994? Its clear that this discussion took place 4 years ago and died a natural debating death. So why drag it back from the grave? Like the old proverb, let sleeping dogs lie. Wesley♦^Mouse 15:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Withdrawals

There is absolutely no point in including the withdrawed entries. They didn't take part in Eurovision, and no other country page includes entries withdrawn before the contest (except Lebanon). I say we remove them. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 22:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't want them either, but the editor who added them will be mad. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It should stay because we have simmilar situations where it stayed and also to as best as possible describe the "local" contest. -- Imbris (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Keeping it short, the best place to describe the local contest would be on a page about that particular contest, not on a list of entries in the ESC by Yugoslavia. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Can someone tell me the reason (if any) for Yugoslavia's non-participation from 1977 to 1980, please. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 20:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Look at the history of the page and read the edit summaries (not that I agree with them). Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

In response to what Imbris said in his edit summary, it's not that I think that the Eurodalmatia source is not reputable, but that I believe that just because the artist won a contest that was a selection for the Eurovision Song Contest does not mean that it winner was going to represent Yugoslavia in Eurovision in the first place. It could be just as possible that the contest was held for the sake of the contest, and not for Eurovision. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 23:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I have since created a page dedicated to Jugovizija, that addresses the missing entries of Yugoslavia. Can we please solve this conflict now? Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 22:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Cyrillic

It is my opinion that, like other Baltic countries in Eurovision, that we should have cyrillic transliterations showing as well as latin (see FYR Macedonia). I'm not sure which ones to include though. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 23:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd include translations for only the songs which came from what is now Serbia. I wouldn't include Тим, дала ти бом цвет next to Pridi, dala ti bom cvet because they don't use Cyrillic in Slovenia. Mike H. Fierce! 07:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that the sittuation of the article from December 1 2008 is enough [21] + this is the current content of the article. -- Imbris (talk) 01:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Recent Grk1011 editing

This is not editing, this is edit-warring.

(1) He continues to thrive on one source policy and instead of talking about what other edit, he reverts even contrary to his prime source. Example Ivan & 3M, he deleted the 3M part.

(2) He continues his promotion of that one source as if that source list any references. It is a work of an web-admin, who received some documents written God knows where and simply transffered them into HTML.

(3) He continues his oblivion to the fact that Yugoslavia (FPRY/SFRY) was a multinational, multiconfessional, multiethnic, multilanguage society. But also a centralized, dogmatized and traumatized society. After all selections the preparation of the team would be taken over by the JRT. Sadly enough names such as Luciano Capurso would be vulgarly transliterated into Serbo-Croatian language to form Luči Kapurso. This also happened with Džuli, which was orriginaly called Julie in a different variation of legaly Croatian or Serbian language.

(4) Alma Čardžić's biography at her official web-site is written both in Bosnian as well as in Turkish language, why not inserting that fact? Who are we to discriminate against her view's of herself.

(5) Denial of simple fact that Luciano Capurso and Hamo Hajdarhodžić were selected at the local Yugoslavian selection as Dubrovački trubaduri under the guidance of Đelo Jusić.

Imbris (talk) 03:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Serbia-Montenegro

Now that the article for the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has been meged with the Serbia-Montenegro articcle, should the same be done here, by including SFRY, FRY, and SM on the one page, moving the FRY entry to the SM page, or having three seperate pages? Vuvuzela2010 (talk) 12:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

No, because they are two separate cases. The articles that you speak of being merged are geographical articles. These here are relating to the Song Contest, and warrant their individual recognition for the fact that we need to show the history of the nation within the contest via separate article titles. Merging these is not an option. Wesley♦^Mouse 14:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Language of performances

I think that language of Yugoslav performances should be changed into Serbo-Croatian since it was the official language of former Yugoslavia (except of course in the cases were song was performed in Slovene language). Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and in last few years also Montenegrin are the standardized varieties of Serbo-Croatian considered to be separate languages since 1990 for political reasons. Most of the linguists on the other side still consider it to be the one language and it was the official language during the Yugoslav period. There are also some English language sources that state Serbo-Croatian as performance language (I didn't find it now for all songs, and since the topic is a bit obscure I am not sure if I will be able to): 1961. Ljiljana Petrović-Neke davne zvezde: Serbo-Croatian, 1973. Zdravko Čolić Gori Vatra: Serbo-Croatian 1982. Aska – Halo, Halo: Serbo-Croatian, 1989. Riva–Rock Me: Serbo-Croatian or this one or this one or this one, 1990. YUGOSLAVIA "Hajde da ludujemo" Tajči [Eurovision 1990: Final]...--MirkoS18 (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree, all songs performed in the Serbo-Croatian language after the breakup of Yugoslavia should be listed as their individual varieties Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, etc., but for songs performed in Serbo-Croatian during the time of Yugoslavia it should be Serbo-Croatian per the reasons you listed. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 19:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, such changes would need to be strongly sourced, and seeing as ProjectEurovision uses the website Diggiloo Thrush and has done for the last 11 years, then we should be going off what they state are the chosen languages. The page dedicated to Yugoslavia does not stipulate Serbo-Croatian as any language choice. Therefore based on fact, I am opposing any changes. Wes Mouse ✒ 10:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• P.S. There was a mediation cabal case and outcome consensus made back in 2008. The case is very lengthy, but appears upon quick glance to be connected to all of this. Wes Mouse ✒ 10:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Since it might be perceived even as a controversial edit, of course it have to be sourced. Still, since this source is obviously incorrect in this case (it is impossible that Yugoslavia sent a song in Montenegrin standardized variety of language that didn't exist at that time), I think we should find reliable sources since this one contradict chronology. Maybe EBU have some old lists of participants and/or records that contain information on language? Maybe it can be accessed somewhere? If we find any source that comes from the certain year competition I would be absolutely surprised if any of those songs (except Slovene ones) were titled other than Serbo-Croatian language songs.--MirkoS18 (talk) 14:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

It was actually dealing with 1992 Yugoslav entry. The case was that since in 1992 country that participated was Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and not Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, there should be two Wikipedia articles for both countries. But it didn't actually dealt with language in any way.--MirkoS18 (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@MirkoS18: please keep the conversation in contextual flow. Seeing as I was the last to comment and then you have replied to both, then there is no requirement to split up the replies. It'll only confuse people who may join at a later stage. Diggiloo Thrush website is highly reliable and one that has been used as such highly reliable sourcing for the entire of WikiProject Eurovision. Eurovision.tv doesn't provide any sources for language of songs in any of its earlier contests, which is why we (as in the project) rely heavily on Diggiloo Thrush. I have already provided the link to the entire list of Yugoslavian entries, and they all provide different languages. Don't forget that despite Yugoslavia being a nation at the time, it did have regional dialects, which have since become languages upon the break-up of the Balkans. As the source provided enables us to provide verification for the language choices over the years, then that should be sufficient. Some of the sources you provided are not reliable, especially the one from ESC Gold, as that is only operated by one person and not a team of editors/journalists. Eurovisiontimes isn't reliable as their publications are from volunteer members who register a profile, a bit like we at Wikipedia are volunteer editors. As for the other sources, they too are not reliable and should be avoided really. Reliability is the key factor here I'm afraid! It is probably also worth remembering that the Serbo-Croatian Language was only ever a de facto language, and was not officially ordained by law at federal level. Thus, to keep things politically correct, the regional languages that are non-de facto would surely take precedence (as is currently used and can be easily verified from Diggiloo Thrush which is a reliable source. Wes Mouse ✒ 15:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I really didn't want to confuse anyone but I guessed that people can check date and time at the end of each comment and page history if chronology is not completely clear at any point. Diggiloo Thrush website might be highly reliable web page (it seems quite useful source for me to), but it is obviously incorrect in this case, anyone can make unintentional mistake and that is why we should not be homo unius libri. I don't know why do you remind me of regional dialects (as a native speaker I know it very well) and socio-political (but not linguistic) changes "upon the break-up of the Balkans" (I guess you wanted to say Yugoslavia, as one of the countries in this region). The thing is that even if the new languages were created it would still be anachronism to reflect those changes back in history, prior to the moment they might (or might not) occurred. As for the sources I provided, those were just first I could find. I guess creator of the content at Diggiloo Thrush just tried to put the modern day language variety next to the song from certain former Yugoslav republic. It probably was with best intentions, but it is anachronistic and incorrect. As for the project, I know it is the most convenient to use one source for all those songs, but maybe we need different source in this case. I don't know if there is other reliable source that might have correct information, otherwise we might have to keep those incorrect descriptions in order to avoid original research issue. Maybe the better idea would be to put local TV stations that selected the songs instead of language altogether? I mean, it will be up to the interested editors from interested projects on Wikipedia to find some solution, I just wanted to point out that information we are giving to the readers is incorrect.--MirkoS18 (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@MirkoS18: please be very careful what you say about people from other websites, in this case the remarks you have made towards a person who works for Diggiloo Thrush. Making libellous remarks should be avoided at all times. You should not "guess creator of the content at Diggiloo Thrush just tried to put the modern day language variety next to the song from certain former Yugoslav republic"; such remark is bad faith judgement towards a person. I would advise perhaps striking out those remarks. We are to assume the content is correct and have good faith and trust that they know what they are doing when updating content to their website. You wish to use a different website is not exactly good faith either, and comes across as you distrusting a reliable source just because you feel personally that the creator is "incorrect". That, my friend, is disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. As for the proposal to add a new column to show the TV station, that proposal would not be feasible either. Don't forget if we're to add such a column, then the same column and information would have to be added to all of the other Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest articles too, for consistency purposes. WP:ESC does pride itself on uniformity when it comes to articles. Also, I do recall this topic being brought up a few times in the past, and although I cannot find the exact location of the archived debates, I seem to vaguely recall a consensus being reached, which is why the languages are being used per se. And I have already pointed out that Serbo-Croatian was never an official language ordained by law of the federal government. The language was only a de facto language chosen by the citizens. So you rationale about Diggiloo Thrush is quashed there, as they are using official languages recognised by the federal government at the time of Yugoslavia's existence, and are not' stipulating a de facto language. Wes Mouse ✒ 16:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Furthermore, please see List of languages in the Eurovision Song Contest#References number 5 and 7 in the notes. That again follows with the consistency which was obviously agreed upon via discussions (which are archived in the plethora of archives for Project Eurovision). Wes Mouse ✒ 17:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• I stand by what I have said and don't see it as libellous remark. I very much appreciate what they are doing, and understand that they try to do their best. As for that I "feel personally that the creator is "incorrect"" is not just because of some personal distrust, but because of the reasons I provided. It is argumented and it is not disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. I don't know what ESC project pride itself for, nor why do you speak in plural in the name of the project as a whole, but it is up to the entire interested community on Wikipedia since projects or editors do not actually own any article. As for your comment that you recall this topic being brought up a few times in the past I would really appreciate if you can be more concrete especially since you vaguely recall a consensus being reached. As for remark that Serbo-Croatian was not formally official it does not mean that non-existing standards at a time (such as Montenegrin for example) were. The thing is to establish under which language name song was performed back in the day Eurovision took place. Best regards.--MirkoS18 (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Contrary to your belief, @MirkoS18:, you have made written remarks in a judgemental manner towards a person who works for a website without their knowledge that you have made such personalised remarks, nor are they able to defend your remarks. So that alone is not fair on a living person who has probably worked hard and put in so many long hours to maintain their website. So saying they are "incorrect" and in a roundabout way demanding that we find another website, is in itself very pointy and point of view pushing; and you have basically admitted that you hold personal distrust towards the website's editor, which makes very illustrative and point-pushing. Seeing as these articles are about Eurovision, then unfortunately and contrary to your view, members of WikiProject Eurovision do hold responsibility towards the content written therein, although no ownership has ever been claimed, so where you get that assumption from is astonishing to be quite frank. Do you have a habit of putting words into other's mouths? Speaking in plural about the project is the correct grammar to use, as the project is based on voluntary editing from the members, so speaking "plural" is in reference to all of its members and not to make a project sound like a solo-working robot. And why have I got to be "concrete"? Did you not read the point about there being so many (if not hundreds) of archived talk pages connected to Project Eurovision and its articles, that trying to pin-point the exact conversations would be like looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack. Do you seriously think I have time to just drop everything and chase around for you to carry out an arduous task to browse through hundreds of talk page archives? I do have a real-life beyond Wikipedia, as I would hope you do too and would appreciate that sentiment. Feel free to browse through all archives yourself if it bothers you that much. As the current status quo goes, a reliable website is used to verify the languages, regardless of whether you personally feel they may be incorrect. If you distrust their correctness, then perhaps emailing the website would be the more appropriate venue to take the matter forward. Wes Mouse ✒ 18:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@CT Cooper: as an admin and long-time serving member of WP:ESC; are you able to recall the debate about language choices for Yugoslavia? Or perhaps have any views into the matter being raised by Mirko? Wes Mouse ✒ 18:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, I see no need to escalate this – MirkoS18may be making disagreeable arguments but his conduct here has not been problematic and stating that a website has made an error in good faith does not fall into the category of libel. I remember the Mediation Cabal case and some past discussions on the language of entries from Serbia and Croatia, as such things were frequently subject to edit warring, particularly by unregistered and newly registered users. I do not recall there ever being a clear consensus on the issue. I don't take a strong view on this but my general opinion is to defer to policy – Wikipedia:Verifiability is clear that Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say – nothing more, nothing less. When editors insert their personal opinions into articles, they are engaging in original research which is not permitted. When multiple reliable sources are contradicting each other on an issue, the article should report both neutrally with appropriate weight. There appears to be agreement that The Diggiloo Thrush is a reliable source, which is good. However, if other reliable sources are saying something different, then we have consider them, otherwise we're not being neutral. I've noted the citation of other websites in this discussion, but are they all reliable? On possible outcomes, if all reliable sources are saying the song is in language X, then the article should say it's in language X. If it's roughly 50/50 in reliable sources between languages X and Y, then the article should state both. If most reliable sources say it's language X but a notable number also say it's language Y, then a sensible outcome would be for the article to say it's language X but to have a footnote pointing out language Y as well. A more in depth review of sources will be needed to determine which outcome would be appropriate here. CT Cooper · talk 00:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

(@CT Cooper:, @Wesley Mouse:) I completely forget about this discussion until I got over this YouTube video. I remembered there was some misunderstanding and bad faith so I decided to take a step back. Yet, I think the video I am linking here is a good example how linguistic nationalism/separatism was not acknowledged at the period of joint state and songs were performed ether in Slovenian or Serbo-Croatian. Take a look at the 12-14 seconds in the video where Terry Wogan is giving the introduction to Yugoslav entry mentioning the language of performance. Have a nice day.--MirkoS18 (talk) 22:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080403045626/http://free-st.t-com.hr:80/eurodalmatia/gotovo_za_web/jugovizije/results/1979.htm to http://free-st.t-com.hr/eurodalmatia/gotovo_za_web/jugovizije/results/1979.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080226123401/http://free-st.t-com.hr:80/eurodalmatia/statistika.htm to http://free-st.t-com.hr/eurodalmatia/statistika.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080926015328/http://www.eurovision.tv/index/main?page=66&event=301 to http://www.eurovision.tv/index/main?page=66&event=301

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

FR Yugoslavia isn't Yugoslavia

It's odd how FR Yugoslavia's 1992 entry is included in Yugoslavia's page instead of Serbia & Montenegro. FR Yugoslavia and Serbia & Montenegro were the same country. They changed their name from FR Yugoslavia to Serbia & Montenegro in 2003 for UN membership. FR Yugoslavia shouldn't be included in Yugoslavia's page. It should be made clear on Serbia & Montenegro's page that the country was formally known as FR Yugoslavia, they competed in 1992, were expelled from 1993 to 2002, were allowed to compete in 2003 but missed out due to too many countries competing and then competed again from 2004 to 2006 before dissolving into separate nations on 2007. Karlwhen (talk) 07:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm no expert on this and I know it's a very touchy subject. If it's something that you think should be looked at again, I would recommend scrolling up and reading the various conversations about this very issue first to get a better grasp of the "sides". Grk1011 (talk) 13:43, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Identified song languages

@Surtsicna: Thank you for your edit to this article regarding the languages of the competing entries. I wanted to explain my "anachronistic" edits in the context of what has been a lot of previous discussion regarding Yugoslavia's entries. As you can see from the above section there has been some debate previously over which language to label each entry, and while I do see considerable merit in your thoughts over how the mutually intelligible Serbo-Croatian dialects only developed into national languages in the 1990s and 2000s, I was simply updating the article per the agreed consensus already established to use Diggiloo Thrush as the source, and to make consistent the different interpretations which now exist across Eurovision articles. If you'd like to raise this point again, please do comment here or in the above section, or feel confident in starting a conversation at the Eurovision WikiProject if you believe this requires a greater revisiting and consensus on this. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above went nowhere, unfortunately, as one user steered it into absurd accusations of libel. I am surprised to see Diggiloo Thrush lauded as a reliable source on the matter. Is it not a self-published website with visitor-submitted content? Surely an academic publication by an expert, say Dean Vuletic, should take precedence. The songs are not even sung in different dialects; all of them are sung in Eastern Herzegovinian dialect of Serbo-Croatian language. The modern standard varieties Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian, and Montenegrin, which did not exist in this time period, are all based on this one dialect. Surtsicna (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm certainly not disagreeing with you there, but I thought I'd raise the issue and explain that I was just following the established consensus. There are definitely a number of conflicts now across Eurovision articles, including this article, the individual "contest by year" articles and others, which either go with Serbo-Croatian or use the varieties that you mentioned, and I definitely feel a way forward is required just to ensure high standards across all articles. If that means going with Serbo-Croatian in all cases then so be it, but a fuller discussion may be necessary for establishing a consensus in case questions are raised (which seems to always happen when it comes to Yugoslavia, as this talk page proves). Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I see. It is a perennial can of worms, I'm afraid. Surtsicna (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

A can of worms, yes. But let's keep things in perspective. This is an article on the Eurovision Song Contest, not the Srebrenica massacre, so in terms of Yugoslavian articles, we're on pretty calm ground all things considered. I'm always looking at the middle ground between two extremes, so here's my suggestion. Accepting that Diggiloo Thrush is not exactly a reliable source, it is nevertheless one of the few credible sources we have for languages. So why don't we use Serbo-Croatian but with a footnote explaining that that source uses the specific language titles? It would give a general audience the context they need to understand why Serbo-Croatian is correct without, perhaps, being accurate. doktorb _words^deeds 20:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I still do not understand why Diggiloo Thrush is so revered. It is not official. It is not academic. It's a self-published website with much of its content submitted by its anonymous visitors. What am I missing? Surtsicna (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes the footnote suggestion could work as a suitable solution to this, happy for this to be implemented across the articles. I wouldn't exactly call Diggiloo.net "revered" per se but it is one of the few sources out there that contain language information, so it has been a "fall-back" in a lot of cases, but of course it's not the only source out there so I'm not going to put it on a pedestal. On another note, I don't necessary think that just because a source is not official or academic means it is not reliable, and while Diggiloo.net is certainly not perfect I wouldn't say its not as reliable a source compared to many others used across Eurovision articles. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 07:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, sources do not have to be official or academic to be considered reliable. Articles in reputable newspapers count too. But self-published websites are expressly identified as unreliable sources in Wikipedia's verifiability policy; see WP:SELFPUBLISH. If the information is not found anywhere else but there, perhaps it should not be included at all. Surtsicna (talk) 08:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Post note: other Eurovision lyrics sites seem to subscribe more to the Serbo-Croatian over national variants than Diggiloo, e.g. 4Lyrics.eu, which lists all Yugoslav entries (bar those in Slovene) as Serbo-Croatian up to 1991. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Yugoslavian entrys on Eurovision

Yugoslavia on Eurovsion

Serbian entry - 1961, 1962, 1974, 1982, 1991, 1992 Croatian entry - 1963, 1965, 1968, 1969, 1971, 1973, 1983, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990 Bosnian entry - 1964, 1973, 1976, 1981 Slovenian entry - 1966, 1967, 1970, 1975 Montenegro entry: 1984 Macedonian entry: 0 Kosovo entry: 0 Vojvodina entry: 0

I am fan of Eurovision from Croatia

Eurovision 1989

Croatian song won Eurovison 1989. That is reason why host city of Eurovision 1990 was Zagreb (Croatia), and not Beograd (Serbia)