This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Evropesma article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The previous 'Controversy' explanation was just as comprehensive as this one, even more so. It' seems to me that the added detail only serves as justification for the Montenegro judges voting practice, when in fact it isn't needed at all - the voting was within their rights and should not be explained if we want to avoid flame. Let's please stick to the facts and try to keep it NPOV.
First order of business should be if No Name should be listed as winners in 2006. I say it's a simple matter of logic - if there was a winner they would represent S&M in ESC. There will not be a representative of S&M in ESC, hence there is no winner.
Further more, the UJRT statement clearly states that RTCG demanded No Name to be declared as winners, and refused to accept another contest to be held. This demand was not met so it was decided there would be no representative on ECS. If the winner was not officially declared there can be no winner listed.
I'll try to keep it short and sweet, as I do with the actual article.
Number one, there's more to winning then finishing first, there's the small matter of everyone else acknowledging it, as I'm sure you would agree. But if you insist No Name to be listed with the 'unverified' tag, let it be so, as it is a poignant example of how things work.
Number two, all the detail you added about the circumstances that drove the RTCG judges to vote in such a dubious way two years in a row is exactly what makes this article unfair. It is clear for me what made them act like that - they are thieving bastards, but for the sake of NPOV let's just state the facts and let everyone decide for them selves. Further more:
No shit! Anonymous representatives didn't do well on a public competition? Call the police! :))) And as the 2005 televoting result showed, RTCG representatives DO have a chance to win, so the other sentence is wrong as well. Also, the current status should be made clear first, and historical added after as a reference. As it turns out, there's comprehensive, and than there's a lot of irrelevant crap (4000 seats in Sava Centar?), with important facts omitted - like the Serbian judges recanting their vote, albeit without legal ramifications. ;)
Number three, in regard of 2004 selection process. I don't remember that competition. What was it called? Where was it held? If my memory serves me right there wasn't one, they just put together a commission, performers applied, there was no actual performing or a contest, and 16 were selected. It was just to fill out the numbers, everyone already had their favorites.
On a more personal note: I'm not accusing you of anything I just call it as I see it. And I'm not hiding my frustration, I'm frustrated as hell! I was rooting for Ana Nikolić, and look what happened! :)))-- Bahati 13:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
-- Ogidog 01:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't know where you found the picture showing Flamingosi but it certainly does not represent their appearance at Evropesma or Beovizija—namely, my video recordings show both guys wearing black suits both nights. This was probably a rehearsal? -- Dzordzm 23:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
You can find a lot of info on Serbian Wikipedia (article mainly by yours truly). I am not very active around here but anyone wishing to discuss the current controversy should at least take a look at the voting figures from this and previous year. I will be happy to give any further information I have that could help you enhance this article - kindly contact me via my sr.wiki talk page (English welcome). -- Dzordzm 23:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
The winner of 2004 Evropesma was definitely not decided through a televote. The voting procedure (4 RTS, 4 RTCG, 1 televote) was pretty much as colorful as every other year with the exception that there was agreement to send Željko to Istanbul. Apart from that, Serbs gave all Montenegrin songs big fat zilches (used by Montenegrins as pretext for later scandals), Montenegrins reserved all top votes except what they gave to Željko for themselves plus two top songs from Beovizija got zilches from them too, and there was also some cool verbal soccer going on. Unfortunately it is very hard to find official score sheet from this year but the above I vividly remember. If somebody has the score sheet please paste it into the article. -- Dzordzm 09:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Image:Evropesma logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Image:Ujrt.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 16:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Image:Evrosong ujrt.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 13:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Evropesma. 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:
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Evropesma. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Evropesma article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The previous 'Controversy' explanation was just as comprehensive as this one, even more so. It' seems to me that the added detail only serves as justification for the Montenegro judges voting practice, when in fact it isn't needed at all - the voting was within their rights and should not be explained if we want to avoid flame. Let's please stick to the facts and try to keep it NPOV.
First order of business should be if No Name should be listed as winners in 2006. I say it's a simple matter of logic - if there was a winner they would represent S&M in ESC. There will not be a representative of S&M in ESC, hence there is no winner.
Further more, the UJRT statement clearly states that RTCG demanded No Name to be declared as winners, and refused to accept another contest to be held. This demand was not met so it was decided there would be no representative on ECS. If the winner was not officially declared there can be no winner listed.
I'll try to keep it short and sweet, as I do with the actual article.
Number one, there's more to winning then finishing first, there's the small matter of everyone else acknowledging it, as I'm sure you would agree. But if you insist No Name to be listed with the 'unverified' tag, let it be so, as it is a poignant example of how things work.
Number two, all the detail you added about the circumstances that drove the RTCG judges to vote in such a dubious way two years in a row is exactly what makes this article unfair. It is clear for me what made them act like that - they are thieving bastards, but for the sake of NPOV let's just state the facts and let everyone decide for them selves. Further more:
No shit! Anonymous representatives didn't do well on a public competition? Call the police! :))) And as the 2005 televoting result showed, RTCG representatives DO have a chance to win, so the other sentence is wrong as well. Also, the current status should be made clear first, and historical added after as a reference. As it turns out, there's comprehensive, and than there's a lot of irrelevant crap (4000 seats in Sava Centar?), with important facts omitted - like the Serbian judges recanting their vote, albeit without legal ramifications. ;)
Number three, in regard of 2004 selection process. I don't remember that competition. What was it called? Where was it held? If my memory serves me right there wasn't one, they just put together a commission, performers applied, there was no actual performing or a contest, and 16 were selected. It was just to fill out the numbers, everyone already had their favorites.
On a more personal note: I'm not accusing you of anything I just call it as I see it. And I'm not hiding my frustration, I'm frustrated as hell! I was rooting for Ana Nikolić, and look what happened! :)))-- Bahati 13:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
-- Ogidog 01:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't know where you found the picture showing Flamingosi but it certainly does not represent their appearance at Evropesma or Beovizija—namely, my video recordings show both guys wearing black suits both nights. This was probably a rehearsal? -- Dzordzm 23:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
You can find a lot of info on Serbian Wikipedia (article mainly by yours truly). I am not very active around here but anyone wishing to discuss the current controversy should at least take a look at the voting figures from this and previous year. I will be happy to give any further information I have that could help you enhance this article - kindly contact me via my sr.wiki talk page (English welcome). -- Dzordzm 23:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
The winner of 2004 Evropesma was definitely not decided through a televote. The voting procedure (4 RTS, 4 RTCG, 1 televote) was pretty much as colorful as every other year with the exception that there was agreement to send Željko to Istanbul. Apart from that, Serbs gave all Montenegrin songs big fat zilches (used by Montenegrins as pretext for later scandals), Montenegrins reserved all top votes except what they gave to Željko for themselves plus two top songs from Beovizija got zilches from them too, and there was also some cool verbal soccer going on. Unfortunately it is very hard to find official score sheet from this year but the above I vividly remember. If somebody has the score sheet please paste it into the article. -- Dzordzm 09:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Image:Evropesma logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Image:Ujrt.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 16:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Image:Evrosong ujrt.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 13:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Evropesma. 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:
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Evropesma. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)