Talk:Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest

message: 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)
thread_title: Assessment

message: The previous version (as of october 5) see here:  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: , check Yugoslavia --Dzole (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Ethnicity" 

message: An extensive archive for Jugovizija for each year:  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
# JULIE - DANIEL, TV TITOGRAD (72)
# VOLIM TE OD 9 DO 2 - "NOVI FOSILI", TV ZAGREB (54)
# LIDU, LIDU, DU - MAJA ODŽAKLIJEVSKA, TV SKOPJE (46)
# ADRIANA - MARIJAN SMODE, TV LJUBLJANA (44)
# NA SVOJ NAČIN - "INDEKSI", TV SARAJEVO (40) 
# RUDY - BABY DOLL, TV BEOGRAD (36)
# SITNIJE, CILE SITNIJE - LEPA BRENA & "SLATKI GREH", TV BEOGRAD (34)
# SVIRAJ ZA MARIJU - MILORAD NONIN, TV NOVI SAD (31)
# TI SI NEMOGUĆ - "SUNČEVE PEGE", TV NOVI SAD (24)
# POSADI CVIJET - MIŠO KOVAČ, TV ZAGREB (22)
# VRATI SE - BRANKO MILIŠIĆ, TV TITOGRAD (18)
# DOĐI DA ME VIDIŠ - "COD", TV SARAJEVO (16)
# OPERA - SILVA DELOVSKA & KIM, TV SKOPJE (12)
# SO NAJLEPŠE PESME SO NAPISANE - "HAZARD", TV LJUBLJANA (9)
# FJALA BEHET ZOG, DIELLI BEHET SY - SHPESHA GASHI, TV PRIŠTINA (3)
# 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)
replies: text: 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 . Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  "source"? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Changes

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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:
#On April 27, 1992 FRY was officialy established,- US State Department on FRY and shortly afterwards, on May 9,- EBU, ESC Winners, see: date & location 1992 it was represented under FRY flagVideo on Youtube by Extra Nena, although she won the RUMP "SFRY"- NY Times, April 1992. Note: Rump Yugoslavia was used to describe what still only formally existed as "SFRY" for 10 months (25 June 1991 — 27 April 1992), in a period when many of its nations broke away. Later it became FRY, which inherited the "name": Rump Yugoslavia, too. pre-selection held on March 28 in Belgrade., Internet Movie Database, See date 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.
#Jugovizija '92 was held on March 28, Internet Movie Database, See date in a RUMP "SFRY"- NY Times, April 1992. Note: Rump Yugoslavia was used to describe what still only formally existed as "SFRY" for 10 months (25. jun 1991 — 27. april 1992), in a period when many of its nations broke away. Later it became FRY, which inherited the "name": Rump Yugoslavia, too. 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.
#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.PDF:  - UN Security Council Resolution 777 (1992)- UNCHR: The Belgrade government's efforts to achieve for the FRY the same successor status vis-à-vis the SFRY as the Russian Federation achieved vis-à-vis the USSR were rejected by the international community. On 19 September 1992 the UN Security Council declared that the FRY could not automatically assume UN membership as the successor state to the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The General Assembly was asked to require the FRY to apply for UN membership and in the meantime exclude it from the work of the General Assembly.- UNEP: In this context, we take note of General Assembly resolution 47/1, adopted on 22 September 1992, in which the Assembly considered that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) cannot continue automatically the membership of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the United Nations, and decided that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) should therefore apply to join the United Nations and shall not participate in the work of the General Assembly (...) We do not accept that representatives of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) may validly represent Yugoslavia in this meeting. 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,- UN: The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was admitted as a Member of the United Nations by General Assembly resolution A/RES/55/12 of 1 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.-EBU: Before the break-up of Yugoslavia into separate independent states in 1992, RTS and RTVCG were constituent parts of the Yugoslav Radio Television (JRT), a founder member of the EBU in 1950. RTV Bosnia-Herzegovina, RTV Croatia, RTV Macedonia and RTV Slovenia were admitted to the EBU in 1993, but the remaining components of JRT were not admitted – in particular because Serbia/Montenegro was not recognised by the International Telecommunication Union. (The ITU admitted Serbia/Montenegro on 1 June 2001). 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.
#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.
#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)
#Serbia and Montenegro in the Eurovision Song Contest should be something third and unrelated to the previously too.
#All the articles should include shorter notes explaining the situation and should be interlinked.
#The official ESC site is not perfect. While the Youtube video clearly shows the flag of FRY,Video on Youtube on the website, Extra Nena is bizzarely listed under the SFRY flag.
===Sources===
--Dzole (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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: [].  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Important 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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: [].  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: You are missing the point

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Withdrawals 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I think that the sittuation of the article from December 1 2008 is enough  + this is the current content of the article. -- Imbris (talk) 01:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cyrillic 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Recent Grk1011 editing 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Serbia-Montenegro 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. [[User:Jjj1238|{ [ ( jjj]] [[User talk:Jjj1238|1238 ) ] }]] 19:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: *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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: *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)
replies: text: Contrary to your belief, , 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: (, ) 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)
thread_title:  Language of performances 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  FR Yugoslavia isn't Yugoslavia 

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

text: 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 wordsdeeds 20:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Identified song languages