Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Sources

Wiwibloggs

This is one of the newer, but most popular Eurovision-related sites. If it is determined to be reliable, a lot more information could be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.164.215 (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The fact it has "blog" in the title is what may be preventing it from being classified as reliable, per WP:BLOGS. Wes Mᴥuse 03:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It isn't actually a blog though, and I'd fully support it to become listed as reliable. Jjj1238 (talk) 03:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The list from EBU isn't really EBU endorsed, and they do stipulate that. They are merely advertising other websites that may be of interest to Eurovision fans. If Wiwibloggs is to be included as reliable, then we're going to have to do a reliability check and make sure they publish facts and not fiction. Wes Mᴥuse 03:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• I've found this that might help us establish the reliability status of Wiwibloggs. WP:UGC and WP:NEWSBLOG. Wes Mᴥuse 03:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• I just remembered that I seen a youtube clip of a reporter from Wiwibloggs interview Conchita Wurst. Now if they were a dodgy blog site, then I doubt the likes of Ms. Wurst would have allowed an interview to take place. So I'm going to be bold and add them to the list of RS. Wes Mᴥuse 03:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Major international media outlets including CNN, CNBC, The New York Times, the Financial Times and Russia 1 (and many others) cite wiwibloggs as a leading authority on Eurovision, which makes it reliable in my book. You can see examples on the wiwibloggs "about -> media and press" page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.80.31.190 (talk) 09:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

ESC+Plus

As it is being shown in the banned sources section, the ban for this site expired 1 September 2015, but the it's still on the list of banned websites. Is this site now reliable enough to be used as a source? --81.33.53.172 (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Eurofestivalnews.com

This website isn't anywhere in the list of sources, reliable or unreliable. Is there a possibility that somebody could review it and add it to the relevant list? That would be fantastic. - Tuxipedia (talk) 02:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Classify wiwibloggs as a reliable source

Wiwibloggs, with its founder William Lee Adams, has been invited to several broadcasters' shows - such as a SVT pre-show for Eurovision 2016 and in the 2017 edition of Uuden Musiikin Kilpailu. They have also been invited to discuss Eurovision-related news in national media in Ukraine and the United States (just to give specific examples, there are more out there)

And, given that sites such as eurovoix are credited as reliable.. why not Wiwibloggs? --ThatJosh (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Is Eurofestivales a reliable source?

See the discussion at Talk:Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2021 § Reliability of Eurofestivales. Other reliable sources and Wikipedia editors often cite this source, so hopefully someone who is familiar with the guidelines could review it. ―JochemvanHees (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I would say to avoid per WP:Blogs unless the person who runs the blog is a "an established subject-matter expert, whose work is in the relevant field". However, they don't appear to be too transparent about who is posting, with no named attributions and no details about the site other than saying it's a fan site. If other sources are using them for information, they are in essence "blessing" the content as they all do attest that they have an editorial board in charge of quality assurance. We would want to believe they are using the site as a tip and then further examining the claims. For a lot of this information though, more reliable sources do tend to publish most of the facts anyway. We don't need to source Iceland's non-participation with a Spanish fan blog for example. It is not a race to add information to the articles if more reliable sources are soon to follow. Grk1011 (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

12points.tv

This looks to be a dead link. Can't access the site and only get a white screen. Their Facebook account [1] has been inactive since 27 February 2020.

The last snapshot on Wayback Machine [2] is also a white screen. The last date to show the homepage on Wayback Machine is 4 December 2016.[3]

Ktkvtsh (talk) 04:53, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Eurovisionary possibly inactive

The site Eurovisionary [4] has not posted an article since 15 December 2022 [5]and due to this seems to have become inactive. Ktkvtsh (talk) 05:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Eurovisionfun

Centralizing this discussion between IvanScrooge98 and Pdhadam regarding Eurovisionfun, since it affects us as a whole. The website is listed as "caution" on this page, but that was only after ImStevan's edit this past Fall. First, can ImStevan please link to the discussion where it was reviewed and also when OGAE clubs were determined to be reliable? Grk1011 (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

There was no discussion. I brought up this topic here and after not much response, I edited it on my own. The site sometimes posts sensationalist articles and unverifiable info, especially regarding Greece in the contest. As for OGAE clubs, we've always been using them as sources without much question considering most of them are collaborating with their national broadcasters. — IмSтevan ^talk 15:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I see. Well the assessments weren't intended to be about feeling, we need to weigh them against WP:RS and outline how each meets the criteria listed there. As for OGAE, we've never been able to use them unless a reliable source has vouched for the information and included it in their article. If you notice, any article that has been reviewed by WP:GA or WP:FA, will not have such sources. There are things that folks look the other way for, but they'll catch up to us if we don't keep on top of them. For reference, here are some of the longggg discussions that helped develop the source list: here and here. Ideally, each source should have a link to the discussion that determined its status, which can be helpful for quick reference. Grk1011 (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment: despite having referenced Eurovisionfun myself, I have noticed that they tend not to fully verify what they are reporting and there have been cases of mistranslation of the original sources. So I agree that caution should be advised. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I can't say for certain at this stage how I feel Eurovisionfun sits, since I've not read much of their stuff or referenced them before, but I think what this question raises is something that has been mentioned several times in the past, which is that there is a desperate need to build consensus around what sites are and are not WP:RS. The current list is wildly outdated now and very much needs a refresh, but this process can't be a unilateral decision by one editor. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

This tweet by Mae Muller kind of sums up my point — IмSтevan ^talk 00:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll back ImStevan on his belief that EurovisionFun are as far from a reliable source as you can get in the realm of Eurovision media. Here's some examples:

• The Mae Muller tweet posted above, directly calling out this outlet for publishing untrue information.
• Just today, they put out an article entitled "European Parliament: Against the boycott of Israel in Eurovision 2024!", implying it's somehow a European Parliament statement which it clearly is not, just the statement of one MEP.
• In this article, they identified Ahmad Halloun as the Czech "head of press", which he is not.
• In this article, they described the stand-in rehearsals as having "leaked", when they were not leaked but published by another fan media outlet.
• In this article released 1 September, they claimed Cyprus's artist would be revealed "next week": she was revealed twenty-four days later, not next week.
• Before this in August, they claimed Cyprus would be "the first" announce their Eurovision artist and they'd announce it "soon": they were not the first, and it was about three weeks later.
• The misrepresentation in this article of their own opinions of 2013's contest being "underwhelming", mixed with some conversation they had with SVT, as a reason why Malmo would not end up hosting Eurovision 2024 - which, as we all know, they will.
• This isn't quite a journalistic issue but their conduct on their official Twitter account as a journalistic outlet leaves a lot to be desired.

These are just some examples, I could go on. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 18:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for pulling this together Ser! it's very convincing on the unreliable front. It's also worth mentioning that sometimes even though a website might be questionable, oftentimes the source article is listed as well at the bottom, and that is the case sometimes with Eurovisionfun. You can instead bypass them and use their source directly. If I have time, I will try to brainstorm or draft a new RfC of sorts to update and record consensus on the various sites. Grk1011 (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

eurovisionartists.nl / natfinals.50webs.com (for national finals)

Dear all,

It has come to my attention that both eurovisionartists.nl and natfinals.50webs.com have recently been used as references in edits to add to material to country-per-year articles. I think there is an agreement that at least natfinals.50webs.com is not a reliable source. Any objections to add it explicitly in the "non-reliable sources" section?

I would also like to have your views on the national final pages of eurovisionartists.nl, which has a dedicated page on almost any national final ever held in any country. I could find pages on national finals where some work of original research and verification has obviously been done, such as on Germany 1956 but also some whose information is either outdated or utterly wrong, such as United Kingdom 1956. In most cases, eurovisionartists.nl doesn't mention any sources for its information so it's entirely unclear whether the text was just copied from somewhere else on the internet, whether an author has spent time to research the information, who the author is and when the page was written or updated last time. This contributes to my impression that the content and its presentation on eurovisionartists regarding national finals is not the result of a careful editing process, and therefore its reliability can be questioned. Any opinions on that? EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 14:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

There are over 1200 national finals in the history of the Eurovision Song Contest and any website trying to cover them all are likely to have errors. For both these websites, the information is generally correct on most national finals and the ones with errors tend to be national finals which have errors on several website (e.g. Germany 1956, where very little used to be known; Cyprus 1984; France 1957; Switzerland 1958/1962; just to name a few national finals which have "problematic" histories when it comes to information about them). The main benefit of being able to cite them as sources is that they summarise national finals effectively, which allows us to gather information on every competing song, its artist, running order, and results all while only having to cite one source.

I am aware of the drawbacks of these sources. Both of them don't cite their sources (natfinals.50webs.com explains on its home page that it got most of its information from the OGAE National Finals Booklets, although this has been on the website since its inception). However, both websites are very responsive. I have interacted with both websites and they have always responded favourably when I have emailed them with new/corrected information, together with a reliable source. Although I've never asked before, I believe that both websites would be willing to provide sources for their information if asked.

My stance on both of these websites, and any other website which tries to summarise ESC national finals, is that they are generally reliable but if there is a better source out there then that should be cited instead. They should only be used as fallbacks when no other source can be found, and there should be efforts to replace their citations on wikipedia pages as far as possible. Spleennn (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

This is not the correct venue for this discussion. Please move it to WP:RS. Grk1011 (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)