User Talk: EurovisionLibrarian

{{talkheader}}
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|archiveprefix=User talk:EurovisionLibrarian/Archives/|format=Y/F|age=2160|archivebox=yes|box-advert=yes}}

Help with an article rewrite

Hi EurovisionLibrarian. Feeling inspired by your rewrites to the Sanremo 1956 and 1957 articles, I made a draft in my sandbox of a revamp to the Sanremo 1964 article with basic info from newspapers. I chose that edition in particular because the current page has a few big omissions: the introduction of foreign artists and Bobby Solo's disqualification. I'd appreciate if you could take a look at it, just to make sure everything's correct and to know whether I can publish it. Thanks. CasaCrimson (talk) 05:52, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

:Hi @CasaCrimson ! Sorry for my late reply, I've been busy over the past few days. Thanks for reaching out and thank you for this amazing draft. It looks really good, in my opinion, and can already be published. The structure and writing is fine, the format and choice of the references are very good. La Stampa and Radiocorriere are both very valuable sources with lots of information to find. You can also be bold in the future and insert or correct information directly in the "living" article if you feel like.
:Here are a few suggestions to make it even more better:
:* Source no. 1 (the Eddy Anselmi book from 2009) lacks page numbers. But I guess you didn't insert the reference yourself but just took it over from the previous version of the article.
:* Results tables: "Italian artist(s)"/"Foreign artist(s)" => usually the singular form "Artist" is written as the head of the column even if sometimes, there is more than one artist, compare the Eurovision articles: Eurovision_Song_Contest_2001#Contest_overview ↗
:* Diversify your sources if possible. One online newspaper archive you can have access to is L'Unità: https://archivio.unita.news/search?q=sanremo&start_date=02%2F01%2F1964&end_date=01%2F03%2F1964 ; You can also apply for getting access to Corriere della Sera via the Wikipedia Library: https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/partners/135/ It worked in my case and proved very useful for the Sanremo articles.
:Keep up the good work :-)
:Best wishes from Germany --EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 18:24, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
::I appreciate the advice, thank you! I just published the article. Unfortunately I can't apply for Corriere della Sera until I have 500 edits or a 6-month-old account, but I'll keep that in mind for the future. CasaCrimson (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

IsItTrue? - 1964es

Apparently, each song was required to have a background decoration. And yes, the Spanish background was designed by Dalí. The news and the sketch of Dalí's drawing appeared extensively in Spanish newspapers of the time before the festival, not only in ''Pueblo'' (see note and refs in its article ↗).

But sadly, the reports following the festival read:

"TVE nos dijo a todos que Dalí había ideado el decorado para nuestra actuación y que los pintores de la televisión danesa lo había reproducido estupendamente, pero el decorado no apareció por ninguna parte [TVE told us all that Dalí had designed the set for our performance and that the painters at Danish television had reproduced it wonderfully, but the set was nowhere to be found]" (''Pueblo'' - 28 March 1964 - page 25)

"no solo no permitieron el decorado exigido a cada canción, sino que tampoco se nos comunicó que no se utilizaría [Not only did they not allow the required decorations for each song, but we were also not informed that they would not be used.]". (''El Adelantado'' - 11 April 1964 - page 4)

It seems that, for some reason, the backgrounds that were requested to the broadcasters and that had already been reproduced in Denmark were ultimately not used, nor were the delegations informed that they would not be used. Ferclopedio (talk) 08:35, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

:Hi Ferclopedio! Thanks for sharing, this is very interesting indeed! Great piece of information, and thank you for incorporating it into the article. Love the fact that he used octopus ink, haha. EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 17:55, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
::I'm sure they didn't have that type of ink at DR. :) Ferclopedio (talk) 07:30, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

IsItTrue? - 1956

While looking for potential new reports of the 1956 contest from Swiss-Italian news archives, I managed to find a source that mentions the contest was filmed with three cameras in the exact locations as the 1989 report on your Is It True sandbox page;<ref name="popolo">{{Cite news |last=Biscossa |first=Giuseppe |date=26 May 1956 |title=A une romantica canzone della Svizzera francese il G. Premio Eurovisione 1956 della canzone europea |trans-title=A romantic song from French Switzerland was awarded the 1956 Eurovision Grand Prix for European song |url=https://aqp.sbt.ti.ch/viewer?id=rr1chpoB2WlOfa--XxtS |access-date=4 January 2024 |work=Giornale del Popolo ↗ |location=Lugano ↗, Switzerland |page=2 |language=it |issn=1660-9662 |oclc=173873718}}</ref> three cameras at the theater balcony and the center and back of the hall. This is the same clipping that mentions one of Les Trois Ménestrels' interval acts and that the running order was held in Gardone Riviera, Italy that is cited on the Wikipedia page. Jusherman (talk) 08:06, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

:Thanks a lot! I must have overseen that the information was also present in this article in Giornale del Popolo. Together with another Swiss-Italian newspaper article from 22 May 1956, this is now sufficient to be considered true. I have made the corresponding edit in the 1956 article. Thank you once again! EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 09:10, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Biggest myth

Hi. Let me, please, share my biggest aftermath frustration with you. The biggest myth of all time live on TV, a complete lie which would be a great candidate to add to your list of myths if you feel like moving forward in time.

My brain imploded upon hearing: "That year four songs received the same number of points, eighteen, and there were no rules whatsoever in place for handling such a situation, so all four of them were declared winners".

There were undoubtedly rules in place for handling such a situation, they were aware that a tie was possible, and it was a planned and rehearsed outcome. The concept of joint winners was quite normal and accepted by everyone at the time. The fact that the tie was four songs and not two surprised everyone, but they simply followed the existing rules to declare all them joint winners. It didn't catch them off guard, nor was it unforeseen, nor was it not covered by the rules, nor was it chaotic; on the contrary, everything was handled with the utmost professionalism onstage, and they had two sets of four medals prepared backstage. And the broadcasters' boycott the following year was simply an unfounded tantrum, because joint winners was a normal situation accepted by all of them, and the EBU quickly introduced the tie-breaking rule after the complaints and drama surrounding who would stage the following year. Nobody at the EBU remembers this, nobody reviewed the script for the gala, and they've swallowed the myth hook, line, and sinker? They copy entire sentences written by us word for word from the Wikipedia article for the contest page on their new website, but haven't they read the part that talks about this?

And not to mention that the bloody phrase was just preceded by the TVE logo, as the only ever mention of Spain, as if to say "see, they weren't prepared"... when if it was someone's fault, it would be the EBU's. An interpretation that, in the current context, borders on impertinence.

Sorry for this :) Ferclopedio (talk) 09:59, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

:Hi @Ferclopedio!
:Thank you for sharing your frustration, haha! I had also my bit of that yesterday night, standing in the crowd of Vienna Stadthalle, and despite having turned up early, I didn't see very much and had a woman next to me yelling continuously "Akylaaaas" in a very shrill voice like a whistle. I guess that, after Eurovision, everyone of us need a bit of therapy ;-)
:Back to the representation of the 1969 tie: I guess it was part of those "Professor Eurovision" videos. I wasn't able to follow this particular video in detail from the perspective of the crowd but will watch it when back at home.
:For the defense of the EBU, I actually think it's good they copy from Wikipedia because that's how they finally get their historical facts right. And the "Professor Eurovision" videos were surprisingly differentiating and weighing different perspectives in their approach, I appreciated this contextualisation which is often absent from these "jubilee shows".
:In order to trying to prevent media/the EBU/and whoever also copies from Wikipedia from perpetuating myths like this one about 1969, maybe the myth and its resolution could be covered more in detail on the corresponding article page. We just need sources that repeat the myth and explicit sources for the correct facts.
:The problem that will always will be is that some myths just sound so nice as stories that they will be repeated regardless of the facts, like the "scandal" that the Danish kiss of 1957 provoked, or that Celine Dion instantly rose to fame after her victory, or that one single person with a nobel idea, Marcel Bezencon, created the contest all by himself superhero-like and wanting to unite Europe by the power of music, like a white dove coming down over the war-torn continent.
:So we cannot really prevent powerful media to publish wrong facts but we can use the influence that Wikipedia has by including more details in order to debunk the myths. EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 10:48, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
::Hahaha, I can imagine you trying to kill that woman with a gaze. We all need therapy, no doubt. :)
::Yes, it was a "Professor Eurovision" videos. The efforts they are making lately to be more precise (in things like "participating broadcaster" vs. "country", for example) and to contextualize the information are indeed appreciated. But the least one would expect from the festival's official website is that it is based on internal information from the EBU itself, since they are the ones who possess the real and official information, and make the webpage an expert and indisputable primary reference on the subject. But reality leads me to think that the website is simply outsourced to the marketing agency, and we can consider ourselves lucky that they are getting verified information from Wikipedia. My only fear with this is that it might lead to circular references, in their side and in our side.
::Regarding 1969, I have already included in its article all the contemporary information about the event that I have found in freely accessible Spanish newspapers from those days, with their corresponding references. Including the on-site recount of the dress rehearsal where the tie was rehearsed, and the press clipping of the TVE director later saying that they had two sets of medals prepared (which someone for some reason considered uninteresting information and removed from the article). The only thing I couldn't find was the actual rules, where it surely says something similar to "the song (or songs) with the highest number of points will be declared the winner(s)", so I couldn't write it explicitly and had to express it indirectly. And I had replaced the phrase "rules had no tie-breaking rule" with "rules allowed more than one winner" everywhere to avoid a false impression. When you have a moment, if you don't mind, please take a look at the article to see how we can improve it and make this clearer.
::It's true that the narrative is often drawn to myths that sound good, but that's why we're here: to shatter those myths. And we've already shattered quite a few, and I hope we'll shatter many more. Not to mention all the things we've discovered that had fallen into oblivion or become blurred over time, and have brought to light... including octopus ink. I'm still hoping we can dismantle one of the biggest ones and prove that the ESC format is a carbon copy of Venice's. :) Ferclopedio (talk) 12:06, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
:::Sorry for the late reply! I have finally found the time to briefly look over the passages in the 1969 article. It all looks very good to me.
:::The actual rules are expected to be found in the EBU Bulletin. I luckily got a library not that far away that should have the volume for 1969, and will look into it. ;-) EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
::::1st: Don't worry, I already figured you'd be busy, it's not that late. I had time to find more information about rehearsals. :)
::::2nd: WAAAAAT!!! That would be amazing. Finding the exact wording of the rule would indeed shed light on the matter. Please, let me know if you find anything! Ferclopedio (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::Ah, I just remembered something that might help! I found that the running order draw was done in London, which I believe was during an EBU assembly around October 1968, and that the 1969 rules could also have been approved there. :) Ferclopedio (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::@Ferclopedio Good to know. thank you. I will then also look into the volume for 1968 EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 04:46, 26 May 2026 (UTC)