Talk:United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Eurovision High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Eurovision, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Eurovision-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EurovisionWikipedia:WikiProject EurovisionTemplate:WikiProject EurovisionEurovision articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. United Kingdom Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I'm confused by all the individual year pages being spawned off this. If a given year's entry into the contest is sufficiently interesting to warrant a separate page, why not make a page for the song itself, rather than individual years that may never be filled in?

--JohnRDaily 14:47, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The linked Paul Davies is into Physics - not a singer!

I added some trivia to the top of the page concering records held by the United Kingdom in the contest. GerardT 02:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"As well as the poor standard of entries, this poor performance has also been attributed by some to unpopularity of the UK due to its relationship with America and most importantly the Iraq War, although many countries opposed to the Iraq War such as France and Germany have always had a hostile relationship with the UK in terms of political voting at Eurovision."

More of a rant than a sentence: "poor standard of entries" - fact or opinion?; "attributed by some?" - who exactly? what evidence do these unattributed sources have? As for the "hostile relationship with the UK in terms of political voting" - what does that mean? Does it mean that France and Germany have voted for countries for political reasons? Does it mean that UK and France and/or Germany have voted or not voted for each other for political reasons. Perhaps this can be clarified and evidence cited.

"It should be noted that while the Eurovision Song Contest is taken quite seriously in some European countries, and seen as a source of national pride if they score highly, it is seen as more of a joke in the United Kingdom, mainly due to the alleged "political/regional voting patterns" and the country's own long history of successful popular music"

What does taking the Eurovision Song Contest "seriously" mean? Which countries take it "seriously"? (Evidence please!) Is it not a source of national pride if the UK scores highly? (yes or no - evidence please!) Where is the evidence that it is seen as more of a joke in the UK than in other countries? Where is the evidence that the reasons given for this is as stated?

well, annoymous contributer, its embarressing every year simply because the songs are so campy. we take it personally because of the way other countrys will see us. For once, if the votes arn't fixed during the pre-picking we might have something to be proud of. --Coolspanner 21:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but the personal feelings and opinions of Coolspanner are hardly relevant to this article/discusion.

I'm sorry Galin, but please, check a video about the brtish songs on youtube, and you will see, 97% of the users who watch them say they dont like them. i really dont remember saying that i thought this. i implied (obviously) that everyone hated it.

It would definitely be a good idea, if possible, to put a voting history section like the United Kingdom's one on every nations Eurovision page 172.203.124.237 19:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the line "It should be noted that while the Eurovision Song Contest is taken quite seriously in some European countries, and seen as a source of national pride if they score highly, it is seen as more of a light entertainment programme than a serious song contest in the United Kingdom, mainly due to the alleged "political/regional voting patterns" and the country's own long history of successful popular music". This is clearly just opinion, not fact, with no attempt to support how serious or otherwise certain countries do or don't take the Contest. Also deleted is the line about "poor standard of entries" and poor performance "attributed by some to unpopularity of the UK due to its relationship with the United States and most importantly the Iraq War. Terry Wogan stated "I think the UK is suffering from post-Iraq backlash." This was put forward for an explanation of the 2003 result, not Scooch in 2007. Wogan's quote also refers to 2003, not 2007. Besides, this is all speculation and Point of View and so has no place in this article. There is no research into why people have not voted for the UK's songs...although British foreign policy is hardly likely to be the cause. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 02:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed in part. This debate will always be a speculative one because no one can ever know exactly why people vote for one country rather than the other. The facts are there in the table and the reader can see the changes in success and draw their own conclusions. We can however include some cited quotes by notable people as long as they are only phrased in such away as the only thing being presented as fact, is the fact that it was said. For example: 'Varying speculation has occured regarding the recent lack of success of the United Kingdom's entries. Following Jemini's nil points result in 2003, the UK's involvement in the Iraq war was blamed by the band's manager Martin Isherwood and commentator Terry Wogan.^[1]' we could then continue with speculation from 2004-2007 as long as it continues to be made up of cited paraphrasing and quotes. It would also be helpful to include quotations of notable people that rebuted this speculation (blaming the song or it's performers rather than anything political or anti-UK). ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 13:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current table is quite complicated, would a version based on the table from France in the Eurovision Song Contest be more suitable? Underneath is what we could do with it, only using conductor, and the UK Chart position.

(French version - apart from categories and first entry)

Thanks. Pafcool2 (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taken from the "Records" section:

"The UK holds the record for receiving the most set of 12 points in one show. They received 10 sets of twelve points in 1997, however they share this record with Greece who also received 10 sets of twelve points in 2005. However, it is hard to compare these two years, as 25 countries voted in 1997 and 39 countries in 2005. [4] Their first record was in 1974 when ABBA won with "Waterloo", which became their international breakthrough."

What does this part in bold have to do with the UK? Purplemonkeyfoot (talk) 11:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As per the closure of the above AfD, I've merged the contents of Scotland in the Eurovision Song Contest into this article. Although the Scotland article was deleted, its contents might be useful here. I've no opinion on the matter and trust the editors of this page to decide what to do with the salvaged content. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have recreated the pages as a redirect for navigational purposes. I have just worked out the history has already been merged into the article through page moves, and I have just restored the very old history. I am just going to leave it like that for reference. Camaron | Chris (talk) 09:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have instead now merged all the article history into this article so it is not split-up and to prevent any future confusion. I have decided to leave the redirect for now as it could be helpful for navigation. Camaron | Chris (talk) 10:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have also added the remaining old contents of the talk page and merged appropriately, I have added the oldafdfull tag to the talk page. Camaron | Chris (talk) 10:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you doing this?

I have given you sources and citations.

I have written it in a really adult way.

On other pages they have things about future or possible future events (we need to learn how to add that box at the top that says this article is about a future or possible future event)after that we'll be fine.

We will add one of those boxes soon.

Keep smiling :-)

You have given NO sources, Wikipedia needs sources so pages are not created by people having a joke. --AxG ^{@ ►talk} 14:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG DELETE One source is no good. It ain't going to happen as the EBU already has a broadcaster covering Scotland, which is the BBC. There are already too many countries in the contest, so i can not see them including Scotland too. One source on a rumor is not good, its hardly encyclopedic. Ijanderson977 (talk) 10:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's just other newspapers regurgitating the news from this one source which has yet to be identified as true. Ichigostar2007 (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have found three sources (2 of which are from Scottish newspapers) that support the purpose of this page - if you still feel uncomfortable I suggest removing the possibility of a 2009 debut instead of deleting the page entirely. Drigioni (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: This is certainly the same class of article as Kosovo, Palestine, or Liechtenstein in the ESC. 149.79.35.227 (talk) 23:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think that is a reliable source. Further, there are similar articles of countries that are not part of the EBU, why not this one and the other yes? Besides the issue was discussed in the scotish parliament, is not a rumor either. I am the Goddess, come to heaven —Preceding comment was added at 19:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please place comments about keeping/deleting the article into the articles for deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scotland in the Eurovision Song Contest now that one has opened. Camaron | Chris (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How could UK be last this year? There were 39 countries in the song contest and UK was 25th. How can a contestant winning 14 countries be last? There should not be red color in records list nor could one say 2010 UK was last. 85.76.64.33 (talk) 08:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It came last in the final of 25 countries. Entries which fail to qualify for the final are not given a classified place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.126.176 (talk) 23:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The image File:Bucks Fizz making.PNG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I was just wondering whether you would consider having a gallery at the bottom for the images of participants as there is a big white space after contestants. Thanks. --92.7.6.126 (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a massive mistake saying that Your Country Needs You was the national selection from the UK's first entry right up to 2010 as the YCNY only chose a singer, whereas A Song For Europe which was the National final for the bulk of the years the UK participated only selected a song and the singer was internally chosen. While making your mind up and your decision and possibly some others decided both song and singer. This needs to be changed as it is really misleading! 82.5.224.82 (talk)

I believe this needs to re-worded to include England so I propose to rename this Possible participation as separate entrants. Plus there needs to be information about England in this part. C. 22468 (talk) 06:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any discussion about England in this section will need sources. Any content that speculates without sources about who would be the broadcaster if England participated alone is original research. CT Cooper · talk 22:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If England would enter Eurovison Alone then the Broadcaster would have to be a member of the EBU and the Members are BBC and UKIB (ITV plc and Channel 4) which could represent England I have also added a link to this C. 22468 (talk) 16:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is still fundamentally unsupported speculation, and given that no sources provided talk about England participating alone, we shouldn't be talking about it either. I have hence again removed references to England. CT Cooper · talk 15:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be mention of England and you are right about unsupported speculation so there will be no mention of broadcasters for England, also I have added this Scotland: first Eurovision Song Contest entry? which I have added C. 22468 (talk) 16:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One short sentence about England, as it is at the moment, is probably okay. CT Cooper · talk 17:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have renamed the section and fixed the redirects that I could find. The name of the section does not need to be so insanely descriptive. Grk1011 (talk) 17:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was fine when it was just Scotland, as the original section was, but when Wales, Northern Ireland, and then England were added, I agree it got overly long. CT Cooper · talk 18:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to list England/Scotland/ with seperate flage for host cites, we have to do the same for the cantons of Switzerland, the provinces of the Netherlands, the counties of Ireland that have hosted to contest, etc. I therefore recommend putting all United Kingdom locations under United Kingdom flag as this is a contest where the uk competes as a whole. C. 22468 (talk) 12:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed reference to big Latvian and Lithuanian diasporas being the reason for large points from the UK. The wikipedia article on Latvians gives a diaspora in the UK of only ca 40,000 (in comparison wikipedia gives a Turkish UK diaspora over ten times that size, with equally high figures for several European nationalities such as Greeks, Poles, Irish and Portuguese). A quick look at UK votes from the last decade doesn't show a particular strong showing for Lithuania either. Diasporas do have an influence on the vote (which is why I left this bit unchanged) but these 2 Baltic countries don't benefit - far more likely beneficiaries are Ireland, Greece and Turkey, as the recent UK voting record shows.Vauxhall1964 (talk) 21:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuania does get a big boost from Diaspora, Latvia not so much. Just look at 2008 when they got the UK's 12, but came dead last in the semi final as no other countries voted for them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.194.143 (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of the 8 photos of acts in the article, 6 of them are from the last 8 years, despite the UK having competed in Eurovision for over 50 years and none of the recent 6 having done anything particularly notable. In accordance with WP:RECENT I suggest we have a photo of each act that has won it and one of the most recent entrant. Will Bradshaw (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd wait first before doing anything. As there is a discussion at WT:ESC about Eurovision by year articles and their layout style. As soon as that concludes, a new RfC will be opened to cover "Country" in the Eurovision articles, such as this one, and how they will be stylised. Plus we'd have to think about copyright issues when it comes to new images. Wesley☀Mouse 19:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I am wrong but I am not sure if there has been confirmation of the return to the national final next year.C. 22468 Talk to me 18:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are some errors in the list of commentators and spokespersons. For instance it appears there was no one to present the points from the UK between 1989 and 1997. Moreover Ken Bruce is credited as spokesperson in 2011, but as far as I remember there was a female spokesperson in the UK that year. Aejsing (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to appropriate talk page so that a more broader outlook can be achieved by project member, as the topic is covering all articles in general and not just this United Kingdom one. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Eurovision#Voting history.

I was wondering if we could replace the current voting section on the UK's page with the section bellow that I've designed. The design I've created is minimal and takes up less space, it is optional to look at with a "Hide" or "show" feature and also includes all vote to and from the UK since the 1950's, unlike the current design which only starts from 1975. I believe we should not ignore votes from 1957-1974 as they are a crucial part of the UK's voting history. This new design also shows how the UK's voting patterns have changed over the decades. This design is also perfect for years to come. Please look at the design fully before deciding. :) Karl (talk) 12:37 (BST/GMT) 18 July 2013. Voting history (1957-2013) [edit] In the Grand Final, the United Kingdom has received the most points from; Rank Country Points 1950's 1960's 1970's 1980's 1990's 2000's 2010's 1  Ireland 216 X 7 42 50 43 53 21 2   Switzerland 206 5 34 49 55 55 6 2 3  France 189 1 15 60 45 62 5 1 4  Austria 188 3 7 44 63 59 12 0 5  Belgium 180 2 13 57 37 64 6 1  Germany 0 8 70 50 34 18 0 6  Portugal 176 X 3 56 51 51 12 3 7  Luxembourg 172 1 26 59 65 21 X X 8  Sweden 168 0 15 36 67 45 4 1 9  Norway 157 X 20 59 52 21 4 1 10  Netherlands 150 6 17 54 36 32 5 0 11  Spain 147 X 14 39 47 32 11 4 12  Israel 145 X X 39 45 50 10 1 13  Finland 141 X 14 51 49 19 8 0 14  Denmark 140 1 11 10 56 46 13 3 15  Turkey 129 X X 9 61 44 9 6 16  Italy 124 0 10 37 38 29 X 10 17  Malta 121 X X 18 X 39 52 12 18  Yugoslavia 95 X 7 53 25 10 X X 19  Greece 85 X X 16 23 25 19 2 20  Monaco 83 2 10 71 X X 0 X 21  Cyprus 80 X X X 21 39 16 4 22  Croatia 64 X X X X 52 12 0 23  Estonia 44 X X X X 25 14 5 24  Slovenia 38 X X X X 25 11 2 25  Poland 34 X X X X 25 9 0 26  Bosnia and Herzegovina 33 X X X X 22 11 0  Hungary X X X X 32 1 0  Iceland X X X 1 28 2 2 27  Russia 32 X X X X 18 10 4 28  Macedonia 25 X X X X 10 10 5 29  Latvia 24 X X X X X 17 7 30  Lithuania 22 X X X X 5 14 3 31  Romania 20 X X X X 12 5 3 32  Bulgaria 19 X X X X X 7 12 33  Slovakia 17 X X X X 10 7 0 34  Albania 16 X X X X X 9 7 35  Armenia 9 X X X X X 7 2  Ukraine X X X X X 6 3 36  Morocco 8 X X X 8 X X X  San Marino X X X X X 6 2  Serbia X X X X X 8 0 37  Azerbaijan 7 X X X X X 0 7 38  Andorra 6 X X X X X 6 X  Belarus X X X X X 4 2  Czech Republic X X X X X 6 X 39  Moldova 5 X X X X X 1 4 40  Georgia 3 X X X X X 0 3 41  Montenegro 0 X X X X X 0 0  Serbia and Montenegro X X X X X 0 X In the Grand Final, the United Kingdom has given the most points to; Rank Country Points 1950's 1960's 1970's 1980's 1990's 2000's 2010's 1  Ireland 240 X 3 52 45 68 42 30 2  Sweden 175 0 2 26 37 51 44 15 3  Germany 168 0 8 32 63 27 28 10 4   Switzerland 165 5 9 42 64 35 0 10 5  Denmark 119 4 4 3 42 10 33 23 6  Greece 118 X X 5 21 7 65 20 7  France 113 2 9 55 14 12 19 2 8  Israel 110 X X 31 30 34 12 3 9  Norway 109 X 1 23 29 25 31 0 10  Belgium 108 2 5 47 28 14 9 3 11  Austria 99 2 10 11 29 36 9 2 12  Turkey 94 X X 1 16 17 49 11 13  Malta 93 X X 9 X 39 33 12 14  Luxembourg 87 1 3 46 31 6 X X 15  Netherlands 72 2 3 34 2 24 1 6 16  Cyprus 71 X X X 25 30 16 0  Spain X 4 25 16 11 6 9 17  Yugoslavia 69 X 6 16 42 5 X X 18  Iceland 68 X X X 0 48 14 6 19  Finland 64 X 8 31 13 0 12 0 20  Italy 62 2 9 36 5 3 X 7 21  Monaco 55 0 9 46 X X 0 X 22  Estonia 53 X X X X 23 26 4 23  Latvia 37 X X X X X 37 0 24  Portugal 36 X 0 15 8 13 0 0 25  Lithuania 34 X X X X 0 21 13 26  Russia 33 X X X X 5 15 13 27  Ukraine 30 X X X X X 20 10 28  Poland 18 X X X X 12 6 0  Romania X X X X 0 6 12 29  Slovakia 16 X X X X 10 6 0 30  Croatia 15 X X X X 15 0 0 31  Hungary 12 X X X X 10 2 0 32  Moldova 10 X X X X X 2 8 33  Azerbaijan 5 X X X X X 3 2  Bulgaria X X X X X 5 0 34  Bosnia and Herzegovina 4 X X X X 0 4 0 35  Serbia and Montenegro 3 X X X X X 3 X 36  Albania 2 X X X X X 1 1 37  Armenia 0 X X X X X 0 0  Belarus X X X X X 0 0  Georgia X X X X X 0 0  Macedonia X X X X 0 0 0  Morocco X X X 0 X X X  Serbia X X X X X 0 0  Slovakia X X X X 0 0 0 In the Semi-Finals, the United Kingdom has given the most points to; Rank Country Points 2000's 2010's 1  Lithuania 58 22 36 2  Turkey 49 34 15 3  Cyprus 46 39 7 4  Ireland 36 20 16 5  Malta 31 19 12 6  Denmark 30 18 12  Sweden 19 11 7  Iceland 27 20 7 8  Finland 22 16 6  Romania 10 12 9  Greece 20 12 8 10  Bulgaria 17 6 11  Netherlands 5 12 10  Portugal 16 13 3 11  Hungary 15 5 10 12  Israel 14 9 5 13  Latvia 13 13 0  Ukraine 7 6 13  Albania 12 12 0  Bosnia and Herzegovina 11 1  Estonia 1 11 14  Russia 10 0 10 15  Poland 9 4 5 16  Armenia 8 8 0  Serbia 5 3  Serbia and Montenegro 8 X 17  Norway 7 7 0 18  Belgium 5 0 5  Moldova 5 0 19  Azerbaijan 4 0 4 20   Switzerland 2 0 2 21  Austria 1 0 1  Georgia 0 1 22  Andorra 0 0 X  Belarus 0 0  Croatia 0 0  Czech Republic 0 X  Macedonia 0 0  Monaco 0 X  Montenegro 0 0  San Marino 0 0  Slovakia 0 0  Slovenia 0 0 X denotes that the country giving or receiving points did not compete in that decade. Andorra, Czech Republic, Montenegro and San Marino are not in the points given by the United Kingdom in the Grand Final grid as they are yet to qualify to a Grand Final. Very strong oppose: The voting history should only show a top-5 per previous consensus that has been in place for many years now, and has worked perfectly throughout. Collapsible boxes in articles are not to be used (see MOS:COLLAPSE) unless they are consolidating information already covered within articles, such as the ones used to show split results on Eurovision by Year articles. The main results are kept uncollapsible, whilst the split results are collapsed. On articles such as these, the voting history is not mentioned within the articles, and therefore hiding the content in collapsed boxes would be infeasible. Wesley ☮ Mouse 13:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Project talk page. Wesley ☮ Mouse 13:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080509081131/http://eurovisionarchive.members.beeb.net/trivia.htm to http://eurovisionarchive.members.beeb.net/trivia.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'With only 2 top ten placings and 3 last place finishes, after the introduction of the Big Four/Five, the United Kingdom remains as the most unsuccessful out of all the Big Four/Five countries.'
Technically this is (mostly) correct if you only view top 10 or last place results (given the UK was only in the top 10 in 2009). However, if you look at the results as a whole since 2005, the UK has often done better than Germany, France and Spain, either as a whole or two of them. You can also include Italy who came lower than the UK in 2014.

2005: UK 22nd, Germany 24th, Spain 21st, France 23rd (2nd of Big 5)
2006: UK 19th, Germany 14th, Spain 21st, France 22nd (2nd of Big 5)
2007: UK 22nd, Germany 19th, Spain 20th, France 22nd (Joint last of Big 5)
2008: UK 25th, Germany 23rd, Spain 16th, France 19th (Last of Big 5)
2009: UK 5th, Germany 20th, Spain 24th, France 8th (1st of Big 5)
2010: UK 25th, Germany 1st, Spain 15th, France 12th (Last of Big 5)
2011: UK 11th, Germany 10th, Spain 23rd, France 15th, Italy 2nd (3rd of Big 5)
2012: UK 25th, Germany 8th, Spain 10th, France 22nd, Italy 9th (Last of Big 5)
2013: UK 19th, Germany 21st, Spain 25th, France 23rd, Italy 7th (2nd of Big 5)
2014: UK 17th, Germany 18th, Spain 10th, France 26th, Italy 21st (3rd of Big 5)
2015: UK 24th, Germany 27th, Spain 21st, France 25th, Italy 3rd (3rd of Big 5)
2016: UK 24th, Germany 26th, Spain 22nd, France 6th, Italy 16th (4th of Big 5)

By these results, isn't it more accurate to say Spain is the most unsuccessful, particularly as they have only crossed 20th place 4 times, whilst the UK and France has passed it 5 times and Germany 6 times? Spain also has the lowest top result of the five countries since 2004 (Germany 1st, Italy 3rd, UK 5th, France 6th, Spain 10th). 86.25.135.140 (talk) 22:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the statement "GBC cannot obtain EBU membership due to the British Overseas Territory not being independent from the United Kingdom" is true — some subnational broadcasters (such as STV in Scotland, S4C in Wales, VRT in Flanders and RTBF in Wallonia) have active EBU membership.

I think the statement is supposed to say "GBC cannot participate in the contest due to the British Overseas Territory not being independent from the United Kingdom". dummelaksen (talk) 06:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Eurovision: Come Together warrants an entire section to itself. It's a one-off show, and if every one-off show got its own section the article would be very unwieldy. I think it should be a subsection of the "history" section or assimilated into it. dummelaksen (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It can just be a sentence in the history section about 2020. Grk1011 (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't this section be better off in the article United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 2020? It only covers the 2020 contest and I think it's been given too much weight on this article. dummelaksen (talk) 10:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has removed Alastair Burnet's name as the UK jury spokesperson in 1965, claiming the idea is ridiculous. However it appears to be true - or at least it sounds like him in the video of the scoring which I was sad enough to look up on YouTube. I don't think we'll find a reliable source though. MFlet1 (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't Alistair Burnet. Apart from anything Burnet had a Scottish accent. I too watched the video and the announcer is clearly English. 12.215.3.254 (talk) 03:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A wiki bully is determined to remove these factual additions as they are not "sourced". There are dozens (if not hundreds) of items in this article that are not sourced. For example, no sources at all are given for the conductors. None are given for the commentators. None are given for the artists. That's because they are accepted fact. All of the information I added is included in the broadcast versions of the specific Eurovision Song Contest or the UK heat. The commentator (more often than not Terry Wogan) mentioned the producer/HOD in charge of the UK at the contest. He also mentions the costume designers. Only those mentioned or seen, or listed on the credits of the broadcast UK heats were added. If the broadcast commentary or the closing production credit list is not a good enough source, then all of the unsourced material on this page must also be removed where there is no citation. It is accepted Harry Rabinowitz conducted the 1966 UK entry, because we see him in the video and thus no source is required. It is thus equally acceptable that Bill Cotton was the 1976 HOD because we see him in the video of the contest with the winning group. These nasty, pedantic editors determined always to get their own way only when it suits them are destroying wikipedia. If the edits are removed again, I shall begin to remove all the unsourced material from the page. There'll be little left.12.215.3.254 (talk) 03:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know emotions are high but Fort esc is not a bully, if that is who you are talking about. They may have their reasons for deleting your edits and we need to discuss them and reach a compromise. I always try, when I see conflict like this, to reach a middle-ground or compromise position. So here goes. If we can cite a specific video - and a specific time-stamp in those videos - to prove a claim, then we use that, and keep the information. If we can't find a specific video - or a specific time-stamp - then we don't. And yes, you are right: this article is full of uncited claims and established fact which could, strictly speaking, be deleted. We should try to accept what can be added without entering into WP:EDITWAR territory. There is always middle ground. doktorb _words^deeds 07:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Doktorbuk, this has nothing to do with me; I think the person they are referring to is dummelaksen. Best regards, Fort esc (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Fort esc I am so sorry! Complete error, hand-slapped, forgive me. And thanks dummelaksen for your response, too, I was clumsy before. Sorry for that. doktorb _words^deeds 00:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@12.215.3.254: I'm sorry if you feel that I have been unfair in removing the content. Since all information on Wikipedia must be verifiable, I assumed good faith and that you had sources, which is why I prompted you to provide them. I have previously gone out of my way to find sources for the content in the tables but Wikipedia is completely voluntary so I shouldn't be expected to do this all the time.

If all of the content you have included is confirmed in the broadcasts, then you are free to cite the broadcasts themselves as sources as Doktorbuk said. It's not a case of the information not needing a source.

Please consider that I'm an editor just like you and I am trying to improve the encyclopaedia. I'm not a bully, I'm just trying to follow Wikipedia guidelines. I've never insulted you so please don't insult me.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 18:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason the UK tv viewing figures and audience shares over the years aren't included in this article. Surely as the most reliable measure of the contests internal popularity or lack thereof over the years it should be? 2A01:4C8:1409:709:1:2:F827:BA98 (talk) 11:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could 2022 be added as Luke Day? https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2023-03-20/sam-ryders-eurovision-costume-to-go-on-public-display 81.149.243.201 (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely nobody going to make the connection - the incredibly obvious at the time connection - between the UK's illegal invasion of Iraq (alongside the USA, who don't compete), in defiance of the UN, as a major factor in the UK finishing last and/or with nul points so often during the remainder of the decade?

Nobody?

Really?

It's not as though ex-Soviet republics voting for Russia or each other was much of a secret in terms of it being politically-motivated at the time, either. So no reference to this event re: Eurovision? 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:21D4:6C8D:CF2B:902E (talk) 13:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Original research – such inferences should only be made if you can cite a reliable, published source to back it up.

And by the way, people all the time allege that the results of the contest are politically motivated. This doesn't seem much different to me. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There have been a lot of theories brought forth as for why the UK (and Ireland) was so successful in the 20th century but did much worse in the 21st. I think one aspect that should be mentioned – but currently isn't in this article – is the fact that until 1999 (with a few interruptions) the UK, Ireland and Malta were the only ones allowed to sing in English....

Now as to why Malta hasn't done better in the past, that is a good question, actually.... 2001:A62:142C:9802:C15C:FFA8:C202:7093 (talk) 06:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a valid explanation, as English-language songs likely resonated with more countries. If there are any reliable sources/articles that look into this, it could certainly be mentioned somewhere. Grk1011 (talk) 12:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for the Malta mystery, the answer becomes apparent if you look at the history of their entries. In 1971 & 1972 they placed last with Maltese language entries – but they were the first to use a Semitic language, so kudos for that. In 1975 the language rule was on hiatus and their English language entry achieved a low to middling position. Then they didn't participate at all until 1991 with the language rule in place from then until 1999. So for the contests in which Malta could have profited from a language rule advantage, we are only talking about 1991-1998 (both inclusive) a total of eight editions, of which Ireland won four (1992, 1993, 1994 & 1996) and the UK another one (1997). Of course in two of Ireland's wins of that era (1992 & 1993), the UK came in second behind them and Ireland came second behind the UK in 1997. Furthermore, the UK came second in 1998.

Now how did Malta do in those years? Two third places (1992 & 1998) – both behind second place UK and in the case of 1992 in a "Anglophone podium" behind the other to English language songs competing that year. Malta had the best performing English language song in 1991 (6th place) and 1995 (joint 10th place with the UK entry). By contrast it had the worst performing English language entry in 1992, 1993, 1996 and 1997. In 1994 they beat the UK for the middle position and in 1998 Ireland "only" reached number 9 whereas the UK and Malta placed second and third, respectively. In terms of points – the maximum attainable number of points for any given entry in that era oscilated between 264 and 300 in that era, so we don't have to use percentages imho – Malta achieved 770, the UK achieved 809 and Ireland achieved a whopping 1042.

So to summarize: in the 1970s Malta only entered three times and wouldn't or couldn't take advantage of the language rule. In the 1980s Malta simply did not participate and in the 1990s the phenomenal success of the two other English singing countries overshadowed the respectable but not overwhelming success of Malta. 2001:A62:142C:9802:B26F:E0FF:FE30:A27C (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While what you are stating is valid and would be a good topic for inclusion in the article, please remember that Wikipedia talk pages are not forums for the discussion of the contest itself, but rather how to improve these articles in a technical sense. Anything on this topic will need to be properly sourced, as per WP:VERIFY, or it will be considered original research and subject to removal. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]