User talk:EurovisionLibrarian

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

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)