Talk:2024 Summer Olympics opening ceremony

Arson attack on the rail network

I don't see a mention in the article on the same-day arson attack on the high-speed rail network which perhaps was intended to disrupt the opening ceremony. Is there a Wikipedia article on the incident? 152.130.15.108 (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Here's the article: 2024 France railway arson attack — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.130.15.108 (talk) 20:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Olympic Flag raised upside down!

Don’t know if anyone else noticed but they raised the Olympic Flag upside down! Subman758 (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Cauldron a reference to the first hot air balloon ride

According to the website of Paris 2024 the cauldron which is shaped like a hot air balloon is a "nod to the first hydrogen-powered flight of a balloon, which took place in the Tuileries in 1783" http://olympics.com/en/paris-2024/live-updates/828a28d7-f37f-4332-a973-1803bb2e7706 Dwscomet (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Subtitle of Proceedings in French

Currently subtitles are used French words like Synchronicité, Liberté and so on. However it is ridiculous to use French words in this English Wikipedia. If it is held in Iran, do we use همزمانی, آزادی? Canadian Olympic Committee uses enchanté, synchronicity, liberty, equality, fraternity, sisterhood, sportsmanship, festivity, darkness, solemnity, solidarity, and eternity.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:12, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

References

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:12, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Removed announcer section

I can't find a single source to support who the announcers are, and I was coming up short from searching both the press releases and Google, so I went ahead and removed it for now. 73.152.17.22 (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I would agree with removing. I can't find any sources that demonstrate it has any notability. Ravendrop 19:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Which song is that?

Which song (start) played at bridge french flag displayed with smoke torches? Sportomanokin (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Éternité section - the ending of Céline's "Hymne à l'amour"

"Dion ended her performance with a few notes of La Marseillaise."

Did Céline actually end her performance of "Hymne à l'amour" with a few notes of La Marseillaise? Did I miss that somehow? What I heard after a brief dramatic pause in the performance was the final line of Hymne à l'amour – "Dieu réunit ceux qui s'aiment" Wiredwidget (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the confusion is that as per this La Montagne article (in French) "Quelques notes de La Marseillaise à nouveau, en guise de clôture." ( A few notes from La Marseillaise again, as a closing at 23h 29). But I believe this happened AFTER Dion had finished performing "Hymne à l'amour" as per the French wiki version Cérémonie d'ouverture des Jeux olympiques d'été de 2024 Wiredwidget (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

A review of Dion's 2024 Olympic Games Opening performance, which is widely available online, confirms she did NOT sing or play a few notes of the French national anthem, La Marseillaise. Hopefully folk will refrain from reinserting that falsity. Wiredwidget (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Drag queen subsection

There's clearly a difference of opinion about whether this subsection should be a summary or much more detailed, so it seems best to open a discussion. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I have seen mainly you going against the consensus. Trigenibinion (talk) 09:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

In what way? A.D.Hope (talk) 09:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Repeatedly deleting stuff that other people kept. Trigenibinion (talk) 09:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it's just user 'Sr L' adding content written by them back into the article. A significant part of that content is a long, indiscriminate list of people which shouldn't be included.

As 'Sr L' doesn't have a user page I can't ping them, but I've already left a message on their talk page to invite them to participate in this discussion. I won't be editing the subsection in the meantime. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

It was not just 'Sr L' keeping some content that you removed. Sometimes editing or moving it a bit. Trigenibinion (talk) 09:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, the purpose of this discussion is to decide whether to keep the content or not, rather than to establish WP:OWNERSHIP. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

It is you who was showing ownership by going against several editors. Trigenibinion (talk) 09:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, the purpose of this discussion is to decide whether to keep the content or not. You need to give an opinion, Trigenibinion. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I am against removing the alternative interpretations and the safety from prosecution statements. Trigenibinion (talk) 09:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I mostly added Religious institutions declaration, and also the topyc about Marie Antoniete. But I've see that there were a lot of erasing from other parts. Even the list of famous people publicating their opinions was originally an import from the French Wikipedia (in which is more detailed those reactions) and I just added more figures without developing it (trying to have a middle point between summary and much more detailed). Sr L (talk) 19:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions, Sr L. I think we're getting there in terms of the balance of content. A.D.Hope (talk) 08:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I do feel that some of the details folks are adding are superfluous and not that well-sourced... for example, it seems that most sources which mention Fabrice Di Vizio cite this article from Anadolu Agency, a source which per WP:ANADOLU shouldn't be used for controversial topics. Of note is that his standalone article on French Wikipedia doesn't mention his response (yet, anyway).

Personally, I consider the tidbit on Andrew Tate picketing outside of France's embassy notable enough, but its sourcing is questionable so it's not a hill I'm willing to die on. ZionniThePeruser (talk) 09:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I think in some cases it is just giving free publicity. Trigenibinion (talk) 09:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

About Fabrice Di Vizio, if someones don't want to cite Anadolu Agency, you can cite it's Twitter directly Sr L (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Eh, Twitter is a little better?

I'd think it'd be best to wait and see if he actually files charges, though. Once he claimed he'd sue Le Canard enchaîné for defamation, but never did. Who knows? This might be another empty threat of litigation. ZionniThePeruser (talk) 00:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• For my part, I don't think there's any need for the second paragraph of the longer version of the section, which is essentially an indiscriminate list of people who have commented.

The first and third paragraphs are okay, as they summarise the controversy and the artistic director's response. I do not think that the reference to or image of Le Festin des Dieux is needed, as the suggestion that the scene was a reference to this painting seems to be as speculative as the suggestion that it was a reference to The Last Supper, and is also not controversial. As there has been no serious suggestion of criminal blasphemy, there is no need for a statement that blasphemy is not a crime in France. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Freedom of interpretation is important. Blasphemy is a crime in some other countries so France is setting an example by guaranteeing the artists' freedom. Trigenibinion (talk) 09:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

While I agree with your opinion, this article isn't the place to express that opinion. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

The statements express facts, not opinions. Trigenibinion (talk) 10:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

They're your interpretation of events. The fact that France doesn't criminalise blasphemy isn't directly relevant, because there's been no suggestion that the performers or organisers would face criminal charges for their actions. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

It is relevant. The artists are safe from the state, unlike in some other countries. The statements are not interpretations. Trigenibinion (talk) 10:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

There's no suggestion that the artists wouldn't be safe from the state. It's not part of the controversy. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

People risk being prosecuted for blasphemy in some other countries. This is the point. Blasphemy is not the same as hate speech. Trigenibinion (talk) 10:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Why are the laws of other countries relevant to this performance? The subsection we're discussing is about a particular controversy, not blasphemy laws in general – that's covered at Blasphemy law. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:56, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

The broadcast was censored in more than 50 countries. It is possible than in some it would fall under blasphemy laws. The Olympics would not be as free in some other countries. Trigenibinion (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

If you can source the claim that over 50 countries censored the segment then that should be included in the subsection, as it is a clear demonstration that it was controversial. The fact that France does not have blasphemy laws is not directly relevant. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

It is relevant. The artists cannot be prosecuted for blasphemy no matter how much outrage. Trigenibinion (talk) 11:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Nobody can be prosecuted for blasphemy in France, because it isn't illegal. We don't need to state that fact. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

We do. Trigenibinion (talk) 11:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Why? A.D.Hope (talk) 11:58, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

If people are not calling for the responsible to go to jail, it does not mean they would not like it. Trigenibinion (talk) 12:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

You want the article to state that some people might be thinking that the performers should go to prison for blasphemy, despite that not being a possibility in France? 12:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC) A.D.Hope (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

No, just that the concept of blasphemy does not exist in French law. Trigenibinion (talk) 12:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

That isn't relevant to the subsection. Maybe we need a third person to act as a tiebreaker. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

There is no tie. Several editors were OK with this statement (some modifying or moving it). Trigenibinion (talk) 12:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

There's no point us discussing this further, as we hold opposite opinions. We can let others chime in with their thoughts. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence 'Blasphemy is not illegal in France, but one risks other consequences' from the subsection.

If 'other consequences' occur then we can include them in the article, but that wording sounds rather ominious and threatening. A.D.Hope (talk) 08:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify – I don't think you intended the wording to sound threatening, only that it inadvertently did. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

There was suggestion from the lawyer Fabrice Di Vizio to give them possible criminal charges. If someones don't want to cite Anadolu Agency, you can cite it's Twitter directly Sr L (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't have Twitter. Trigenibinion (talk) 20:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comment. From what I briefly see in press, including French, amid the controversy, the Festivité performance was remarked as a resemble of Les Festin Des Dieux. Both comparisons seems that can cohabit. Perhaps a condesed single-sentence would be ok. The indiscrimate list of reactions from public figures are already deleted. Other stuffs like the depiction of Greek god Dionysus are already included in the 'Performances' section as well. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 10:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Was the resemblance to Les Festin Des Dieux controversial? A.D.Hope (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Who knows, maybe also contentious and deemed hideous by some, idk, there is so much ink all over the internet/press now that even the 2012 Summer Olympics opening ceremony, at least in some corners of the Net, is remembered as satanic by a few. Not the big deal, mine is only a drive-by comment. But I found logic see a single-condense sentence of how amid the controversy storm both artworks are used in the narrative of criticize-defend behind the "artistic motif". --Apoxyomenus (talk) 11:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I've taken the reference to the painting out for now. While some people have made the comparison, it doesn't seem that it's controversial, which means it isn't directly relevant to this subsection. It might fit in in the main Festivité subsection above. A.D.Hope (talk) 08:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

It does not matter, it is an alternative interpretation to that which caused the outrage. Trigenibinion (talk) 11:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

The subsection we're discussing is about a controversy, so everything in it needs to be related to the controversy. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Thinking of something else avoids controversy. Trigenibinion (talk) 11:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't follow, sorry. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Every time I come to see this article, this subsection is modified and more biased towards the critical view of the ceremony. There´s no need of listing all the people and religious institutions who have given all their critical views of the ceremony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.206.20.66 (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

It appears that an editor believes the Washington Times is not a reliable source and has removed important context from that source regarding why IOC apology was criticized. Is there a reason someone believes Washington Times is not a reliable source? It is quite baffling. 2601:8C3:8600:C2C0:E573:FED6:DDF4:4765 (talk) 04:13, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The Washington Times is only classed as 'marginally reliable' according to WP:RSPSOURCES. The subsection already notes that the meaning of the ceremony section is disputed, so the sentence supported by the WP source is also somewhat superfluous. A.D.Hope (talk) 07:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The subsection does not note that the apology was criticized, or why the apology was criticized. It seems like you don't want evidence that it was previously referenced as The Last Supper in the article which is certainly not a neutral point of view. 2601:8C3:8600:C2C0:E841:9585:EF14:45EA (talk) 15:55, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The criticism by the bishop of Winona-Rochester is not notable. The fact that the section was linked to The Last Supper by the organisers is mentioned in the second sentence of the subsection. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The post controversy apology of the IOC mentioning it was inspired by the last supper is mentioned, followed by them implying they were mistaken and that it was not the last supper. The pre-controversy Olympic Program and pre-controversy Instagram of Barbara Butch referring to the event as The Last Supper is not mentioned in the article and should be mentioned in the article. It is *WHY* their apology is receiving so much criticism. ( Also, the Bishops criticism article is not relevant to our discussion here.) 2601:8C3:8600:C2C0:9C5C:DD46:6C6E:AB55 (talk) 02:12, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I can't find where the IOC implied they were mistaken, sorry. I'm not sure if we need to include the statement by the producers, the programme, and the Barbara Butch Instagram post if they all convey the same thing. A.D.Hope (talk) 08:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Image?

Would a screenshot of the scene be appropriate to upload via fair use?

Would an image of The Last Supper be helpful for context?

---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Drag and the Olympic Games

Not to throw a wrench into things, but I wonder if it would be helpful to have an article about the history of drag and the Olympic Games:

• Draft:Drag and the Olympic Games

This might be one way we could cover the drag "controversy" and reactions without weighing down the opening ceremony article. Thoughts? Interest in collaborating? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

unjustified deletion

A short sentence mentioning that a US company has pulled its ads from the olympics due to the "mockery of the Last Supper" in the opening ceremony, added to the article initially by me [1], has been removed by IP 185.213.212.242 three times, under the false pretenses „not notable,“ „This is not a US article, but an international one. Why do you want to emphasize one specifc controversy in a specifc country?“ and „not notable on a global scale.“[2][3][4]. To me this smells of whitewashing.
Fact is that this partial "boycott" has been reported as of early today not only in the US by NY Times[5], Washington Post[6], and several other media, but also internationally in Denmark[7][8], Germany[9], Switzerland[10], UK[11], Austria[12], Poland[13], Turkey[14][15], India[16],[17] Azerbaijan[18] and Pakistan[19].

IMO, it’s clearly notable and should be re-added. --Túrelio (talk) 10:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Maybe it should be generalized as "some US companies" as I never heard of them before to avoid giving free publicity. Trigenibinion (talk) 10:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Rather than having a single-sentenced paragraph, it should be added to one of the existing paragraphs. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 10:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

It should be included somehow, as it's a tangible action in response to the controversy. Given it's a single company it makes sense to name it, but if more advertisers withdraw we should generalise rather than listing them individually. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with all of you that this information should be restored. I have taken the liberty and have done so, here. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 00:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Le Festin des Dieux

The section on the drag queens could usefully link to Le Festin des Dieux (which I have just translated from the French article). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks for this context. This was my introduction to Le Festin des Dieux (itself inspired by The Last Supper, hence controversial in its own time). The religious reaction is unsurprising –who didn't think of the da Vinci, whatever your degree of media literacy? (Drive-by comment: "The Last Supper? What is going on here...‽!‽ Where's Judas?"). In this wise, what the rights-holder's hosts on CCTV, ARD, etc. made of it, if they showed it at all, would be pertinent. kencf0618 (talk) 12:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

According to some unknown source, NBC would have removed the video (IOC does not provide it for a country unless nobody has the TV rights, so it is not true that IOC deleted it in the US). Trigenibinion (talk) 12:56, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there is no controversy about the segment resembling Le Festin des Dieux, so it does not need to be included in the 'controversies' segment. It could be included in the subsection about the Festivité segment, though. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

This section clarifies that ignorance might be responsible for the outrage. Trigenibinion (talk) 11:42, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

You have been removing sources that indicates that the performer and IOC pre-controversy reference to the event as The Last Supper might be responsible for the outrage. This should be included. 2601:8C3:8600:C2C0:E841:9585:EF14:45EA (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

No image available for the article

Why there don't have any image related to the opening ceremony on that day? Is it represent people not willing to support Wikipedia? 142.112.254.113 (talk) 18:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

misrepresentation of the source content

the paragraph that talks about the apology issued by the organizers of the bacchanals parody completely misrepresents the actual statement documented in its associated link. it says they confirmed they did intend to cause offense to all religions but that's not what they said at all in the linked article from the guardian. quite the opposite in fact. 50.231.128.30 (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

C Spire?

This is a regional telecommunications firm operating exclusively in the american south. A big deal seems to be made out of them pulling their ads from the olimpics, but there's no evidence of them ever running ads on the olympics in the first place. All evidence points to their statement being itself a marketing campaign. 46.97.170.182 (talk) 09:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I read that 9 American companies pulled out, but it might be fake news. Trigenibinion (talk) 12:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

'Blasphemy is not illegal in France, but one risks other consequences.'

I would like to specifically discuss this phrase, which is currently in the 'Drag queen performance' subsection of the article. Myself and @Trigenibinion disagree on whether it should be included or not, so other input would be welcome. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• My opinion is that the sentence is not relevant to the controversy. There has been no serious suggestion of illegality, so there is no need to clarify that blasphemy is legal in France. The phrase 'one risks other consequences' is vague and has (unintentionally, I'm sure) threatening overtones, and so should also be removed from the article. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  One of the performers has been threatened. It is even more relevant now. Trigenibinion (talk) 11:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  If that is the case and the threat seems notable then we should include it clearly in the article, not talk vaguely of 'other consequences'. I assume the threat isn't of criminal action, since that is impossible in France? A.D.Hope (talk) 12:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  One of the references mentions Charlie Hebdo. This might also explain an intentional irreverence. Trigenibinion (talk) 12:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  That reference doesn't have any relevance to the controversy. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  It is related to blasphemy issue in France. Trigenibinion (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  Blasphemy in France isn't the topic of the subsection. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  The reference directly supports the statement. Trigenibinion (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  The statement 'one risks other consequences' shouldn't be in the article. It's vague and inappropriately worded. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  Change the wording if you can think of a better one. Trigenibinion (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  I would remove the entire sentence, but you would not find that acceptable. This is why I've asked for outside input. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  The history of blasphemy in France is part of the context. Trigenibinion (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  We've discussed this at length, so I'm not going to do so again. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  Hey, I'm struggling to understand your addition: 'This ignores a tradition of détournement in France.' In what way is this related to the presence of a child in the segment? A.D.Hope (talk) 22:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

  Somebody inserted the child phrase, it was not there before. Trigenibinion (talk) 22:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

  In that case, what did you intend by adding the 'détournement' sentence? Is there evidence that Jolly intended the scene to be a deliberate defacement of The Last Supper for artistic effect? A.D.Hope (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that this sentence should be removed. To me, it is analogous to stating "Wearing summer dresses is not illegal, but one risks other consequences, such as bullying, rape or death [citing historical incidents and quotes]". I think both sentences are unacceptable and carry an implicit tone of threat and blame. Zear06 (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'll add my vote to removing the sentence, generating consensus. Killuminator (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  There is more people that have moved or edited this sentence. Trigenibinion (talk) 20:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm a noob here. I don't know how disagreements like this should be resolved. It's not clear if other edits are necessarily supporting to keep the sentence. List of the updates:

  • Change the wording by me. I ended up rephrasing rather than deleting, maybe this can satisfy everyone? Feel free to revert if it's not fine!
  • Moved links by me.
  • + but one risks other consequences, including cyber bullying or death people who consider it wrong have retaliated against supposed offenders in the past by @Kingsif
  • + or death by @Trigenibinion
  • + including cyber bullying by @Jjazz76 (unclear if they support the presence of the sentence. They said "it is a bit vague what the "other consequences are"")
  • Re-added and several other edits by @Trigenibinion
  • Removal by @A.D.Hope
  • + Link to Hate speech laws in France by @Psycharpax
  • + Link to Blasphemy by @Anupam
  • + but one risks other consequences and then several edits by @Trigenibinion
  • Removed then re-added by @Sr L who fully reverted their edit (not leaning to one side or the other)
  • + Blasphemy is not illegal in France. and edits by @Trigenibinion

  I appreciate the previous effort to revise, but I still found the whole sentence problematic. (By the way, from the rest of the discussion I know that there is no bad intent from anyone)

  1. The sentence suggested that this performance is blasphemy. The article on Blasphemy has it more neutral: "Some Christians described parts of the 2024 Summer Olympics opening ceremony as blasphemy".
  2. "[is legal] but [may be illegally punished]" sounds threatful.
  3. "retaliated" frames actions against blasphemy as defensive or justified responses, and frames the ceremony as provocative or harmful.
  4. The whole paragraph alternated between topics. (religious? politicians? others?) and countries, making it hard to keep track. With sentences shortened: "Criticised by politicians, Christian groups, representatives of the Muslim. Also described by conservative commentators worldwide as woke. Blasphemy is not illegal in France, but people who consider it wrong have retaliated against supposed offenders in the past. The presence of a child in the scene also drew criticism. A reparation mass is planned."

  Zear06 (talk) 01:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yea I do find the sentence problematic. I tried to read the underlying sources to see what they were saying but I don't read French. So need to do some Google translating and ChatGPTing when I have the chance. And I also edited it to clarify what the author was trying to say, just so that we weren't beating around the bush, but actually naming it, and not being coy.

  Ultimately though, a sentence that says "Oh hey X is not illegal in France, but you might get killed" feels pretty messed up for a Wikipedia article. I mean do we have underlying reliable sources saying that? That's really the first question we need to ask ourselves.

  Anyway I'm sure we'll sort this out. Plenty of time! Jjazz76 (talk) 03:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

  It does not. It highlights a very real problem of christian extremism being alive and well even in a country as secular as France. That's important information. 46.97.170.182 (talk) 08:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

  Is this a vote to revert to "Blasphemy is not illegal in France, but one risks other consequences, including cyber bullying or death"? 2A02:3032:30F:A6F7:88C2:7EA1:ECF6:A200 (talk) 08:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

• I've removed the sentence for now given the responses here. If it's going to be added back into the article I think it would be better to work out the wording here first, to try and find something that's acceptable to all editors. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
• Since I've got the ping, I'll say that removing/changing seems only logical because besides being far too extreme to say in wikivoice without appropriate sources, and not really reflecting the sources, it also reads like a shoddy translation. It makes it sound like death is an inherent side effect of being blasphemous. And as noted, the sources don't allude to that nor make any statement that blasphemy is often responded to by "death". There's some examples of people perceived to be blasphemous being sent death threats (or murdered), but even mentioning this as a kind of comparison to what a punishment might be if blasphemy was illegal is unnecessary and feels like some weird victim blaming. We don't really need to say anything beyond blasphemy not being illegal (and we could probably have a whole other discussion on if adding something could be perceived as a POV qualifier to try and make blasphemy seem like it should be illegal), but if we do make mention of "other consequences" then just let it be to say that outside of the law some people who take offense go too far. Kingsif (talk) 23:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Festivité performance subsection

I've just made a series of changes to this subsection, and would therefore like to provide a place to comment on the changes. The changes are as follows (one edit not by myself caught in the middle!), and I've also tried to provide descriptive edit summaries. The changes primarily relate to the:

• organisation of sources, in particular trying to replace general commentary with specific quotes
• slightly reducing the number of sources so as to avoid WP:OVERKILL
• the organisation of the section, in particular removing material that is not directly relevant and trying to group information logically.

Note that some specific parts of the subsection are already being discussed above; please try not to duplicate the discussion. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:23, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I do feel like it's necessary to include some of the material you say is "not directly relevant" - namely, that even during the ceremony people said that's Dionysus. It contextualises the controversy, and the fact that there was pushback against the 'Christian outrage' is part of the controversy itself. Kingsif (talk) 23:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The 'Dionysus' interpretation is mentioned in the first paragraph. That interpretation doesn't seem to have been controversial, however, so there's little else to say except to point out that it exists. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Some points from a UK podcast

This podcast episode...

Richard Osman; Marina Hyde (31 July 2024). "Triumph or Flop? Paris Olympics Opening Ceremony". The Rest is Entertainment (Podcast). Event occurs at 36m45s.

...made some points of interest:

1. the presenters' own verdict was: the show was a noble failure; praised for "try[ing] something completely radical and different", spoiled by the rain, "much much much too long", the thinness of the line of spectators along the Seine. "you can tell he [Thomas Jolly] was a theatre director because I didn't think it worked as a TV spectacle".

   Obviously just two UK individuals, but prominent enough to mention if there should be a "critical response" section.

2. "The French perceive it to have been an absolute triumph" -- more notable than the preceding since it is a meta-comment
3. for previous Olympic opening ceremonies "you would have a dress rehearsal a couple of days beforehand" -- none here for logistical reasons and to keep all the surprises secret
4. In the BBC coverage Andrew Cotter was obliged to identify many of the participants (torchbearers etc.) just from his personal knowledge; no notes were provided by the organisers for the broadcasters.

My own comment (WP:SYN without further evidence) is that points #3 and #4 together suggest one factor leading to the misunderstanding of the Festivité section. jnestorius^(talk) 10:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

A meta comment on your own comment here is that, whether it was Cotter or his co-commentator or somebody, but watching the BBC coverage of the ceremony, I'm pretty sure somebody identified Dionysus. Kingsif (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I can confirm that the BBC commentator identified Philippe Katerine at Dionysus. The relevant BBC commentary can be heard at 3:19:36, for editors able to access the BBC iPlayer. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Mauritania representative

Is Ahmed Ould Sid'Ahmed Ould Djé, Minister of Culture, Youth, Sports and Relations with Parliament of Mauritania —> the same person as Ahmed Ould Sid'Ahmed? 109.38.145.162 (talk) 07:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Candace Cameron Bure

Parade magazine sends me emails now that it is not longer a newspaper insert. One of the articles linked in an email said she criticized the opening ceremonies. What is the standard one must meet to be included as someone who criticized the ceremonies?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

This is a little-known used-to-be child actor of minimal notability. Her opinion lacks notability. Parade’s status as a minor publication is a secondary issue, but it’s reasonable to question their reliability. The article has sufficient examples of complaints. We don’t needs a laundry list of them. Drmargi (talk) 01:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see her as little-known. She still seems pretty visible to me. Remember, her series came back.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:20, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

US-centric Trigenibinion (talk) 15:35, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Jean-Luc Mélenchon

Jean-Luc Mélenchon has been added and removed from the 'Festivité performance' subsection a couple of times, so it seems sensible to discuss him.

As far as I can tell he doesn't currently hold any political office, so why is his opinion important enough to mention individually? A.D.Hope (talk) 07:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

He runs LFI. Trigenibinion (talk) 08:29, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Not since 2021, according to the La France Insoumise group article. The current president is Mathilde Panot. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

It does not matter who the official boss is. He calls the shots. Trigenibinion (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Either way, that does not make his commentary notable. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Even Maduro talks about his friend Mélenchon. Trigenibinion (talk) 17:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, that does not make Mélenchon's comments notable. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

It is notable because I don't know of any other person on the left who has complained. Trigenibinion (talk) 17:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

They were kidding on French far-right TV if he has become far-right too. Trigenibinion (talk) 17:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Also because he was against the guillotine tableau too. Trigenibinion (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

If figures on the left haven't complained then we don't need to mention them. Including Mélenchon just because he's a leftist voice is false balance. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

But Slovak politics is usually not followed internationally. Trigenibinion (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Why is Slovakia relevant? A.D.Hope (talk) 18:35, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I mean if there's no place for Mélenchon, there's no place for the Slovak mention either. That was my edit. I do check out some main Slovak news sometimes. Trigenibinion (talk) 18:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Why have you now added a mention of Mélenchon to the Marie Antoinette section? I do not see how he is notable enough for this. A.D.Hope (talk) 07:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

It is notable that the far left complained. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

His complaints were all over French news. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

And I heard of royal complaints nowhere. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The source used for Mélenchon does not support this sentence, either. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

It received major coverage on all French media. Trigenibinion (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

That statement requires proof. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

You only wanted one reference per statement. Are we supposed to include all French sources? Trigenibinion (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

A statement should be referenced by as many sources as necessary; this does not mean that citing several sources to support the same claim is desirable.

If your argument that Mélenchon's opinion is notable rests on it receiving 'major coverage on all French media' then you need to demonstrate that it did. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

If he had not received major coverage he would not have angered the left. Reference added. Trigenibinion (talk) 18:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The source you've added doesn't prove that Mélenchon received 'major coverage on all French media', just that one person disliked what he said. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:49, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Reference to guillotine controversy coverage added. Trigenibinion (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

That source only mentions Mélenchon in passing. I'm not really convinced that his opinion is notable in all this. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

You're just being dense. Do you require video clips? Trigenibinion (talk) 19:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

If they demonstrate that he received 'major coverage on all French media', sure. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

That would be meta coverage. It is ridiculous to ask for such proof. Trigenibinion (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

In that case, given Mélenchon is not notable as an individual and the coverage of his opinion does not seem to be notable, I think it would be best to remove the sentences relating to him. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The royals are less notable. I now see one mention of a prince on French media. Trigenibinion (talk) 19:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

If you object to the inclusion of the royals then that can be discussed separately. This discussion is about Mélenchon, and I do not think you have demonstrated that his inclusion is warranted. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't object to the inclusion of the royals. I dispute that JLM's comments are less notable. Trigenibinion (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, on what basis are they notable? They do not seem to reflect the wider views of the left, and do not seem to have been reported to the point that the scale of the coverage is in itself notable. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

It's the first time I hear of this Bourbon prince. His comments were not widely covered unlike Mélenchon's. Trigenibinion (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, this discussion is not about the Bourbons. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

We had similar discussions before about relative notability. It is like with the Slovak deputy PM. Trigenibinion (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to him being removed, either. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The source used for Mélenchon does not support this sentence. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

JLM has millions of followers. It does not mean they agree with him in this case. Trigenibinion (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Censorship

Many sources in French claim censorship happened in various countries (Algeria was also mentioned by an aggregator). It is not POV. In English it is only mentioned that NBC has been taken to the FCC for "obscenity" by a right wing group even if nobody was naked. Trigenibinion (talk) 08:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

It was not censored in China. Trigenibinion (talk) 09:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Nbc did seem to tactically go to an awkward commercial during the segment that ended up controversial.

This Olympics more than any other it seems propaganda robots online are pushing a lot of made up stories to cause outrage. 97.70.37.87 (talk) 10:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

People are used to censorship in the US. It is a puritan country. Trigenibinion (talk) 10:59, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

But there were complaints on reddit about censorship of the ceremony. Trigenibinion (talk) 11:01, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

MTV even stupidly censors many videos in Europe, that's why I avoid it. Trigenibinion (talk) 16:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Returning this discussion to its point, the issue with the proposed edit is it takes two French-language sources that allege censorship and frames them as a blank statement of fact that at least three countries censored, not edited, their broadcasts of the opening ceremony. In so doing, it violates WP:NPOV by presenting opinion as fact; moreover, the poster failures to provide at least one reliable English-language source stating the BBC and NBC's intent was to censor, not edit means those of us who cannot read French (and I'd wager that's a sizable percentage of the group editing) have to accept the provided sources as reliable and presented accurately without benefit of being able to read them and make our own judgments.

In making these overblown and biased claims, there are two issues overlooked: a) television networks have no obligation to broadcast live events intact, and editing for time or other factors such as inserting interviews with athletes, such as NBC did, are common practice and; b) networks such as NBC and the BBC have both national oversight bodies with broadcast standards (the FCC and OFCOM) and internal standards-and-practices that govern what can be broadcast, particularly during evening hours when children can reasonably be expected to be watching.

More troubling is the anti-American bias, which is easily discerned from this discussion alone. This renders the ability of the original poster to present this issue in a neutral way questionable at best. Please remember, too, that discussion pages are use to improve the article, not to express ill-informed opinions about other countries. Those comments should be stricken from the discussion.

What's clear from this is there is no case to be made for use of the word censorship to describe the motives of at least NBC and the BBC or the editing of the opening ceremony broadcast given the lack of reliable sources and the bias clearly on display. All we have here is a gross mis-interpretation of routine broadcast practices and a couple of alleged complaints most of us can't read, and thereby evaluate for reliability, given they are in French. Nothing goes to the motives of NBC, the BBC or any other broadcast entities. Just gross over-statement and nothing to back it up. --Drmargi (talk) 18:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

State censorship is also censorship. I was not blaming NBC. Trigenibinion (talk) 18:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not a matter of whether you blame NBC. The issue is you haven't made a case that ordinary broadcast editing was intended to be censorship when there are reasonable alternative explanations for common broadcast practice. --Drmargi (talk) 19:01, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Then we have both censorship by FCC rules and bad broadcast practice in the US. Trigenibinion (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

It is not my fault if the anglosphere does not cover the subject when people in the US have complained. Trigenibinion (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

That's your interpretation of broadcast editing in the U.S. according to your biases, not fact. Most of the time, edits are made to make an event fit a designated time block, nothing more with no sinister motives. You seem to be incapable of considering any other explanation but the POV you're pushing. I'd suggest you step away for a time and edit something you can handle without so much bias. --Drmargi (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

My bias is that I want to enjoy an Olympic ceremony without interruption or excessive commentary. Trigenibinion (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The Australian press did complain about their excessive commentary. Trigenibinion (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

You're still missing the point. No one likes excessive editing or commentary. But that's not censorship, and cannot be described as such just because you don't like what's being done. --Drmargi (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Of course excessive commentary is not censorship, but I did not mention that. So the section should be generalized as "Poor coverage". Censorship does exist at the FCC level, so a TV station has to be careful. Trigenibinion (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Maybe the IOC should only sell the rights to PBS in the future so that they are paid by taxes and not ads. Trigenibinion (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Sigh. You're still presenting opinion as fact. I don't want to get started on a qualitative term like "poor coverage" as a heading; it's massively overly-broad and so subjective and POV it would likely be reverted in minutes. You don't have consensus for any of this crap, nor to you have any sort of sources. Time to let it go. --Drmargi (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I have sources in French. If the anglosphere doesn't care, en.wikipedia should not be censored too. Trigenibinion (talk) 20:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I have Le Monde in English. It mentions that Morocco had a picture of the Louvre for 15 minutes, and that NBC had the Olympic Broadcasting Services signal on Peacock ($). Trigenibinion (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Do your homework. Peacock is NBC’s streaming service, which carries the world feed of many sports events, year ‘round. It gives viewers the option to watch extended coverage of individual events should they wish. What that has to do with your inability to differentiate editing from censorship, I have no idea. You’re not making a case for any of this, and frankly, further discussion is a waste of time. --Drmargi (talk) 00:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I know that Peacock is a streaming service. It means you couldn't get a free broadcast without ads on ATSC (but still subject to FCC censorship). Trigenibinion (talk) 00:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

article summary quality

The summary of this article needs cleaning up/revision. It feels non-objective, slanted and lacking critical details.

It says there were issues but doesn't detail what those were at the beginning. It does not note that the ceremony's length had to do with weather conditions.

The last supper complaint on top of that feels slanted. There is no mention in the summary that the scene was built on Greek celebrations and Christians just assumed it was about the last supper which was influenced by this.

There should also be an explanation as to what a tableau is in this context. 97.70.37.87 (talk) 10:29, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Drag and the Olympic Games

I've gone ahead and moved Draft:Drag and the Olympic Games to Drag and the Olympic Games.

No one weighed in on the discussion above re: the draft, so I was bold. I want to acknowledge that this new page covers some of the same stuff as this article. I invite editors to make whatever trims are helpful to either page to avoid redundancy. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)