Jump to content

Talk:2024 Summer Olympics opening ceremony

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Drag queen subsection

[edit]

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)[reply]

I have seen mainly you going against the consensus. Trigenibinion (talk) 09:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In what way? A.D.Hope (talk) 09:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Repeatedly deleting stuff that other people kept. Trigenibinion (talk) 09:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
It is you who was showing ownership by going against several editors. Trigenibinion (talk) 09:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I am against removing the alternative interpretations and the safety from prosecution statements. Trigenibinion (talk) 09:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I think in some cases it is just giving free publicity. Trigenibinion (talk) 09:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The statements express facts, not opinions. Trigenibinion (talk) 10:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
It is relevant. The artists cannot be prosecuted for blasphemy no matter how much outrage. Trigenibinion (talk) 11:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
We do. Trigenibinion (talk) 11:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? A.D.Hope (talk) 11:58, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
No, just that the concept of blasphemy does not exist in French law. Trigenibinion (talk) 12:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
There is no tie. Several editors were OK with this statement (some modifying or moving it). Trigenibinion (talk) 12:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I don't have Twitter. Trigenibinion (talk) 20:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Was the resemblance to Les Festin Des Dieux controversial? A.D.Hope (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
It does not matter, it is an alternative interpretation to that which caused the outrage. Trigenibinion (talk) 11:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thinking of something else avoids controversy. Trigenibinion (talk) 11:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow, sorry. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Image?

[edit]

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)[reply]

Draft:Drag and the Olympic Games

[edit]

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:

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)[reply]

Thomas Jolly is a liar. Judgement Day shall not be kind on that man. 199.241.247.164 (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Luc Mélenchon

[edit]

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)[reply]

He runs LFI. Trigenibinion (talk) 08:29, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
It does not matter who the official boss is. He calls the shots. Trigenibinion (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, that does not make his commentary notable. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even Maduro talks about his friend Mélenchon. Trigenibinion (talk) 17:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that does not make Mélenchon's comments notable. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
They were kidding on French far-right TV if he has become far-right too. Trigenibinion (talk) 17:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also because he was against the guillotine tableau too. Trigenibinion (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
But Slovak politics is usually not followed internationally. Trigenibinion (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Slovakia relevant? A.D.Hope (talk) 18:35, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
It is notable that the far left complained. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His complaints were all over French news. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I heard of royal complaints nowhere. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source used for Mélenchon does not support this sentence, either. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It received major coverage on all French media. Trigenibinion (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That statement requires proof. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You only wanted one reference per statement. Are we supposed to include all French sources? Trigenibinion (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
If he had not received major coverage he would not have angered the left. Reference added. Trigenibinion (talk) 18:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Reference to guillotine controversy coverage added. Trigenibinion (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
You're just being dense. Do you require video clips? Trigenibinion (talk) 19:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If they demonstrate that he received 'major coverage on all French media', sure. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be meta coverage. It is ridiculous to ask for such proof. Trigenibinion (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
The royals are less notable. I now see one mention of a prince on French media. Trigenibinion (talk) 19:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Again, this discussion is not about the Bourbons. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We had similar discussions before about relative notability. It is like with the Slovak deputy PM. Trigenibinion (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't object to him being removed, either. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source used for Mélenchon does not support this sentence. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JLM has millions of followers. It does not mean they agree with him in this case. Trigenibinion (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship

[edit]

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)[reply]

It was not censored in China. Trigenibinion (talk) 09:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
People are used to censorship in the US. It is a puritan country. Trigenibinion (talk) 10:59, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But there were complaints on reddit about censorship of the ceremony. Trigenibinion (talk) 11:01, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MTV even stupidly censors many videos in Europe, that's why I avoid it. Trigenibinion (talk) 16:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
State censorship is also censorship. I was not blaming NBC. Trigenibinion (talk) 18:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Then we have both censorship by FCC rules and bad broadcast practice in the US. Trigenibinion (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
My bias is that I want to enjoy an Olympic ceremony without interruption or excessive commentary. Trigenibinion (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Australian press did complain about their excessive commentary. Trigenibinion (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Drag and the Olympic Games

[edit]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_Summer_Olympics_opening_ceremony&oldid=1264472580"