# Talk:2012 Summer Olympics opening ceremony

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 2012 Summer Olympics opening ceremony. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130511131508/http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ibNAUAq-kZNOy3LmO9HAI2cN-smg to http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ibNAUAq-kZNOy3LmO9HAI2cN-smg
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120731065404/http://au.sports.yahoo.com:80/photos/olympic-flag-carried-daniel-barenboim-sally-becker-shami-photo-052852459--oly.html to http://au.sports.yahoo.com/photos/olympic-flag-carried-daniel-barenboim-sally-becker-shami-photo-052852459--oly.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on 2012 Summer Olympics opening ceremony. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120728064125/http://sports.nationalpost.com/2012/07/27/london-2012-olympic-opening-ceremonies-live/ to http://sports.nationalpost.com/2012/07/27/london-2012-olympic-opening-ceremonies-live/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://au.sports.yahoo.com/photos/olympic-flag-carried-daniel-barenboim-sally-becker-shami-photo-052852459--oly.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131217221315/http://www.rts.org.uk/winners-cda to http://www.rts.org.uk/winners-cda
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2012 Summer Olympics opening ceremony. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130518103302/http://www.hollanduktrade.nl/dutch-technology-shines-gold-at-london-olympics/ to http://www.hollanduktrade.nl/dutch-technology-shines-gold-at-london-olympics/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that an editor's insistence on repeated deleting a mention of a an opinion by a Daily Mail columnist is a misunderstanding of WP:DAILYMAIL. The outcome of this RfC in 2019 was that the Daily Mail should not be used as a source to back up statements of fact. I agree with this decision. 
To my mind, however, this does not mean that the name of the publication should not be whispered in any context whatsoever. In 2012, the controversial opinions of Mail columnist Rick Dewsbury were a point of public discussion, and this fact is covered by several reliable secondary sources here and here to name but two. This was an interesting historical detail related to the Olympic ceremony which has existed in this article for 8 years without apparent problem before being removed in March 2020. By way of comparison, the article on Jan Moir necessarily makes reference to her Mail column (including prohibited primary sources on Mail Online) discussing a controversy about her opinion piece.
WP:DAILYMAIL also states that editors are expected to exercise common sense. I also agree with this. Cnbrb (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

So, no thoughts, anyone? Cnbrb (talk) 17:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
The point is that the controversial opinions were expressed in the Daily Mail, which is an unreliable source - and has been decided as such specifically because it has its own agenda on controversial matters such as this one.  The reason I reverted your re-insertion was that you were simply trying to use alternative secondary sources to verify that the comment was made in the Daily Mail, which misses the point.  No-one is arguing that the comment wasn't made in the Daily Mail.  But the Daily Mail remains an unreliable source. What you need is a reliable source making an equivalent point - i.e. that the portrayal of the NHS in the (hugely acclaimed) opening ceremony was "left-wing propaganda".  My personal view is that you will be lucky to find such, since comment in the Daily Mail was made to advance a political agenda and is not a relevant opinion on the 2012 ceremony. MapReader (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't interpret it that way. By this standard, the opinions of Aidan Burley MP must also be deleted unless another source can be found to support his "leftie multicultural crap" opinion. And a section in the Stephen Gately article would have to be deleted too, because that is also all about the Mail.
As far as I can see, what was agreed in WP:DAILYMAIL was that the publication should not be used to back up statements of fact. If a Mail journalist publishes commentary that is controversial, and that controversy becomes significant enough to be covered by secondary sources, then it's worthy of mention - that's an entirely different thing. Interestingly, Dewsbury's article was pulled by the Mail within hours of publication, so they'll doubtless be delighted that it's finally been deleted from Wikipedia.
Burley’s comments were carried by the BBC and ITV, both reputable sources.  But since, in any case, the point made briefly in the Mail was essentially the same as Burley’s, it’s already made within the article and doesn’t need repeating. MapReader (talk) 12:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

There is a line in the reaction section that says: The Australian Daily praised a "glorious pandemonium devoted to London's thriving, chaotic energy ... deliberately revelling in the chaos of Britain's free society and popular culture".  But there is no such newspaper or media outlet with that name, and in the source provided none of the quoted pieces make that comment (there is a comment from Australia but it is different).  Should it be removed or changed?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.142.98 (talk) 06:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC) 

Do a Google search on the comment and see it comes from The Australian.  I have tweaked the presentation which looks like it came from the BBC roundup of international comment that is linked in the article. MapReader (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)