Jump to content

Talk:1968 Olympics Black Power salute

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 October 2019 and 13 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Notdamcat03.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question about a building that was new in 2016 where a tribute to the two men was built

[edit]

In the tributes section of the article, it said the National Museum of African American History and Culutre was newly built in 2016, the year that a tribute statue was put in the building. I changed it to not say newly built as the building was built multiple years ago and is no longer new, although the statue was set up when the building was newly built. Should it say newly built as it was when the tribute station was set up in 2016, or say it wasn't newly built because now it isn't and is multiple years old?

The article is essentially Marxist Agitprop - Agitation Propaganda. Like the original "protest" itself.

Firstly American athletes did not give Nazi salutes in the 1936 Games (the article does not say they did - but it implies it). And the article does not even mention that the so called "Black Power" salute is really a Marxist (Communist) salute. The forces that the two American athletes supported, such as the Communist forces in Vietnam or the Castro Dictatorship in Cuba, were not "black. And the taking off of their shoes by the two American athletes removes any doubt that this was a Marxist agitprop exercise, this was supposedly a protest against the "poverty of American blacks" with no mention of the fact that black people in the United States were much better off than people of any "race" in the countries whose Marxist regimes the two American athletes supported. It would be as if American athletes at the 1936 Berlin Games had made speeches denouncing poverty in the United States (vastly greater in 1936 than in 1968) and blaming it on "Jewish capitalists". In 1968 the United States was at war with the Marxists - not just in IndoChina but in the United States itself, with Communist inspired riots and terrorist attacks in many cities. Including cities with, essentially, no history of slavery or of Jim Crow - such as Detroit Michigan. Yet the whole article pretends that the incident in 1968 was an expression of harmless protest somehow connected to skin tone, not what it actually was - a Marxist agitprop exercise aimed at exploiting American blacks as a weapon against the United States. Including against honest and loyal African Americans - as the primary target of Marxist "Black Power" groups (such as the "Black Panthers") was "Uncle Toms" - such as black businessmen and conservative church leaders, or any black person who opposed their Marxist position.2A02:C7D:B5B8:DA00:854F:EEA9:B482:8D1E (talk) 15:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Word choice

[edit]

I had to look up quite a few words in this article to uderstand it. Do you think some of the words could be made less confusing. It does say somwhere that editor should aviode terms that may confuse people. ostracized!?! gagging clauses!?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emigaljeli (talk • contribs) 18:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Date of Occurrence

[edit]

Many sites incorrectly cite the date of occurrence as October 17th 1968. The date of occurrence is October 16, 1968. This can be verified through this short biography [1]. Also, if one does a search through Google newspaper archives you will see that many news papers reported that the event happened on Wednesday night. Wednesday night was October 16th in 1968. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.231.144 (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boycott

[edit]

Removed:

The boycott had been the idea of Harry Edwards who set up the OPHR, which appealed to all Black American athletes to boycott the games to demonstrate that the Civil Rights Movement had not gone far enough.

Because there's no discussion of any boycott earlier in the article, and they clearly didn't boycott the Olympic Games. --Aioth 09:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

[edit]

shouldn't it be "salute" rather than "Salute" per WP:MOS? --Madchester 21:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tommie Smith has claimed that the gesture wasn't a "black power salute", but rather a move for human rights. Is this article misnamed? Tim Aug 9, 2008 7:20 —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with TimSPC in the post above. According to Dave Zirin, co-author of the book "The John Carlos Story: The Sports Moment That Changed the World", it wasn't a "Black Power" salute, but it was a "Power to the People" salute. This means the salute wasn't just for civil rights for black people, it was for civil rights for all oppressed people, like the Aborigines people in Australia who were/are also an oppressed minority during that time period. Dave Zirin wrote the book with John Carlos who made the famous gesture. John Carlos also points out that it wasn't a black power salute in a CNN interview, but I think Dave Zirin helps to articulate what he meant more clearly. Zirin also takes the time to name the gesture. For source references watch the CSPAN2 lecture http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Carlos about 52:46 - 52 minutes and 46 seconds into the lecture. Zirin talks about the CNN interview. You can watch the CNN interview Zirin talks about on http://deadspin.com/5856071/cnn-cuts-short-its-awkward-interview-with-john-carlos-because-of-technical-difficulties . I think if anyone has the right to name the salute it's John Carlos. Xybernauts (talk) 12:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with TimSPC and you can watch Dr John Carlos discuss this fact in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRYc0MJuYjE Benirose (talk) 18:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

[edit]

has the ioc or the us track association ever issued an apology ... in light of today's ignorant remarks about mr bolts response to his own victory (in the 100m & 200m this year) i'd guess the ioc has never had the guts to admit they were wrong

I've just read an article in UK Metro newspaper, an interview with Smith. He says he never had an apology and he is still

not a member of US Olympics Hall of Fame. What a shame, in the land of opportunities. Hundred and forty years after Lincoln... Hoemaco (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Parts of this article seem largely lifted from the timesonline.co.uk article on the event, rather than being an original summary of events. This has led to some POV statements. I'm going to attempt a rewrite.Stile4aly 18:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NCERT's inclusion of this incident has no secondary sources.

[edit]

Including discussion of NCERT's coverage of this incident is unwarranted. There must be hundreds of books and other publications that mention this. As the event wasn't in the U.S., any publication in the world save Mexico shares the distinction of being from a country other than where this occurred.

In order to show NCERT's coverage of this is relevant, you need to find reliable secondary sources that say as much; until then, it should stay out of the article. JDoorjam JDiscourse 05:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand your problem with this. The coverage by NCERT points out the notability of this incident. I also dont understand your insistence on secondary sources. An online textbook is a pretty reliable source to say that something is in that textbook. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia requires secondary sources in order to prove both the reliability and the notability of information. The textbook itself is not a reliable secondary source, it's evidence. That makes it original research. That the event is notable is beyond question, but it is not clear why NCERT's inclusion of the incident is relevant enough to warrant mentioning here. Surely you wouldn't suggest mentioning NCERT in the articles corresponding to every topic NCERT covers? Unless you have outside sources explaining why NCERT's discussion of this topic is particularly and especially important, it appears not to be critical to the topic. JDoorjam JDiscourse 20:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you recall, the NCERT mention was in a section titled Literary and Textual references. The idea was to have a section dealing with how this incident is represented in literature. So, NCERT was just a start. I agree that NCERT mentioning this by itself is not notable, but a section containing references to this incident literature would illustrate its importance beyond just a protest for equal civil rights. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

San Jose State University sculpture

[edit]

San Jose State University is the alma mater of both Smith and Carlos. In 2005 they erected a 20ft high statue of the incident in honor of the two great athletes. I've seen a few press pictures of it around the net and it's quite impressive. Here is a picture and press release on the SJSU website. I wonder if somebody in or near San Jose would be able to get a free picture of the statue. The location of the statue is in the university's Sculpture Garden, between Clark Hall and Tower Hall. --82.18.14.143 (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged the talk page with a request template. Hope someone has the chance! Oliphaunt (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A photo has been added today. The photo was taken before I added the tag, so it's probably a coincidence. Still, I removed the tag. Oliphaunt (talk) 17:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that there is no representation of Norman in the statue. As if he had never been there at all! Of course he was, as photographs prove, but perhaps his appearance didn't "fit in" with the agenda of those who commissioned the sculpture. Was any reason actually given for this distortion of history? It would make an interesting addition to this section.Shiresman (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Added a picture of the statue as found on flicker to commons and linked it here. Leav (talk) 05:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Small documentary

[edit]

Although I did not see it, apparently the BBC broadcast a documentary about the protest and its aftermath earlier this month. It was called Black Power Salute and the director was Geoff Small. --82.18.14.143 (talk) 01:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a "Black Power salute"

[edit]

According to Smith, the gesture was not intended as a Black Power salute (see NY Times article), but rather an expression of black humanity and pride, and a statement of rights. It was however was very widely interpreted as a Black Power gesture, and disentangling the two is pretty difficult 40 years after the fact, and is firmly embedded in popular culture with this meaning. The article needs to be renamed to something slightly more neutral to reflect this, and the same with the content, but thought I'd get comment before doing so. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this seems the most appropriate thing to do. Of course the content should be amended right ahead according to the given NYT reference. I agree on the article title too, although I have no title to propose at the moment.--Sum (talk) 11:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about 1968 Olympics salute, for the title and lead. It will still be very clear what is referred to. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to chime in here, haven't edited in a bit myself but here goes. Basically it comes down to what the event is referred to in literature on the topic. What is the most common name? Is the event commonly referred to as the 1968 Olympics Black Power salute, or some derivation thereof? If the answer is yes, then it should stay the same. Honestly, the intention of the participants has little relevance to the title of the article. --IvoShandor (talk) 04:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are not here to repeat the bottom lines of the mainstream media. If there are multiple sources asserting that it was not a "black power stalute", we should correct the article.--Sum (talk) 06:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"1968 Olympics salute" has an odd ring to it, and sounds like it's a salute to the Olympics. Maybe something along the lines of "1968 Olympics protest"? Oliphaunt (talk) 09:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@Sum: I wasn't saying anything about repeating the mainstream media, I said literature. Surely this topic has been written on at length somewhere, probably peer reviewed. I was merely pointing out that it generally seems accepted on Wikipedia that article titles defer to the most common name for historic events. In fact, you brought the mainstream media into this to begin with. EDIT: wasn't you, sorry about that. I wasn't challenging the suggestion. By all means, if multiple references state it's not a black power salute in intent this should be pointed out in the article. But the article name should be how it is commonly known. Whatever way that may be, I don't know, I haven't read all the available sources. Largely, it seems this is known as a black power salute. I'll see if I can dig up anything, I don't contribute much around here anymore. The longer I am away, the more I can see why I left. --IvoShandor (talk) 13:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should stay as is because for three reasons, Its well known as is, it was 40 years ago so its quite difficult to prove intentions and the action they performed is widely recognised as a Black power salute. Lots of pages have loaded title and in many cases they don't need to but this one should as there aren't any good alternatives. For my money the 1986 Olympic controversy or simillar would be more correct but noone would type that.(Morcus (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

There is just no way. These results on Google Scholar are clearly showing that this is well known as a Black Power salute. State the participants intentions in the article but no way will I go along with an article title change. We are not here to change history. The title has to stay as is, anything else will violate WP:NPOV. --IvoShandor (talk) 14:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page Moved

[edit]

The title of this page has been incorrectly attributed to "Black Power". This has been pointed out by several users already. I have moved the page to a new page with is titled 1968 Olympics Power to the People salute and placed a redirect on this page. The term "Power to the People" comes from Dave Zirin co-author of the book "The John Carlos Story: The Sports Moment That Changed the World". I've already posted most of my reasoning in a prior post above under the "Article name" section. I will just copy that argument below.

According to Dave Zirin, co-author of the book "The John Carlos Story: The Sports Moment That Changed the World", it wasn't a "Black Power" salute, but it was a "Power to the People" salute. This means the salute wasn't just for civil rights for black people, it was for civil rights for all oppressed people, like the Aborigines people in Australia who were/are also an oppressed minority during that time period. Dave Zirin wrote the book with John Carlos who made the famous gesture. John Carlos also points out that it wasn't a black power salute in a CNN interview, but I think Dave Zirin helps to articulate what he meant more clearly. Zirin also takes the time to name the gesture. For source references watch the CSPAN2 lecture http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Carlos about 52:46 - 52 minutes and 46 seconds into the lecture. Zirin talks about the CNN interview. You can watch the CNN interview Zirin talks about on http://deadspin.com/5856071/cnn-cuts-short-its-awkward-interview-with-john-carlos-because-of-technical-difficulties . I think if anyone has the right to name the salute it's John Carlos. Xybernauts (talk) 18:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for unilaterally moving it without any discussion! FWIW I would oppose the renaming for reasons as discussed above, or did you miss that. By the way what happened to the 14K of content? yorkshiresky (talk) 18:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe someone had to take the initiative. I posted comment a day or two ago, but no one responded so I went ahead with the change. While I see your point, the problem is I'm basing my actions on an author who has has been working with the historical figure John Carlos. John Carlos made the famous gesture, and he clearly states it is not a Black Power salute. If you take the time to check the links I posted you will see this. Also Tommie Smith, another historical figure who was there stated in his autobiography, "Silent Gesture", that the salute was not a Black Power salute. Also the author who worked with John Carlos takes the time to point out the correct name of the salute which is the "Power to the People salute". The reasons stated above suggest that to change the title would change history, but considering that the source is the historical figure who made the act I believe this concluding is incorrect. The info was moved to the 1968 Olympics Power to the People salute page. I pointed this out in the post above. Xybernauts (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page restored to previous location, to repair broken edit history and to ensure proper discussion. WP:CUTPASTE, WP:CYCLE, WP:REQMOVE, and WP:COMMONNAME. :) Fatsamsgrandslam (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what there is to discuss? The actual person who made the salute says it's not a black power salute. I gave the references above. When will the changes be made and who will make them? Xybernauts (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1968 Olympics Black Power salute → 1968 Olympics Human Rights salute – The title of this page has been incorrectly attributed to "Black Power". This has been pointed out by several users already. According to Dave Zirin, co-author of the book "The John Carlos Story: The Sports Moment That Changed the World", it wasn't a "Black Power" salute, but it was a "Power to the People" salute. This means the salute wasn't just for civil rights for black people, it was for civil rights for all oppressed people, like the Aborigines people in Australia who were/are also an oppressed minority during that time period. Dave Zirin wrote the book with John Carlos who made the famous gesture. John Carlos also points out that it wasn't a black power salute in a CNN interview, but I think Dave Zirin helps to articulate what he meant more clearly. Zirin also takes the time to name the gesture. For source references watch the CSPAN2 lecture http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Carlos about 52:46 - 52 minutes and 46 seconds into the lecture. Zirin talks about the CNN interview. You can watch the CNN interview Zirin talks about on http://deadspin.com/5856071/cnn-cuts-short-its-awkward-interview-with-john-carlos-because-of-technical-difficulties . Although, in Carlos' interview he calls the salute a " human rights" salute so it maybe more appropriate to call the page the "1968 Olympics Human Rights salute". I think if anyone has the right to name the salute it's John Carlos. I should also point out that the actual Article in question has an exerpt which also reinforces this point:

" The event was one of the most overtly political statements[1] in the history of the modern Olympic Games. Tommie Smith stated in his autobiography, Silent Gesture, that the gesture was not a "black power" salute, but in fact a "human rights salute"

I had moved the page to a new page with is titled 1968 Olympics Power to the People salute and placed a redirect on the 1968 Olympics Black Power salute page, but the changes were undone. Xybernauts (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, statements made by participants decades after the fact could possibly be self-serving with a view to putting a certain spin on their legacy. Contemporary statements made in the immediate aftermath of the incident might be a bit more persuasive. I think the media at the time widely interpreted/reported it as a black power salute, so a denial or refutation made at that time would be indicative. Or how about sidestepping the issue and calling it "black glove salute" or something like that? -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 05:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • While what you suggest is possible there is nothing to support what you are saying. What would even be the motive for such an act? In fact, to the contrary, while he did not salute, during the historical event Peter Norman, the Caucasian Australian silver medalist showed support for Tommie Smiths and John Carlos' actions by covering the picture of his nations flag. He did it to show support for the aborigines in Australia who were also an oppressed minority. The reason Carlos & Smith call it a human rights salute is because they don't want to neglect the significance of Norman's sacrifice. At the time the simple act of covering the nations flag was viewed as being very un-patriotic so all three medalists were harassed for many years after as a result. Xybernauts (talk) 15:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[[:File:Carlos-Smith.jpg|thumb| Gold Medallist Tommie Smith, (center) and Bronze medallist John Carlos (right) showing the raised fist on the podium after the 200m in the 1968 Summer Olympics wearing Olympic Project for Human Rights badges. Silver medallist Peter Norman from Australia (left) joins them.]]

  • Oppose. The title should be the name of the subject as it is referred to in mainstream published sources. I don't consider the issues brought up here to be relevant. Kauffner (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand how the intentions of the actual perpetrators of the actual act can be construed as being irrelevant. So basically Wikipedia has the right to vote to change history regardless of the fact that every interview & book I have watched and read says otherwise. Did anyone actually ask Smith, Carlos, and Norman what the meaning of the act was or did they assume? Incorrect assumptions by the media shouldn't be permitted to trump the actual certified intentions of the people who made the act. Here is an interview with Tommie Smith where he reinforces the point. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRYc0MJuYjE&feature=youtube_gdata_player And here it is again in an article. http://www.askmen.com/celebs/interview_500/541_tommie-smith-interview.html Unless someone has evidence showing that Smith, Carlos, & Norman originally attributed the salute to black power, I don't see how these groundless oppositions can stand. Another significant piece of evidence illustrating the intentions of the salute was the buttons worn by the three athletes. The buttons that were worn over the flags said, "Olympic Project for Human Rights," not "Olympic Project for Black Rights ". This can be found in the wiki article. And here is a pic of the button. http://www.sportgeschiedenis.nl/2008/04/17/de-button-van-een-olympische-legende.aspx Xybernauts (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an encyclopedia? Does it strive for accuracy? 1968 Olympics Salute would be more than sufficient, and a redirect. Most of the media can say one thing, but if it's clear that most of the media are in fact misinformed, then we go with the factual interpretation, rather than the unfactual one. If this is in fact an encyclopedia. If Wikipedia is a blog or popularity contest, then by all means leave it as it is. 116.90.173.30 (talk) 22:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"1968 Olympics Salute" is much too ambiguous. My own suggestion involved using "black glove salute" in the title. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 23:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

116.90.173.30, thank you for your support. I ask that if you approve of a name change that you post "favor" to dispel any uncertainty. So then, does that mean you withdraw your opposition, P.T. Aufrette|talk? It doesn't have to be the name I suggested so long as the act isn't narrowly attributed to only "black rights". As a black American I think this is important to accurately portray the actual intentions of the perpetrators. I believe the specific term used by Carlos has been "1968 Olympics Human Rights salute" which I believe is most accurate because it was part of the "Olympic Project for Human Rights". Xybernauts (talk) 04:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, this is the name it is most well known by both in contemporary coverage and in subsequent mainstream and academic coverage e.g. see of coverage in UK Guardian from 1968. Speaking in 1968, Tommie Smith said "My raised hand stood for the power in black America" [2], which leaves no room for any other interpretation than that it was a black power salute. That he's subsequently subtly altered his story shouldn't override the initial and correct interpretation of the gesture. Yorkshiresky (talk · contribs) 11:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for finding that reference. This is more or less the point I raised a question about in my first comment above. I think a neutral title like "1968 Olympics black glove protest" would work (in a relisted move request), but the current proposal of "human rights salute" is just too much aligned with the possibly revisionist POV of the older and mellower Smith and Carlos. Good for them that they are promoting a positive message of human rights, but Wikipedia can't really be a platform for that or any other message. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 03:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One link is broken. Anyways I have already made this arguement in previous posts. Regardless, the article doesn't say he called it a "black power salute". Calling it a Human Rights Salute is more appropriate because In articles I have read that is the actual term he has used and last I checked, black people were human beings, so it'll encompass both the current and subsequent intentions of Carlos, Smith, and Norman. To narrowly attribute the article to black power diminishes his accomplishment, by excluding all the other oppressed people's in the world. The article isn't limited to what happened that day, but includes the aftermath and current legacy which continues to this day. So technically history is still being made and that history includes the fact that they currently attribute the raised fist to human rights. So the article should simply disregard the modern/ current history associated with the event. in a sad way it seems oppressive because it's like Wikipedia is taking his accomplishment away from him by telling him and everyone else that his intentions don't matter, an accomplishement he was ostrascized and harassed and basically suffered for. Xybernauts (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As well-intentioned as this suggested move is, I think it goes against our over-riding principle in naming articles – that they should be at the most common name. It is overwhelmingly known as the black power salute (see wealth of high quality articles here. Despite the statements of intention (somewhat contradicted by contemporary sources), it is known worldwide as a black power salute. There is nothing wrong with that. SFB 20:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Yes, it was intended as a human rights salute, but the attempt misfired and it was and is generally reported and perceived as a black power salute. Correcting that common name is exactly what Wikipedia is not about doing, laudable as it may seem. Andrewa (talk) 08:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Mirror writing

[edit]

Is there anything wrong with the first picture or why are the numbers "2" and "3" on the podium in mirror writing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.2.4.172 (talk) 09:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Likely the negative was flipped while developing the photo. Flipped. Materialscientist (talk) 10:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the third guy

[edit]

Perhaps something should be added about the third guy? [3] (Lilic (talk) 20:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)).[reply]

The nephew of the third guy (Peter Norman) made a documentary, suggesting that there was a campaign against him. This was denied by Australian Olympic officials with fairly decent evidence, but many overseas media outlets picked up the exaggerated story. By 1968, Australian were firmly against racism, but it was the mixing sport and politics that created controversy in the Australian media of the day. After looking at competing claims, there's no evidence Norman was shunned. His knee injury saw declining performance. Travelmite (talk) 15:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1968_Olympics_Black_Power_salute&oldid=1216895460"