Talk:1968 Olympics Black Power salute

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Word choice

message: 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 . 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)
thread_title: Date of Occurrence

message: 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)
thread_title: Boycott

message: shouldn't it be "salute" rather than "Salute" per WP:MOS? --Madchester 21:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name

message: 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)
thread_title: Apology

message: 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)
thread_title: Copyright issues

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  NCERT's inclusion of this incident has no secondary sources. 

message: 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)
replies: text: I've tagged the talk page with a request template.  Hope someone has the chance! Oliphaunt (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: San Jose State University sculpture

message: 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)
thread_title: Geoff Small documentary

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: "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)
replies: text: @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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Not a "Black Power salute"

message: 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!
* http://www.sydneyfilmfestival.org/content.asp?id=21&nid=116&p=20
** In 1968 Olympics Black Power salute on 2011-05-25 04:01:52, 404 Not Found
** In 1968 Olympics Black Power salute on 2011-06-06 13:54:22, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 13:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: 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!
* http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1056987
** In 1968 Olympics Black Power salute on 2011-05-25 04:01:52, 404 Not Found
** In 1968 Olympics Black Power salute on 2011-06-06 13:54:30, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 13:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 2 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Page Moved 

message: 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)
replies: text: Likely the negative was flipped while developing the photo. Flipped. Materialscientist (talk) 10:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mirror writing 

message: Perhaps something should be added about the third guy?  (Lilic (talk) 20:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  the third guy