Talk:Peter Norman

Untitled
Not shown in the picture, but I've read somewhere that Norman wore black socks to show his support for the two American athletes.| Unfortunately there have been a lot of things said about this event that are just not true. I am Peter's nephew and have made an amazing film that finally puts to rest all the allegations that have been made by many so called historians about what actually happened at the 68 Olympics. The film is called SALUTE and is due for theatrical release around the world this year(2007). All three men being Tommie Smith, Peter Norman and John Carlos sit in the same room and talk about what actually happened. Over the years I've heard some really funny things. In fact if you watch any other documentary or tv show about this the only person that gets interviewed is Tommie Smith. No-one seems to interview Peter or John. Well finally the accurate truth. More info can be found on the film at www.salutethemovie.com Hope this helps. Matt Norman 04:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Carlos-Smith.jpg
The image Image:Carlos-Smith.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --05:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

White Australia Policy
It's a good article but the section about the White Australia Policy (WAP) is wrong. It has nothing to do with Aboriginals. The WAP was an immigration policy that discriminated against non-White people who wished to migrate to Australia. The sentence about Aboriginals is just plain wrong. This even took place after the 1967 referendum after which Aboriginals were included on national census. Actually the referendum is a little more complicated to that, its true purpose was allowing the Federal Government the right to pass laws concerning Aboriginals which until then was a state matter. I note that the link for this section is now dead. Tigerman2005 (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You're quite right. I have removed that text. It would be good to have some words from Norman in the article though. HiLo48 (talk) 07:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Heading order
Sorry, but I think the article as it stands now is an unreadable mess. Before your series of edits, the article prose was in a near-temporal order, with most focus on the 1968 Olympics (per WP:DUE), but now you divided it by topic, and the flow of events is all over the place. Longish table of career achievements (which are not even the main source of his fame) now stands in front of 1968 Olympics, instead of coming naturally somewhere to the end of the article, after the prose. Australian football episode is IMO too short to even deserve an entire section, let alone inserted unnaturally after the athletics career; it jumps from 1968 to 1972 and 1978, follows by the section about 2012 Parliamentary Debate??! For a much better model of article organization, see e.g. Paavo Nurmi: birth, beginnings, main career, late career, death, legacy; datasheets in the end. No such user (talk) 11:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

"Low importance" ratings
I've just noticed that this article has a lot of "low importance" ratings in its categories. I'm somewhat surprised by this given the important significance of Peter Norman in the history of the Olympic Games regardless of his actual performances as an athlete. Can some experienced editors have a look at this and discern whether some of the ratings deserve to be made higher. Yahboo (talk) 11:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Importance (as described at WikiProject Wikipedia/Assessment) is based on what Wikipedia calls "notability", which is basically the extent of coverage by newspapers, magazines, journals, and books. Importance thus is not a subjective thing - it's not based on whether a person (or topic) "deserves" to have a higher rating in the minds of editors, nor on whether editors think something is "significant". -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 01:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Bad citation for San Jose University statue
Regarding the statue at San Jose University, and why Norman is not depicted in it, the article currently cites a 2008 The Age article. But that article never mentions the statue. Perhaps this article should cite the same source that 1968 Olympics Black Power salute does; an interview with John Carlos. - 98.29.131.136 (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

correction to poor English was reverted.
My edit to this sentence was reverted "Chef de Mission Judy Patching cautioned him on the evening of the medal ceremony and then given as many tickets as he wanted to go and watch a field hockey match." IMO " ... and then given ... " doesn't make sense given the opening clause of the sentence. At minimum it should be "... and gave him ...". If others are happy with the original I won't fight it. (My correction had "the" instead of "then", which could have been fixed.) The user making the correction, Yahboo, doesn't have a page. Tjej (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)