Talk:Avery Brundage/Archive 1

Archive 1

Israeli reaction to speech

The information contained in this article about Israel's reaction to Brundage's decision to continue the games directly contradicts the article on the Munich massacre. In that article, it is stated that Israel endorsed the decision, while here it states that they protested it. Since no source is given in the current article, I am deleting the reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BishopOcelot (talk • contribs) 14:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Illegitimate child?

Many years ago I watched the mini-series "King of the Olympics: The Lives and Loves of Avery Brundage" which depicted Avery as having an illegitimate child from an affair. Anyone know if this was true?

I found an August 4, 1980 article in Sports Illustrated that treats Brundage's affair with Lilian Dresden and the resultant two children, Gary Dresden and Avery Dresden, as fact. According to William Johnson, the article's author, Brundage fathered the two boys out of wedlock and acknowledged paternity privately, requesting his identity be withheld because of his public personage. As I understand it, Brundage was generally considered to have women all over the world and married much later in life than most men of his generation.OlympicParadox (talk) 09:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I am treating the illegitimate children as true; multiple sources say that Brundage acknowledged and visited them, including Guttmann's bio of Brundage.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Death

Why did he die in Germany? Did he spend the last years of his life there or did he die while travelling?--129.70.14.128 (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

When he was 85, Brundage remarried to Princess Mariann Charlotte Katharina Stefanie von Reuss, the daughter of Heinrich XXXVII of Reuss, a tiny principality in what by then was the GDR. They had met in the 50s, when she was 19 and Brundage was in his 60s. Brundage spent the last few years of his life in West Germany, was married in Farmisch and died there in 1975. 70.247.142.254 (talk) 04:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Adam Krieger

1968 Black Power salute

The article previously stated that Brundage had Tommie Smith and John Carlos' medals taken away. While they were indeed punished and made persona non grata, I have seen no evidence that their medals were taken away. As stated in Sports Illustrated, July 14-21, 2008: "Smith and Carlos were suspended from the U.S. Olympic team, cast out of the Olympic Village and given 48 hours to leave the country." There is no mention of losing their medals. (Also, I removed the following sentence about Brundage presiding over the IOC during the era of shamateurism in the Eastern bloc because it was mentioned previously in the article.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

We are basically calling this guy a Nazi here, from what I have read it's not clear this was entirely true. In fact, he refuted much of that. So he may have well been pro-Nazi at some point in his life, but this article implies that as WWII started in Europe he changed his tune. The guy was definitely racist, and maybe a Nazi, but we seriously need to look at this closer. Currently the claim he is a Nazi rests on an HBO documentary, not the best source at all for this article. So for these reasons I have tagged this article for being non-neutral. --IvoShandor (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

There is also a BBC documentary about the Black Power salute that references Brundages ideology, principaly that he was kicked out of the America First group (an isolationist group that was basically a pro-Nazi solidarity group) for being too PRO-Hitler before the war. It shows how he was instrumental in getting the Olympics to Berlin and how in return his company was given the contract to build the German Embassy in the US. That seems pretty damning to me. The documentary is called 'The 1968 Olympics: Black Power Salute" - it might be on the BBC iPlayer if you want to watch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.14.254.141 (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

this entire article lacks objectivity. Avery Brundage was definitely guilty of being a man of his era, and is thus politically-incorrect in our eyes today. But he was by no means alone: he merely reflected the currents prevalent in his time & place - which were widespread amongst the entire ruling elite of the USA. If you want to paint him as a Nazi sympathiser, you will really need to provide documentation - not merely repeated citings of the same HBO "documentary". A HBO 'documentary' in and of itself is simply not a legitimate source on which to base so much of the the article. It may be that the HBO documentary indeed makes these allegations - but then we need to see what the source HBO used for making their allegations. And I think that it is telling that none of the allegtations of Nazi sympathy cited here involve the only scholarly study of Brundage yet published, namely Allen Guttmann's book. Personally I think Avery Brundage's position on the non-political nature of sport is a lot more nuanced than is made out here, and suspect that he actively encouraged athletic participation from the then newly-emergent nations of the "third world", and that if one bothered, one could stand this article on its head. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptomania (talk • contribs) 13:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

He may not have been a Nazi in the sense of being a member of the Nazi Party or the German American Bund, but he clearly agreed with Nazi ideology. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

This discussion's a bit stale, but I will add: Guttmann gave an interview when the papers about the German embassy thing were publicized. He said it was not a bribe because Brundage didn't need to be bribed to try to bring the US team to Berlin. He was not a Nazi sympathizer, but he did believe that politics should be kept out of sports, and thus a boycott was ill-advised.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Nazi discussion aside, this article lacks a nuetral POV and looks reads like the work of a biographer (one who liked him and wanted to voice his views), which is unacceptable for Wikipedia. Unfortunately, it's also incredibly bulky and in need of overhaul so the task is nontrivial.130.126.102.58 (talk) 04:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Edited the Mexico City Olympics section. If I were to base my opinion on the article, I would conclude that the 1968 Olympics was a violent race riot instigated by black athletes on the US Olympic track team and that Brundage was right to punish the athletes. Wikipedia does not make these judgements. Overall, this problem is rampant, but very difficult to solve due to the bulky nature of the article. Did they just abridge Guttmann?130.126.245.129 (talk) 07:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Guttman was unquestionably friendly to Brundage. He is, however, Brundage's only full-length biographer, not counting the hagiography that was done by an East German IOC member in the late 1960s. Brundage is presented neutrally here. The article passed FAC, our most difficult process, which includes neutrality. There's no getting around Berlin and Munich when talking about Brundage, and those damn him in the eyes of many. Those events are presented neutrally and dispassionately, with the arguments on both sides given. You may not like the balance, but it is what seemed to work. As for bulkiness, yes, it is long. Necessarily so, for a man who was in the public eye for sixty years and that for more than one thing. We have to have sections dealing with his art collecting and building career, because if someone goes to the Asian Art Museum and sees Brundage's name all over, he is entitled to wonder why the mean old man of sports gave so many art pieces. We must supply that answer. Same if someone finds out his Chicago building was constructed by Brundage.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

women in sports

The lead sentence of the women in sports paragraph says he didn't want them to be in sports at all. The next sentence seems to indicate that he liked them as divers and swimmers, but not doing track and field. This should be clarified. Also the Eleanor Holm ban sentence may be unsupported. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanose (talk • contribs) 01:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Highly Suspect

I just came here through the article on Peter Norman, the Australian involved in the Black Power Salute in 1968 and in each article, including the one specific to the salute it says that it was because Norman was against the political use of the Olympics. This doesn't sit right with his overt views on Nazi's and Jews ... basically what I'm saying is that he was an extreme version of the cultural standard at the time in the USA and Australia. More racist and conservative then the average and was more upset by Black Power salute then the political statement it implied. Assuredly there would be a reference around to support that given everything else here is so well supported.--Senor Freebie (talk) 01:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

After reading the section on Munich I'm now even more confident in my opinion that there will be a reference to this. He wanted to include Rhodesia and mentioned that in his 'commemorative' speech for the Israeli victims of the Munich Massacre. The fact that he would mention his support of fascists in a speech on behalf of Jews seems like the actions of a man hell bent on racist views.--Senor Freebie (talk) 01:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Rise to leadership

The first part of this section confuses me. What exactly was the AOA, a rival of the AOC or rather some kind of superordinate body? If they were rivals, why would Brundage be president of both the AOA and the AOC? When exactly did he preside the AOA?

The following sentence is especially confusing: "In response, the AAU founded an American Olympic Association as a separate group, although it was still initially dominated by AAU representatives—it then selected the AOC." What exactly does that mean?

--84.226.157.219 (talk) 10:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The AAU was seen as too dominant, especially by the NCAA. With the 1920 scandal over bringing home the athletes on a troopship, they set up the AOA to be something of an arms length, and to pick the AOC. The AOA was the body which did all the work between Olympics, the AOC was initially set up every four years, administering how the team was picked and how it got to the Olympics. So it would make sense for the AOA president to be AOC president too. Later on, the AOC took over the AOA's functions, so it didn't last long having two Olympic organizations. I am away from home right now and cannot answer your question about when he became AOA president.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Anti Semitism

The article should have his anti-semtism in the lead that is what Brundage legacy is 1936 in barring Jews and in 72 glossing over the Palestinan terrorism32.178.67.146 (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

That's being judgmental. The facts are stated, both 1936 and 1972, the reader can judge for himself.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thefacts are clear he banned two U.S runners because they were Jewish no other reason, he was proud of belong to a club that banned Jews and he did not honored the murdered Israelis athletes166.217.84.238 (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

If we are talking about Glickman and Stoller, that is thoroughly discussed in the article. And he did pay honor, the problem was, he brought in the Rhodesian issue and didn't cancel the games. That's discussed, too. And I did put "anti-Semitism" in the lede.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

It is highly unusual to use a term such as "anti-Semitic" in the first paragraph of a biographical article. It's not even done in the Adolf Hitler article. The charges of anti-Semitism are sufficiently mentioned further on in the introduction. ... discospinster _talk 18:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems that some are following the IOC lead and discounting anti-semetism.108.49.112.18 (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm Jewish, fella. I also have one Jew, one Nazi, one fellow traveler of the Nazis, and Brundage to my FA credit. Deal with it :). --Wehwalt (talk) 21:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Manual of style

According to the manual of style (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Opening paragraph), a biography should first state the nationality and occupation of the subject in the opening sentence (e.g. "was an American labor leader"). A sentence like "Avery Brundage was the fifth president of the International Olympic Committee" is not in accordance with the manual of style.

Another issue is the POV and UNDUE attempt to give the impression that his decision to continue the 1972 games has only been "harshly criticized" and even "seen as evidence of anti-Semitism" (an extreme and possibly libelous statement). This is not at all the case; while he may have received some criticism in Israel and occasionally elsewhere, his decision to continue the games has certainly not been universally condemned, and many believe his decision was the right thing to do. At best, opinion on this issue is divided. --Tataral (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• Legally you cannot libel the dead. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Brundage was not only a sports official, he is notable in his own right as an athlete, as a businessman, and for his art collecting and benefacting. The MoS is not a straitjacket, and some people do not fit into the provision you cited. Brundage is one. It's not libelous because Brundage is dead. Ledes do not have to be sourced if they reflect what is sourced in the body of the article. So your tag is ill-advised. If there is a split of opinion, I'm happy to work with you on it, but this article is a FA and went through a featured article process where a consensus of editors found the text to meet the FA criteria, which includes being comprehensive. Thus, there is an existing consensus regarding the article (as I recall, the feeling was I was too kind to Brundage) and controversial changes should not be made without consensus.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

If you have additional information on sources, it might be helpful to beef up the legacy section, which I've felt could use it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

What about if we were to say that his decision "has been praised but also harshly criticized". The Stars & Stripes article is a slender reed to rest that on, but if you have more sources ...--Wehwalt (talk) 12:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

If a subject is notable as a sports official, athlete and businessman, the standard opening sentence according to the manual of style would be "Avery Brundage was an American sports official, athlete and businessman". While his best known office is that as president of the IOC, he was well known as a sports official before he became president as well. The opening sentence doesn't need to be exhaustive, and it would be sufficient to mention art collecting and benefacting somewhere below in the lead, given that he is principally known as a sports administrator.

"has been praised but also harshly criticized" would at least be an improvement, in describing how his decision has been met with mixed reactions.

Regarding the wording "In retirement, Brundage married a German princess": This is an unnecessarily vague and confusing statement, and doesn't convey any real information. A Wikipedia article would never refer to a British royal in such a vague way as "a British princess"; additionally the wording could confuse American (and other) readers who might think she was a princess of Germany, rather than of the defunct formerly sovereign state of Reuss. --Tataral (talk) 13:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The MOS, like all Wikipolicies, is subject to WP:IAR. It is not mandatory. As for the princess, I was simply trying to be comprehensive in the lede by taking it up to the time of his death. I suppose the difference between a German princess and a British royal is that the British Royal Family actually rules. One solution would be to omit the sentence entirely.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Note also that the guideline you cite has several examples, not all of which follow the format you mention. I would mention that many of our presidential articles establish notability by immediately mentioning that he was the XXth president of the United States. This simply follows that format, and mentioning that he was the only American to lead the IOC establishes his nationality. There is considerable discretion as to the manner in which you establish the various things that should be in a lede paragraph. This does that.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

References

I changed the "Bibliography" section to a subsection and "References cited". Bibliography is sometimes used in biographies (although discouraged) as works or publications.

MOS:NOTES states: "Bibliography" may be confused with the complete list of printed works by the subject of a biography ("Works" or "Publications"). Otr500 (talk) 06:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)