Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Basil D'Oliveira

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL


Ethnicity

Was he of Indian origin? This article needs some explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.99.52 (talk) 09:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What was clear was the apartheid regime class him as "Colored" --Nutthida (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the documentary Not Cricket a clip from an old black and white TV report is shown, in which he described himself as a mix of African and Portuguese, rightly or wrongly.--MartinUK (talk) 09:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge of the new Affair article

I would suggest the sub-article is merged into here. There is certainly space in this main article, and the sub-article contains very few details. The majority of the event revolves around his inclusion and his, and with suitable references and wikilinks to the articles on the larger scope of South African racial politics should provide enough context without the need of a separate article. S.G.(GH) ping! 11:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

—I started the other article. I'd definitely defer to anyone who knows better but as I understood it, it was quite a significant diplomatic incident and it quickly transcended the player involved even though it ended up being called the D'Oliveira affair. There's an academic paper here http://www.jstor.org/pss/823407 that I might read if I get time.Moonlight Mile (talk) 14:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- It might make more sense to merge it into this article Sporting boycott of South AfricaMoonlight Mile (talk) 14:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Merge it. It is about Basil D'Oliveira, so why not? Just my point of view. 17:40 19-11-11 GMT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.255.144 (talk) 17:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I see no benefit in merging. Any wikilinks to D'Oliveira affair would have to be redirected to an appropriate subsection of Basil D'Oliveira which is always a pain. Moreover while the article on the affair might be short for now, there's plenty of room for expansion as the article of Bruce K. Murray (currently reference number 4) clearly shows. The event might have initially revolved around him but it would never have become such a memorable incident if it hadn't taken a life of its own. I also agree with Moonlight Mile that if we decide to merge D'Oliveira affair somewhere then it should be to Sporting boycott of South Africa. Pichpich (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose & also agree with MM's suggestion. The affair isn't really 'about him'; he was just the catalyst. Rothorpe (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as Rothorpe says, it wasn't "about him", the affair is in all likelihood more notable than D'Oliveira himself, setting off as it did South Africa's sporting isolation, which in turn was a significant factor in the downfall of Apartheid. For someone with the time and inclination, the affair article could be hugely improved too, there's been tons of stuff written about the incident and its aftermath. Peter Oborne's D'Oliveira autobiography (this doesn't make my oppose look great, but bear with me), and contemporary Wisden reports would be a good place to start. EJBH (talk) 23:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose D'Oliveira Affair is much biggger phenomenon than the cricketer. It had lead to BAN of South African Cricket from International cricket. Naveed (talk) 07:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It would be rather like merging the Bodyline article into the article on Douglas Jardine. The affair made front page headlines in the UK newspapers on many occasions during 1968, and is the main reason why D'Oliveira will be remembered for as long as cricket is played and possibly even longer. JH (talk page) 10:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Date of Birth

1928 or 1931? Good bit of confusion flying around, BBC news earlier today reported '31, but is now going with '28 online. EJBH (talk) 23:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had the impression they changed it because someone did here... Anyway, Cricinfo says aged 80. Rothorpe (talk) 01:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC quotes his biographer as saying D'Oliveira admitted putting his age up three years, in which case cricinfo is not correct. Hack (talk) 02:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed! Rothorpe (talk) 02:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
... True, he cheated on his age but 1931 is the correct one. Oborne: "While negociating to join Worcestershire in 1964, D'Oliveira told the club that he was three years younger than he really was. He gave his date of birth as 4 October 1934 - wrong by exactly three years." (page 86 in the paperback edition). OrangeKnight (talk) 10:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right. And no change from BBC or Cricinfo. Rothorpe (talk) 14:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a good consensus to stick with 1931 for now. I agree with that, hopefully a media outlet will sort it out once and for all soon. EJBH (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is the direct quote from D'Oliveira's biographers - "I wrote his book in 1980 he finally conceded he was born in 1928." Whether this is right or wrong, it's quite explicit. Hack (talk) 00:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From D'Oliveira himself - "if you had said I was closer to 40 than 35 when I first played for England in 1966, I could not have sued you".[1] Hack (talk) 02:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's best to give the "official" 1931 date, as listed in Wisden and other places, but to note that he may really have been born in 1928 and give the reason why. JH (talk page) 09:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

This article desperately needs a photo of him, given how important his appearance was to his career. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Basil_D%27Oliveira