Talk:D'Oliveira affair

Eponymous
... include the eponymous Basil D'Oliveira...

This is backwards. The D'Oliveira affair is eponymous because it is named for the cricket player, not the other way round. Dick Kimball (talk) 12:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yup you're right, I took those words out.--ukexpat (talk) 15:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Congratulations to all the contributors to this featured article. You deserve a lot of applause, recognition and appreciation. What a wonderful article.
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 22:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on D'Oliveira affair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130607222859/http://www.lords.org/history/mcc-heritage/mcc-history/ to http://www.lords.org/history/mcc-heritage/mcc-history/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131206215115/http://heritage.thetimes.co.za/memorials/WC/BasilDOliveira/Article.aspx?id=570449 to http://heritage.thetimes.co.za/memorials/WC/BasilDOliveira/Article.aspx?id=570449

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Far
Similar problems to other Rhodesia FAs by the same user. Two of the strongest and most recent sources, are barely cited strongly suggesting that the article fails comprehensive and well-researched criteria. buidhe 23:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * , I noticed that some of Cliftonian's other FAs had been at FAR and I almost left a message about this one. The bulk of the research for this was done by me, and Cliftonian mainly copy-edited. If there are any concerns over that editor's use of sources in "Rhodesian" articles (and I am not passing judgement either way), I don't think they would apply here. The sources are almost exclusively "cricket-based" ones, and I can guarantee that they are currently up-to-date. I'm not sure I totally agree with their conclusions, but they are certainly high quality. I'm not entirely clear how you've decided that the two sources you've selected are the "strongest and most recent". A more up-to-date article by Murray is cited already, and his earlier work forms the basis of the arguments used in other sources; his main focus is how the South African government reacted to the possibility of D'Oliveira being selected, and the actions they took against him. I cannot access the chapter by Steen (who is a cricket writer), but from what I can preview it appears to be an overview of the subject. He may have his own interpretations of what happened, but this has not impacted on understanding of the topic. Additionally, two of the books (Quelch and Fraser-Sampson) used here were written after Steen's article. The book by Oborne was written in 2004 – after the 2001 article by Murray – and while not flawless, is generally viewed as the definitive account of the D'Oliveira affair. The only more recent work which could perhaps be used to update this is England: The Biography by Simon Wilde, which references the Affair in overview, and makes some good points about it; mainly, that D'Oliveira probably deserved to be dropped from a strictly cricketing viewpoint, and that Oborne skirts over his conduct during the West Indies tour in 1967-68. I am happy to address any further concerns, but would not consider FAR necessary. Sarastro (talk) 09:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Having said that, if anyone has access to the Steen article and can provide a copy, I'm more than happy to see if there's anything that could be added, even if it is just "Rob Steen believed X, Y and Z". Sarastro (talk) 10:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You might have email, if your address is still the same, with the Steen/Wagg source attached for your consideration. (I haven't read it.) But I broadly concur that the sources used here are high quality cricketing sources that cover all the major points and opinions on the topic. Harrias  talk 10:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * my email is the same, but messages don't always come through for some reason! Sarastro (talk) 10:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If you don't get it, let me know and I can try again. Harrias  talk 10:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks! Sarastro (talk) 10:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I've had a quick skim through, and there are one or two things that could be added from Steen's article, but most of it is based on Oborne's book, and a few other sources that emerged after Oborne, which are already included in the article. There are one or two opinions that could be added, but nothing that would necessitate a FAR in my opinion. I will see what I can add in the next week or so. Sarastro (talk) 10:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, just to note for or for anyone following this unfamiliar with the topic, this article is NOT about Rhodesia as all of the events took place in either South Africa or England. Sarastro (talk) 10:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)