Talk:Peter Roebuck

Personal life?

There is nothing about any personal life. Such aspects help in understanding a person and his relationship to the world. There vis a reference to many young cricketers staying in his house for coaching which may have been difficult if he had a wife and children. Seems a bit like Geoff Boycott. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.174.58.225 (talk) 07:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Peter Roebuck was the marrying kind. Police have confirmed he committed suicide and doubtless a sad story will emerge, given the earlier 'incident' police were investigating. Nick mallory (talk) 08:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Use of Corporal Punishment

The BBC article 19th October 2001 states: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.172.125.160 (talk) 13:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

He [Roebuck] said he warned each young man beforehand that he would use corporal punishment if they failed to obey his "house rules".

He also said he thought they were from a culture in which corporal punishment was accepted. The offences came to light when one of the cricketers showed the marks Roebuck had caused to the secretary of Bishop's Lydeard Cricket Club, who passed the matter to the police.

Paul Mendelle, defending, said Roebuck was a "complex man" who set high standards for himself and expected them of others, and who had used corporal punishment only to encourage the teenagers.

"Tall, bespectacled and of bookish appearance". Bookish?

"Tall" and "bespectacled" are straightforward enough, even though we don't have a source. But bookish? What does it really mean? And is there any point to including it? HiLo48 (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Not outside a direct quote because it's a highly subjective term. But yes, if it's inside double quotes. There will be a lot of direct quotes we could pick out to describe him, but will have to hone it down to those which are backed up by multiple sources and which don't place undue weight on some aspect of his life. Donama (talk) 01:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Deodorant

"He lived an austere life, even doing without deodorant" probably true - but relevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.171.89.20 (talk) 03:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Why not? other bios have small indicators describing personalities that are far from generic. Manytexts (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Jeez, I feel we're getting closer to the inner man at last. --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 20:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that it's an interesting insight into a maverick personality that cared little for social norms. --Dweller (talk) 14:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

South African corruption

Circumstances of his death lead to the examination of the context of corruption in South Africa which bring the relative degree which homosexuals like him would (or would not) despair of receiving justice in that country into consideration here. The motives of his suicide bear relevance to revealing the story of the subject's life, which coincides with the scope of the article.{{subst:Unsigned|

Wikipedia isn't a forum to speculate on things - we need to stick to what published reliable sources state. Please see WP:OR and WP:SYNTH for the relevant policies on this. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

That South Africa rates above the median on perceptions of the degree of corruption isn't 'speculation' it's the confirmed result of surveys conducted by Transparency International. The biosubj's death comes out of involvement with police in South Africa and the coronial investigation which will follow it also will bear the fingerprints of that corrupt country. The readers deserve to be informed of that, not to mention to do justice to the deceased who we can credit with having spent enough time there to have experienced first hand what corruption means there.{{subst:Unsigned|

Please do see those two policies I posted links to. Wikipedia isn't the place to publish speculation. Nick-D (talk) 09:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Semi protected

Please discuss contentious editing here, rather than engaging in edit wars. Otherwise I'll need to start blocking accounts for disruption. Article semi-protected for one week. --Dweller (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Add to category "LGBT people from Australia" and "LGBT people from the United Kingdom"

He took Australian citizenship and by the end of his life he despised being referred to as any kind of Englishman, even a former one. Also, he referred to his last lover as "boy" in flirtatious messaging that he addressed to him. It's verified from a news report showing a picture of the boy with an interview referring to his full name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.130.43.94 (talk) 07:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The category should only be used for dead people who identified as gay/bisexual/transgender in their life time, or for whom there's solid evidence as to their sexuality. In Roebuck's case it's all speculation and none of us know whether he was actually gay or whether some people who hated him wished to harass him by claiming he was gay. So I'm all for excluding any such categories. (As to his nationality, that was a matter of fact so perfectly valid to call him British as a categorisation). Donama (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Explain to me the aspect of seducing and sexually assaulting other men which is not 'identifying as LGBT'? If 'some people who hated him wished to harass him by claiming he was gay', is there any source of him asserting that? No. There are only the tipping the balance to the conclusion that he was, in your words, 'actually gay'.

He started out British. Ended up Australian. By nationality. But, remaining culturally British, there is no way that Roebuck would have ever used the recently invented American term LGBT to describe himself. Nor should we. HiLo48 (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

'LGBT' is the only categorisation of the type used in this database. Other synonyms aren't. So we use it.

It doesn't fit, so we don't use it. (And can you please sign your posts?) HiLo48 (talk) 08:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

No it does fit. Quoting from the LGBT article, that term has been known to refer to "anyone who is non-heterosexual or cisgender". Here we have a person who has had emotional and sexual relationships with, exclusively, younger men; and a deepseated tendency for spanking and ogling the exposed backsides of other men and boys (again, only males and never females). Yet, some speculate unfoundedly, the person was heterosexual. Riiiiight.Allsqawk (talk) 09:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Rubbish. NOBODY has speculated that he was heterosexual. Most aren't obsessed with these things. Misrepresenting others is never helpful. HiLo48 (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. All we seem to know for sure is that he was prone to abusing the people he cultivated. He may have been deeply homophobic and chose this particular avenue of attack to express his distaste for such people. We can assume all we like privately, but we can't base what we write here on our own private assumptions. He does not fit LGBT cats, but that doesn't automatically mean Wikipedia is saying he was heterosexual. It's not an either-or thing. We're just not categorising him sexually at all. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Look, it's very simple. As stated at Category:LGBT people - the category is for "notable LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) people who have publicly declared their sexual orientation or gender identity, or whose sexual orientation or gender identity is known and not debated by historians". He fits neither. Jevansen (talk) 09:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)