Talk:History of cricket to 1725

French Connection

the section regarding france takes an editorial line against a french connection to the game, despite noting that some historians believe it. this violates wikipedia:neutral point of view. Morwen - Talk 19:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The wording I used originally was ambiguous so I've amended it to try and make clear that the English took cricket to France and it did not come the other way. Well spotted. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 11:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

A slight chronological conundrum: This cannot be correct

• 1300
• Thurs 10 March (Julian). Wardrobe accounts of Edward I include a reference to a game called creag being played at the town of Newenden in Kent by the Prince of Wales, then aged 15 or 16.

Simply in an effort to discover whether Edward I's son, the future Edward II, was actually 15 or 16 on the date specified, I did a little research, and uncovered some rather disquieting details that call this whole reference into question. Edward II was born on 25 April 1284 and was therefore, of course, still only 15 on 10 March 1300. Unfortunately, however, he was not yet the Prince of Wales either, and did not become so until 7 February 1301. Indeed, since he was the very first English Prince of Wales, the title itself didn't even exist in March 1300, so no one would have called it him even by anticipation.

The date, of course, is Julian - as the extract itself points out - and in fact could hardly be anything else as the Gregorian calendar wasn't invented until 1582. But I wondered if the year was also given in the old-style format, with new year's day falling on 25 March. Historians always convert this to a 1 January-style year, even for the Julian period, but if this had not been done it could indeed be the case that what a contemporary might have called 10 March 1300 would actually be what we today would call 10 March 1301. Not only was the future Edward II Prince of Wales by this time, he was also 16 - which would neatly explain the unnecessary ambiguity in his age, which is given as "15 or 16".

The calendar converter at Fourmilab provided the key [1]. The weekday is specified as Thursday, and it is a simple matter to determine that 10 March was a Thursday in 1300, and not 1301. My elegant theory, therefore, falls down. The year in question is undoubtedly 1300, and the boy in question was definitely not yet Prince of Wales. TharkunColl 14:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

An excellent piece of research! I've changed the wording to "...by Prince Edward (the future Prince of Wales), then aged 15". --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 11:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Overview Needed?

The detailed chronology makes it a little hard to see what the overall trends were over this long period. It might be useful to have a longer overview at the start, before going into the detailed chronology. This could mention how the game appeared to develop from what was probably originally a children's pastime into one played by working men, and how it subsequently attracted the attention of the gentry, as patrons and occasionally as players, largely because of the opportunities it offered for gambling. All the time the game appears to have been growing in popularity, though still seemingly almost entirely confined to south-east England. As an aside, it's interesting how many of the earliest references are to the Guildford region: Guildford itself, very famously; Wanborough, West Horsley and Shere. It makes me wonder whether the conventional wisdom that the game originated in the Weald could be wrong. Living in Cranleigh myself, not far from Guildford, I could be a little biased though. :) JH 21:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I've now added something along these lines. Please feel free to correct any errors. JH 09:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's excellent and just what's needed. Well done. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 11:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Referencing

This article needs proper referencing per WP:CITE. mgekelly 08:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The article has a list of sources and these have provided the references. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 16:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

H'mmm! 15 months later, this point has just been addressed. The list of references in nearly all of these cricket history articles is a default in which not all of the books listed are relevant to the specific article. This is why we need specific inline citations per WP:CITE and not a hit-and-miss "further reading" list. Unfortunately, this aspect is a major detraction from what are otherwise excellent articles. --Jim Hardie (talk) 07:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Formatting

The formatting of this article violate WP:SG. In particular, it frequently uses bold inappropriately, generally instead of wikification. mgekelly 08:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Unlike the citations point above, I think BlackJack did address this one at the time. I cannot see any problems with the article's style at the present time, but I would be glad to read other users' comments on this. --Jim Hardie (talk) 07:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:History of cricket to 1725/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Overall the article is pretty good, however here are some things I would fix:

• Avoid one sentence paragraphs; fix the ones that exist.

Done. Let me know if I missed any or if any of them should actually be alone. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 07:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• "The phrase "to play cricket-a-wicket" could be a euphemism for sexual activity, as in rock and roll." Needs citation.

Well spotted as this is slightly ambiguous. Cannot now find the "rock and roll" bit so I've wrapped up the whole question of sexual euphemism into the next sentence which states Florio's definitions. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 07:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• In 1611, a French-English dictionary was published by Randle Cotgrave who defined the noun crosse as "the crooked staff wherewith boys play at cricket" Needs citation.
  • I'm guessing that for the quotes the proper citations exist a sentence or two later, or at the end of the paragraph. To be safe, make sure they're at the end of the reffed quote.

Done. You're right. There is one source for the whole paragraph. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 07:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Then a 1613 court case recorded that someone was assaulted with a "cricket staffe"..." Starting the sentence with "then" feels odd, kinda disrupts the flow.

Done. Agreed. Starting with "then" is messy. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 12:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Cromwell himself (see above) had been a player." I see what you're doing here, but reword so as to avoid self-referencing the article.

Done. Removed the "see above" and reworded slightly. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 12:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Could 12d be explained? You explain 24d later on, but when i saw the first mention i had no idea what it was.

Done. Have linked both pence and shillings to the site's articles on the two denominations and have replaced 12d with 12 pence and 24d with 24 pence. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 12:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Is having the day, then the date, with no comma (i.e. Sunday 7 October) proper? Or should it be Sunday, 7 October? If it's the former than you guys are fine.

Done. You're right. This was a mistake that has been rectified throughout the article. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 12:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• "But he overlooked the impact of the South Sea Bubble on cricket." Fragment; reword.

Done. Please check new wording. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 12:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• There's several other instances where I'd like to see citations. I'll go through and point out specifics upon completion of everything else here.

Comment. No problem. Please let us know the specifics and we'll add the citations or reword if necessary. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 12:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I've put the article on hold, I'll give you a week to fix everything. I feel like I really nitpicked this article so once this is done I highly doubt I'll find anything else. Wizardman 04:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Review complete, technical hold week starts now. Wizardman 03:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this feedback, Wizardman. I've made a start on your points as per notes above and will attend to the rest very soon. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 07:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

All done except for the specific citations that you will be requesting. Please check the amendments and let us know if they are okay. Thanks for a very thorough review which is a great help to us. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 12:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for getting it done quickly. I'll give it another look through tonight. I feel like i've nitpicked this article so after the citations this article's most likely good to go. Wizardman 16:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It'll be another 2-3 days until I can go through the whole article again, my apologies for the delay. Wizardman 06:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem, Wizardman. Thanks for letting us know. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 08:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright, here's the sentences I'd like to see citations for (it might be that some of these are the type where there's one ref for the paragraph, so those would be easy):

• The earliest definite reference to cricket being played anywhere is in evidence given at a 1597 court case which confirms that it was played on a certain plot of land in Guildford, Surrey, around 1550.
• He claimed that several of his fellow players were "persons of repute and fashion".
• He speculates that the game "must have been known to every schoolboy in the south-east" of England.
• The Sussex teams of Richmond and Gage enjoyed an inter-county rivalry with Stead's Kent that originated the concept of the county championship (see Champion County).
• The early newspapers recognised this and were more interested in publishing the odds than the match scores. Reports would say who won the wager rather than who won the match.
• In 1723, the prominent Tory politician Robert Harley, Earl of Oxford recorded in his journal: "(long quotation that needs citation)."
• Road transport was slowly improving and, in 1706, Parliament established the first turnpike trusts that placed a length of road under the control of trustees drawn from local landowners and traders.

After this is finished I'll pass the article. Wizardman 19:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Wizardman. I've added citations where requested plus a couple of extra ones. As you said, some were already there and applicable to the whole paragraph, but I did need to find a few new ones. If you could look it over again, that would be great. Thanks very much. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, after looking it over a second time, I no longer see any problems, and as a result I'll pass this. Thanks for taking care of everything (and for putting up with the delay). Wizardman 21:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Replied to Wizardman on his own talk page. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 08:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The Dicker

The Dicker is a present-day place in Sussex. Since it's more or less accurately identified by the descriptive phrase in the article (OK, actually it's closer to Hailsham and Chiddingly), I can see no reason why it should be necessary to quote the name as transcribed from an original source rather than simply cite its modern form. And I don't why this should be regarded as WP:OR - the source, I assume, has already identified which place is meant, and that's the research. And see Thorn (letter) for why ye should be represented in a modern text as the. --Pfold (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Image of Ipocrisie

I have deleted the claim that the 1533 poem "Image of Ipocrisie" (in the style of John Skelton but too late to have been written by him) refers to Flemish immigrant weavers in England playing the game (as "kings of crekettes"). The relevant lines in this poem, contrary to various misinformed media articles in February/March 2009, insult the Pope, not Flemish immigrants. These lines come from part 2 of the poem subtitled "Against the Pope" and run:

Arte thou the hiest pryst/ And vicar unto Christ?/ No, no I say, thou lyest!/ Thou art a cursed crekar/ A crafty upp-crepar/ Thou art the devil's vicar!/ A privye purse pikar/ By lawes and by rites/ For sowles and for sprites:/ O lord of Ipocrites/ Nowe shut upp your wickettes/ And clape to your clickettes/ A! Farewell, kinge of crekettes!/ For now the tyme falls/ To speak of Cardinalles...

as can be verified from the book "Poetical works of John Skelton" (ed. Alexander Dyce, London 1843) which includes the poem. Note the singular "kinge" (not "kings") of crekettes; "Vicar of Christ" was a title claimed by the Papacy. Although the juxtaposition of "wickettes" and "crekettes" is striking, both have non-sporting meanings, and no Renaissance Pope is known to have had any interest in or knowledge of the game of cricket. So it is unclear that this is even a reference to the game. What we can say is that the author intends "kinge of crekettes" to be a crowning insult to the Pope. Perhaps he is simply calling him a king of the insects known (then as now) as crickets; much of the poem is crude insult - AG, Stockport, UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.69.150 (talk) 17:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

As the article points out, the piece you want to delete is part of Gillmeister's view and whether he is right or wrong does not matter. The Flemish connection is relevant to the history and his theory is notable. What you have said above may well be correct but I'm afraid it goes against WP:NPOV and you can't use that as a basis for deleting material that is verifiable. --Jack | ^{talk page} 06:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been in contact with Heiner Gillmeister and he is aware that the poem does not refer to Flemish weavers. He has nowhere written that it provides evidence for his theory - he argues for Flemish origin on other grounds. So the statement that "Gillmeister believes the sport itself had a Flemish origin in view of the apparent reference to Flemish players in a 1533 poem called The Image of Ipocrisie, attributed to John Skelton" is incorrect and unverifiable, and I've simply stripped it down to "Gillmeister believes the sport itself had a Flemish origin", which is verifiable - AG, Stockport, UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.69.150 (talk) 10:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Personally, I would rather leave all this stuff out: it was a nine-day wonder earlier this year when some newspaper announced that cricket is a Belgian sport. By the way, if you would like to join Wikipedia, membership is free and easily set up. If you are interested in the history of cricket and have useful material that you could contribute, you'd be most welcome. Please see the project page at WP:CRIC for more information. Thanks. --Jack | ^{talk page} 13:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

So long as I can edit without joining up, I prefer to do that (I've edited more than cricket on Wikipedia), but I appreciate the comment. I'm interested in the game past and present - I was at Day 2 of the recent Cardiff cliffhanger vs Australia - and I agree that Gillmeister's Flemish-origin theory has a surprising amount going for it (well summarised in the extended introduction to John Eddowes' book The language of cricket). What I would like to know is why the media were misled in February into claiming that four lines from "Image of Ipocrisie" referred to cricket being played by Flemish weavers (ergo not later than 1533), when the preceding and following lines clearly show that the insult was to the Pope. I noted the claim and recently looked up a Victorian reprint of the poem in a university library, since when I have spent some Webtime correcting people. Perhaps the media were hoaxed in an Ashes year? As to whether the poem refers to the game of cricket - the juxtaposition of archaic spellings of "wicket" and "cricket" is striking, but both have pastoral application and their juxtaposition in Florio's dictionary is unconvincing. Finally (and separately), "Image of Ipocrisie" refers to a book written in 1533, but Skelton died in 1529. It is in his style and was republished as one of his poems in the 18th century, but was hived into an Appendix in a Victorian reprint of his works by an editor who spotted the discrepancy. It must be from 1533 or 1534 since it speaks of the "Maid of Kent" (Elizabeth Barton) as living, but she was executed in the spring of 1534 - AG, Stockport, UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.69.150 (talk) 16:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that 1697 to 1725 English cricket seasons be merged into History of cricket to 1725. I think that the content in the seasons article can easily be explained in the context of History of cricket to 1725, and the history article is of a reasonable size that the merging of seasons will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. I believe nearly everything noteworthy in the seasons article is alrready present in the history article and that there is no need for the detailed match tables present in the seasons article. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 19:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• Concur see no major reason why not. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• Concur too. JH (talk page) 20:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Merger completed today. In fact, I had only to move a couple of paragraphs as the information was virtually all there originally. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 10:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Theories of origin - Celtic origins

I added a section last night describing the theory that cricket may have had Celtic origins. In response to BlackJack's comments and edits to my addition, I think the theory should omit the "Though with no provenance" clause. The theories that I read about were cited from the introduction to Dominic Malcom's book, Globalizing Cricket: Englishness, Empire and Identity (Citation #10 in the footnotes), in which Malcom also cites two of his own outside sources (Cricket: A History of its Growth and Development throughout the World by R. Bowen and "The History of Cricket" by A. Lang). While it is a theory and there is no physical "proof" to its accuracy, these are all theories, so I think the fact that it may "have no provenance" is implied in the fact that it is a theory. In addition, my edits and claims were cited, and BlackJack's edits were not. --Mollykluba (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with removal of that clause. My concern is maintaining the article's credibility as edits made by other members of your group were nonsensical and out of context with no regard for the article's existing content or structure. Yours was actually a good point except that it seemed too emphatic and that is why I amended it to make clear that it is one of several theories and that, as an existing cited statement already says, we do not know what cricket's origin was. You need to treat Rowland Bowen very carefully as although his work on the whole remains useful, he did have a tendency to speculate and some of his wilder ideas, especially around origin, are now discredited. Malcolm is not recognised as a reliable source and you are effectively ignoring writers who are generally accepted as reliable: i.e., see the article bibliography. Lets face it, it is very easy to suppose from ancient illustrations or manuscripts that the Celts played a game involving a ball and a stick, but to decide as Malcolm has evidently done that this must be the origin of a particular modern sport is far-fetched. Why isn't he claiming that the Celts played hockey?

If you want a good understanding of cricket in terms of "Englishness" I suggest you read Derek Birley's A Social History of English Cricket which is an acknowledged masterpiece and which, at the outset, encapsulates all the outlandish speculation in terms of the simple fact that we do not know how cricket originated and all we can do is acknowledge that the first definite reference to it occurred in Surrey at the end of the 16th century. Wikipedia requires information to be not merely cited but to be drawn from reliable sources per WP:RS. I suggest your college should do likewise.----Jack | ^{talk page} 21:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Jack, I understand your concerns regarding the article's credibility. I think Mollykluba makes a valid case in stating that her edits are verifiable and from a reliable source. You may disagree with Rowen's work, but the citations are from published works by legitimate publishers (Eyre & Spottiswoode). In addition, Rowen's work was further referenced by Malcolm's work, adding to it's reliability in my opinion. Your advice about treating Rowen carefully is duly noted and the suggested reading from Birely is appreciated. My understanding of verifiability and reliable source criteria seem to have been met and I think they hold more weight than opinions about the scholarship of the historians in question.--Oline73 (talk) 16:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

You have to stick to sources and Jack is correct. The Lang book was rubbished by the serious press as clap trap and I entirely agree with his remarks about the Malcolm book which is not a credible source and it takes a line or two from Bowen (Not Rowen) and draws what is not there or intended from it. Stick to credible sources - Birely, Wynne-Thomas, Major, Altham etc CDTPP (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely right and I've rewritten the entire paragraph to make this very point that one thing all recognised authorities agree upon is that the origin is unknown; there is no evidence whatsoever of the sport evolving from another sport or of another sport evolving from it; and the only certainty is that it was first recorded in 1597/8. Lang was a sensation-seeker whose views have been ridiculed by everyone who knows anything about cricket's early history. If Malcolm is using this sort of nonsense to sell his book then he is not a reliable source and any edits citing his work can be reverted per WP:RS. If the course tutor wants to teach his students about cricket, he needs to obtain some credible sources. I have suggested Birley for his sociological approach and I think a good book for these students who clearly know nothing about cricket is Peter Wynne-Thomas' From the Weald to the World which would introduce the subject in overall historical terms very well. If the tutor insists on using a book that is discredited, then his course is a complete waste of his students' time. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 00:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

And I have taken this discussion to the appropriate venue. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, though Bowen is not the source cited, it seems to be the one drawing most invective here. I'm happy to take Bowen to the RS Noticeboard as well. I note incidentally that this is a book that Wikipedia's traditional rival, the Encyclopedia Britannica, chooses as one of a rather short bibliography of "informative histories of cricket". Or perhaps the Britannica is not counted among the "serious press" in this day and age?! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

But for what it's worth, my main problem with the paragraph that seems the centre of the dispute as it existed in this revision is that it's written rather badly. Take these first two sentences: "A theory has been put forward that cricket may have had a Celtic origin as a bat-and-ball game seems to have been played in Dál Riata as early as the 6th century. Numerous bat-and-ball games have existed worldwide and this does not necessarily suggest a combination of origins." The first sentence starts with an unwieldy passive and then almost becomes a run-on; the second sentence is grammatically awkward, as its "this" has no single obvious antecedent. BlackJack's revision has the virtue of being rather more straightforward (albeit a bit strident; I fear the lady doth protest too much). But this is a rather different matter than the issue of reliable sources. Indeed, in such cases of controversial issues that require balancing competing arguments and giving them due weight, my experience is that it's always a matter of thinking harder about the writing. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I've been following this debate with interest. Whilst the edits that were made were clearly carried out in good faith, I can understand BlackJack's exasperation when a group of students, who have only been studying cricket history for a couple of months and who seem to have relied entirely on a single source, make major edits to an article that he has invested a great amount of time and care on and based on knowledge that he has gained from many years of studying the subject. Regarding Bowen's book, whilst it was highly praised at the time, it was published some fifty years ago, and subsequent research by cricket historians has made some of his theories either untenable or at least far less plausible. As BlackJack says, the earliest reliable evidence that we have concerning cricket's early days dates from 1598 (Gregorian calendar) referring to the game being played some fifty years earlier. If a theory about the game's origins has sufficient credible support and hasn't been disproved, then it seems reasonable to mention it, but it must be made clear that it's only a theory and should not be given undue weight or covered at disproportionate length. JH (talk page) 10:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Jhall1 I agree with your parameters about making it clear that the theory is not a proven fact and that it shouldn't be given undue weight. I would add that there are larger issues at play here too. While it's understandable that good faith edits can be reverted or changed, the tone of the discourse surrounding the debate is becoming a major issue. In my opinion, references to Malcolm's book are clearly verifiable and he clearly meets the criteria as a reliable source. Bowen's book has been used as a reference in Malcolm's book as well as in another other Wikipedia articles: Hambledon Club, Test match (rugby union), History of cricket in Pakistan from 1947 to 1970, Over (cricket), Shin guard and it's listed in the Bibliography of cricket. Bowen's work also passes the test of verifiability and is from a recognized publisher, so I feel it meets a standard of reliability. The language surrounding the references in the articles should obviously reflect any controversy about an author's claims, but the attacking nature of the debate is out of line and should be curbed. We are looking forward to rigorous debate about sources and content, but we are disappointed that the conversation is devolving into attacks on the professor, his course design, the description of his students' work, etc. We would like to have more voices in the conversation, who are objectively weighing the arguments about source material and we hope to have a civil discussion on our project page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket and Englishness I'd like to calmly reason this out with BlackJack and I hope we can come to a civil resolution.