Talk:History of cricket to 1725

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleHistory of cricket to 1725 has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 17, 2008Good article nomineeListed
February 6, 2020Good article reassessmentListed
Current status: Good article

French Connection[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

A slight chronological conundrum: This cannot be correct[edit]

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Overview Needed?[edit]

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)[reply]

I've now added something along these lines. Please feel free to correct any errors. JH 09:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's excellent and just what's needed. Well done. --BlackJack | talk page 11:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing[edit]

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

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

Formatting[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

No problem, Wizardman. Thanks for letting us know. BlackJack | talk page 08:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Replied to Wizardman on his own talk page. BlackJack | talk page 08:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Dicker[edit]

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)[reply]

Image of Ipocrisie[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Theories of origin - Celtic origins[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Oline73 (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with Malcolm is NOT his references to Bowen but to Lang and if Messrs Murray and Oline would care to read carefully the comments made by three people who actually do know something about the subject, you would realise that it is the presentation of Lang's crackpot theories that is unacceptable, especially as the students have not been encouraged to read authors who are credible and are accepted as authorities. As usual, we have the situation where those of us who know a subject have to put up with the attitude problems of people like Mr Murray who instinctively know more than we do. If Malcolm is citing Lang to present a theory about origin that has been dismissed and ridiculed by all accepted authorities (as the text now says), then Malcolm is NOT a reliable source. ----Jack | talk page 13:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot to say here, and I think that part of the problem is that people are talking past each other as much as to each other. I suspect that the students are learning a lot about Wikipedia through this series of interactions... I fear that they may be learning a bit too much about that, and too little about cricket and Englishness! But we'll see...
My 2c., after spending rather too much time looking into all of this, is that this isn't a question of reliable sources (Malcolm is very clearly a reliable source), but a debate about the due weight that should be attached to the various (all very speculative) theories about cricket's national origin.
There's also an issue of assuming good faith and not biting the newcomers. In turn, the school project perhaps didn't fully understand the likely consequences of editing a "good article." If you look across the spectrum of the various articles they have edited, I'd say that this article has (slightly) improved thanks to their efforts; the article on Cricket in the West Indies has improved significantly, while (for instance) the article on English national identity has arguably improved, but with the rather strange consequence that it now looks like cricket is the main source of Englishness.
Anyhow, there's more to say but I've hit a rather busy period in my week. More, anon. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with most of that. Just one more point. Regarding Andrew Lang, if I'm right in thinking that he's the Lang that I've linked to - and I know he did write about cricket, though it's not mentioned in his article - then he was writing over a hundred years ago. I haven't read Malcolm's book, and it may be a very good one (and I accept that it qualifies as a RS), but I hope he's used other sources for cricket history and not just the two who have been mentioned, i.e. Lang and Bowen, as neither is at all recent and our knowledge has naturally moved on. JH (talk page) 18:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to BlackJack re reversion[edit]

I can cope with losing the First Test by 14 runs, but an unexplained, wholesale reversion of my carefully-considered words is hard to take lightly :-)

The reasons for my changes were threefold:

  • restructuring for the benefit of readers – "history of" articles in encyclopedias (in most cases) maintain a tight chronological order wherever possible, and I can't see the rationale behind the current structure, which now jumps backwards and forwards in time (e.g. even in the intro alone, the current sequence goes: 1725, 1598, 1550, 1760s, 1600 ("beginning of the 17th century");
  • mention facts not covered or underemphasised, such as:
    • the 1533 poem attributed to John Skelton, which attracted a lot of attention when it was rediscovered a few years ago and to add a reference for it;
    • stress that the ball was always bowled underarm until the 1760s and;
  • various minor improvements to the enyclopedic style and sentence structure.

Were there any particular reasons for the reversion?

Grant | Talk 06:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You effectively destroyed the lead by taking two large chunks out of it. One of these you placed elsewhere in the article in such a way as to create duplication. You left the final paragraph of the lead looking like this:
"The sparse information available about cricket's early years suggests that it was originally a children's game. Then, "
so that it ends with a comma.
History articles do not follow a strict chronological sequence. It is a question of context and presentation of ideas in a way that explains the topic rather than saying that this happened and then that happened.
Although there was a certain element of the nine-day wonder about Skelton, consensus of sources is against it and it has no credibility. It has already been discussed on WP some years ago and it was decided not to recognize it as the story was dubious journalism.
The article didn't actually say that bowling in the period was underarm, only that it was all along the ground, so I've just remedied that.
Re style and structure, I would point out that the article has been reviewed and has reached GA standard so the style and structure must comply with that standard. I'm an experienced writer and I can see little wrong with the style or the structure, though obviously an odd tweak here or there might help. ----Jack | talk page 18:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also an experienced Wikipedian, of 10 years standing, not to mention a cricket lover. I concede the point about the "Then " that I left hanging, but I think you will concede that didn't require a wholesale reversion.

In general, I think you need to consider that, as the article already says, the early history of the game is unclear. Consideration and inclusion of rival theories of history, conflicting bodies of historical literature and "revisionism" are not flaws, they are essential parts of any well-rounded historical account: we don't uphold particular theories by merely acknowledging that they exist.

"GA" status does not preclude major changes, or we would not have "FA".

I disagree completely with your views on chronology and I would be interested to see examples of "FA" (or even other "GA") where chronology is so blithely disregarded.

The article already cites books by journalists and other popular, non-academic works and that is appropriate in cases where scholarly sources are not available. Conversely, it is against Wikipedia policy to deliberately ignore/delete and deny the relevance of material that is based on reliable sources, such as the BBC quoting academic researchers regarding the Skelton matter.

Grant | Talk 06:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've reinstated the sentence about Skelton. Your removal of material from the article lead most certainly did require reversion. The lead is a summary of the article and you removed an essential part of it. In addition, the first paragraph of the theories section performs an introductory purpose and you removed that, thereby causing a loss of context. The structure of the article is fine. ----Jack | talk page 11:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wisden 1965 : Cricket in the 17th and 18th centuries[edit]

Though the author's name isn't given on the website, looking up the article in my copy of the 1965 Wisden revealed that, as I suspected, it was written by Rowland Bowen. (It begins on page 135.) JH (talk page) 08:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. I don't have that annual. Thanks, John. Jack | talk page 12:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 13 external links on History of cricket to 1725. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of cricket to 1725. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on History of cricket to 1725. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of cricket to 1725. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sect[edit]

In the Breaking the Sabbath section, I propose to change the passage:

“The Declaration of Sports was strongly opposed by the Puritans, who were becoming an increasingly influential sect”

to read:

“The Declaration of Sports was strongly opposed by the Puritans, who were becoming increasingly influential”.

The Puritans were not a sect. Puritanism was not one defined system of beliefs, nor was there a distinct or unified Puritan organisation. I think those are characteristic of sects. For more detail, see the article on Puritans, especially the Overview and Terminology sections. Moreover, the word sect has disparaging connotations and is therefore out of place here. I have made this change before, on 19 August 2017. My edit was reverted by user BlackJack, who has contributed a great deal of work to the article.--Frans Fowler (talk) 01:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's fine, Frans. Go ahead. I agree that a "sect" has a narrow outlook and so the term doesn't fit the Puritans. Thanks. Jack | talk page 19:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done--Frans Fowler (talk) 22:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Olde English[edit]

In the Origins of cricket as a children's game section, I propose to change Olde English to Old English. It anchors a piped link to the article on Old English, which is the proper spelling of the name of the Germanic language spoken in Britain in the early middle ages. The 'Olde English' spelling could perhaps be appropriate for marmalades or tea-shoppes.

I have made this change before, on 19 August 2017. My edit was reverted by user BlackJack, who has contributed a great deal of work to the article.--Frans Fowler (talk) 01:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, ha. You can't beat an Olde English tea-shoppe with teapots, strainers, bone china and cream scones. Go ahead. Thanks again. Jack | talk page 19:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done--Frans Fowler (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed[edit]

This article is GA-class but it has a cleanup banner challenging its accuracy. Reading Template:Disputed, a talk page discussion is required but there isn't one. If there are valid concerns about the content, then I think the GA rating should be challenged at WP:GAR. No Great Shaker (talk) 22:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If whoever inserted the cleanup banner couldn't be bothered to give their reasons here, as is supposed to be required, then I'm inclined to think that the banner should be removed. OTOH, the GA was awarded way back in 2008, and a lot could have happened to the article between then and now. JH (talk page) 07:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, @Jhall1: I agree. The article has doubled in size since 2008. Probably best to leave it a week and see if anyone raises any issues. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd forgotten all about this until I saw it in my list earlier. No one has come forward since the discussion above so I suppose some action should be taken. All I can say is that it looks okay on the whole but perhaps one or two of the sources are questionable. I don't think it should go to GAR without explanation so I'm going to remove the tag and see what happens. It can go to GAR if and when anyone raises any major issues. Incidentally, I believe it would fail GA if it was being nominated now because of unnecessary detail in sections 7 & 8 (they weren't in the 2008 version). I really can't see the point of the "first mentions" section – strikes me as trivial. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In contrast, I think the "First mention" section is worth retaining, at least as far as the counties and players are concerned. I'm less convinced by the need for the teams and venues subsections. JH (talk page) 21:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, @Jhall1:. Yes, you're right, a summary like that would be of use to the general reader. I was being too particular about narrative. Do you think sections 7 & 8 could be better in a dedicated list article? Btw, I'm not sure I believe the stuff about a Mitcham club sourced to a newspaper article. I've got John Major's book somewhere so I'll dig that out. I bought it when it was published and enjoyed reading it at the time but I can't remember if he covered this era in depth. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a list or lists might be better, so long as they don't duplicate what's already there. I see there already is a List of early English cricketers to 1771, for instance. And of course the appropriate categories also help in finding relevant articles. Regarding Mitcham, an additional source would be useful, though I'd put a lot more faith in the accuracy of the Independent for something like this than in most UK newspapers. JH (talk page) 10:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Jhall1: there's a season review series beginning with 1726 English cricket season and the early ones I've seen all include a match list and a first mentions section. I think it would make sense to split off sections 7 & 8 and include the list in that series. Shall I just be bold and do it or do you think a merger proposal first?

I found John Major's book. His first two chapters are on the early years and an interesting read. He says in his preface that he had a team of experts working with him so I think the book must be authoritative. On page 33, he doubts the authenticity of another source called H. S. Altham who is cited in this article. Major says he (and his team) can find no evidence of matches or clubs in London (though he doesn't define London in terms of its then limits) before the 1700s. The earliest definite mention of a club is not until 1722 and that, apparently, was the London club. On page 44, he mentions Mitcham as one of several areas or districts in which, as he puts it, impromptu games were thriving on common land. That doesn't suggest a formally instituted club with a designated venue but such things were organised very differently in those times. I think the article should say there is a claim for a Mitcham club but not proven. Thanks again for your help. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a number of changes to address the points mentioned earlier but, the more I look at the article, I think it is flawed by use of dubious sources including one that is a self-published e-book. The excessive use of quotations, often uncited, is a real headache. Assuming Major's version is accurate and based on evidence rather than speculation, the article needs a lot of work doing to it. I've added template banners to summarise the problems. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In his time, Altham was a great authority, but he died over fifty years ago and much of his work on cricket history was done 80-100 years ago, and no doubt our knowledge about cricket's early days has moved on a lot since then. There may be better recent histories than Major's, such as Birley's and Underdown's in the Bibliography, but I confess that I haven't read either their books or Major's so I can't be sure about that. Does Major say who the experts working with him were? Without knowing, it's impossible to know how seriously to take his book. Regarding your first paragraph, I think you probably should be bold. JH (talk page) 18:05, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Several names and two of them, John Goulstone and Roger Packham, are described as peerless authorities. Others are David Rayvern Allen, Piers Warburton, Trevor Jones, Peter Wynne-Thomas, Keith Hayhurst, Adam Chadwick and Glenys Williams. I'm afraid none of them mean anything to me but they must all be acknowledged subject experts. It seems that some of them may be county club historians. One name that does register with me, however, is Professor Underdown because I once met him. I ought to buy his book if I can. No Great Shaker (talk) 22:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I recognise several of the names, and they are highly regarded. And the sheer number of the people that he consulted is impressive. So I'm content. JH (talk page) 08:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment (GAR) discussion (transcluded)[edit]

History of cricket to 1725[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept Closed by opener. AIRcorn (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article was reviewed in 2008 and elevated to GA. There has been substantial expansion since then. By summer 2019 it had attracted a content issue banner which was subsequently removed because due process had not been followed (see article talk page), but certain cleanup banners then became necessary and they remain in place.

The main problem is use of what may be unreliable sources, especially one self-published website. There is massive overuse of quotations and many if not most of those haven't been cited. The 2008 GA version did not include the huge matchlist which was added later and may have come from a dedicated list article (needs further investigation). It is proposed that the matchlist and first mentions section are shifted into a list article, or restored to their old one if such can be identified. The use of quotations must be moderated and all must be sourced. Content taken from self-published or unreliable sources must be challenged for other sources to be cited or the content to be removed.

To summarise the problems per the GA criteria:

  • 1a. The article is generally well-written with prose, grammar and spelling of a good standard. There is a problem with excessive use of quotations, many of which are unsourced.
  • 1b. Haven't checked this thoroughly but, on the face of it, seems okay. It is proposed to take the main list out, though, as above.
  • 2a. Complies with reflist standard.
  • 2b. Serious issue with self-published and potentially unreliable sources.
  • 2c. Given 2b, it's possible there is OR in the article but it will be difficult to find without comprehensive sources.
  • 2d. No apparent problems.
  • 3a. It is a history so the scope is very wide but it seems satisfactory in this respect.
  • 3b. The matchlist and first mentions lists constitute excessive detail which is why they should be moved to a dedicated list article. As this is a history, it should be narrative only with lists and stats limited to a necessary minimum.
  • 4. No comment at this stage.
  • 5. It is stable.
  • 6. Images are appropriate and without any evident issues.

I'd be willing to take this on as an individual reassessment but, realistically, it needs community involvement especially anyone with access to relevant sources. The only source I have is More Than A Game by John Major which discusses this period in its early chapters and will be useful up to a point. Apart from possibly ESPN, I'm unaware of any online sources that might be useful. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Report[edit]

I have put this off for a long time because I found it daunting but I've now worked through it and made a heap of changes. I've left several citation requests in the article but I don't think anyone will be able to supply them because I strongly suspect original research. This means that the article should be delisted, in my opinion, because OR and unverified content both contravene the GA criteria. I'll leave the review open for a period to see if other editors wish to contribute. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: I'd like to compare the article with John Major's book in case that provides source for any of the needed citations. There are about a dozen statements for verification. I'll try and do that soon and then, as you say, remove anything still unsourced or apparently original. Received wisdom is that Major's book is highly rated. Thanks very much. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All citation needed tags have been addressed. Some of the content can be sourced to John Major, one piece is well sourced within a linked article and a couple of useful internet sources were found. A small amount of content could not be sourced, despite searches, and has been deleted. The cleanup banners have all been removed so perhaps this can now remain a GA? It would be good if another reviewer could decide. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jhall1: Hello again and thank you for the notification which has just flagged up. This GAR is open for consensus and you'd be welcome to comment here if you wish. Thanks very much for your help. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I confess that I either hadn't noticed or had forgotten about the GAR. The one thing that you've removed that I'd question is, from memory, the reference to Sir Robert Paston having seen cricket played on Richmond Green in the mid 17th century, which did have a supporting citation. JH (talk page) 09:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct but the source appears to be a self-published website and those are held to be unreliable, even if they are actually good works, so I've had to follow site policy and guidelines there, especially given the GA criteria. I suspect the use of that website, for many statements, could have been why the disputed content notice was placed in the article, though this was never explained. If you believe that the Paston piece should be included I'd be happy to restore it and place a citation needed tag on it. I checked the John Major book but he doesn't mention it and I can't find anything about it among various references to Paston on the internet. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closure[edit]

It's a long time since there was any movement on this and, with all cleanup banners gone, I propose to close the GAR. It's appropriate to do that now as a GA backlog campaign has just begun. If anyone has any belated objections to closure and retention of the article as a GA, please raise your concerns at the GAR talk page. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History error[edit]

The History section incorrectly attempts to offer a Julian/Gregorian conversion. The difference between the two calendars at that point in history was 11 days, not 1 year + 11 days. Therefore, January 17, 1597 would convert to January 1597. However, it's possible there's a typo and the source said January 17, 1598, which would convert to January 1598. Because of this uncertainty, I have not corrected the erroneous dating. Martindo (talk) 07:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unless anyone can access the books used (in the section way below) or find an alternate source (I'll look), we could just say "the late 1590s" - this is all rather over-specific anyway and we don't need to know the precise date. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be as reliable a source as anything else we'll find fwiw. The same issue occurs in a number of other places and has been discussed elsewhere - not least Talk:John Derrick Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Easy to get confused over OS and NS dates. The case was heard on 17 January 1597, the Julian date in use at the time. The difference between Julian and Gregorian dates in the late 16th century was actually ten days, not eleven, so the equivalent Gregorian date was 27 January. However, the year is not the same because of the double dating aka dual dating factor. The Gregorian calendar begins on 1 January each year whereas the Julian calendar began on 25 March. 17 January 1597 in the Julian calendar was nearly ten months after the beginning of 1597 on the previous 25 March; but 27 January 1598 in the Gregorian calendar was 27 days after the beginning of 1598 on 1 January (which itself was 22 December 1597 in the Julian calendar).
If it helps, you could use double dating in the article by writing the Julian date as 17 January 1597/1598 which converts to the Gregorian date of 27 January 1598. You only use the alternatives on the Julian date to show the first year as the one in use in that location at the time, and the second as the one they would have used if the year number had changed on 1 January instead of 25 March. The Gregorian date does not have an alternative because its New Year already was 1 January.
Dating became even more confusing in Great Britain after Scotland changed its New Year date on 1 January 1599. That date was 1 January 1600 there, but was still 1 January 1599 in England. England and North America did not adopt 1 January as the New Year until they introduced the Gregorian calendar in 1752. 79.73.30.72 (talk) 16:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this, and if I hadn't been away on holiday would have said something similar. If people click on the Old Style link that's given when talking about the date of the court case, it hopefully becomes clear. JH (talk page) 18:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Might this all be better explained in a note? Almost all sources I've found just say 1598 - I don't think I've found one that doesn't? Just seems a bit complicated. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many writers are more interested in when Mr Derrick and his friends were playing the game as schoolboys. Even David Underdown, Professor Emeritus, dismisses the lawsuit as "in 1598" and goes on to say that "young Derrick and his friends were playing something they called cricket by 1550 or so". Rowland Bowen, however, was a stickler for accuracy. On page 261 of his history, he says of the court case: The date was set down as 'the Monday after the feast of St Hilary in the 40th year of the reign of Elizabeth', i.e. 17 January 1597 Old Style which is 1598 New Style. Bowen also has a reproduction of the court record. The Old Style link is certainly useful but perhaps a brief footnote would also help? 79.73.30.72 (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with the way you've now reworded that part of the article. Hopefully we can now "put this to bed". JH (talk page) 06:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and I agree. It just needed a specific citation, really. 79.73.30.72 (talk) 12:51, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_cricket_to_1725&oldid=1201806200"