Talk:History of cricket to 1725

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: French Connection

message: *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 . 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: A slight chronological conundrum: This cannot be correct

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

message: This article needs proper referencing per WP:CITE. mgekelly 08:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has a list of sources and these have provided the references.  --BlackJack | talk page 16:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Referencing 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Formatting 

message: 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)
thread_title: The Dicker

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Image of Ipocrisie

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: 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)
replies: text: Excellent. I don't have that annual. Thanks, John. Jack | talk page 12:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wisden 1965 : Cricket in the 17th and 18th centuries 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on History of cricket to 1725. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  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  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.jl.sl.btinternet.co.uk/stampsite/cricket/ladstolords/1300.html#1597
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.jl.sl.btinternet.co.uk/stampsite/cricket/ladstolords/1751.html#bowling
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.jl.sl.btinternet.co.uk/stampsite/cricket/ladstolords/1751.html#bowling
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.jl.sl.btinternet.co.uk/stampsite/cricket/ladstolords/1601.html#restoration
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.jl.sl.btinternet.co.uk/stampsite/cricket/ladstolords/1601.html#1661
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.jl.sl.btinternet.co.uk/stampsite/cricket/ladstolords/1601.html#1693
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.jl.sl.btinternet.co.uk/stampsite/cricket/ladstolords/1601.html#richmond
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.jl.sl.btinternet.co.uk/stampsite/cricket/ladstolords/1701.html#1725
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.jl.sl.btinternet.co.uk/stampsite/cricket/ladstolords/1601.html#1693
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.jl.sl.btinternet.co.uk/stampsite/cricket/ladstolords/1601.html#1697
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.jl.sl.btinternet.co.uk/stampsite/cricket/histories/matches.html
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.jl.sl.btinternet.co.uk/stampsite/cricket/ladstolords/1701.html#1720
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.jl.sl.btinternet.co.uk/stampsite/cricket/ladstolords/1701.html#1706
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5laxwhCZO?url=http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/SportsHistorian/2000/sh201e.pdf to http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/SportsHistorian/2000/sh201e.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jl.sl.btinternet.co.uk/stampsite/cricket/ladstolords/1300.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jl.sl.btinternet.co.uk/stampsite/cricket/ladstolords/1601.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jl.sl.btinternet.co.uk/stampsite/cricket/ladstolords/1601.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jl.sl.btinternet.co.uk/stampsite/cricket/ladstolords/1601.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jl.sl.btinternet.co.uk/stampsite/cricket/ladstolords/1601.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071006000955/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20020713/ai_n12629473 to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20020713/ai_n12629473
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jl.sl.btinternet.co.uk/stampsite/cricket/ladstolords/1601.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jl.sl.btinternet.co.uk/stampsite/cricket/ladstolords/1751.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jl.sl.btinternet.co.uk/stampsite/cricket/ladstolords/1751.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jl.sl.btinternet.co.uk/stampsite/cricket/ladstolords/1701.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jl.sl.btinternet.co.uk/stampsite/cricket/ladstolords/1701.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jl.sl.btinternet.co.uk/stampsite/cricket/ladstolords/1701.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150217220412/http://www.neuroscience-arena.com/journals/pdf/papers/rsih_article.pdf to http://www.neuroscience-arena.com/journals/pdf/papers/rsih_article.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Done--Frans Fowler (talk) 22:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sect 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Done--Frans Fowler (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Olde English 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thank you,  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Hello again, . 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Disputed