Wikipedia talk:School and university projects/Englishness and Cricket

Preparing to Bowl

Let the games begin!

Game on LuigiM227 (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Can I take this course?!

) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Jon! (Simon) Simon1252 is the instructor of the course. He already inspired me to watch Fire in Babylon. --Oline73 (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

FIrst, Hofstra students -- then, THE WORLD!! :) Simon1252 (talk) 15:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Cricket As a Civilizing Force in England

In Chapter One of Globalizing Cricket, Malcom uses the word "sportization" to describe the process by which older games evolve into modern sports. These modern sports developed new rules that required less violence in the game. This sportization of cricket happened around the same time as the "parliamentarization" of Britain. Parliamentarization marked the end of a "cycle of violence" in England after the English Civil War. Non-violent and peaceful means of discussing political issues began to emerge, as a result. Malcom explicitly noted that parliamentization did not cause sportization, and vice versa. Instead, they corresponded with each other and affected the same, overlapping groups of people. According to Malcom, it is important to emphasize the construction of written rules, on the social classes of the people who made these rules, and how affective those rules were in the decrease of violence in games. It is for these reasons that I ultimately believe that cricket did contribute to the civilization of England. MeghanV201 (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Following the English Civil War , some of the English had grown tired of violence and instability surrounding them. Cricket became the perfect escape for this, as it was considered to be a dignified sport that a gentleman could play without concern of his reputation. The 'Warrior Nobility' had lost popularity and power, and so cricket, a sport that had been played in small towns for centuries, began to go through 'sportization', a process through which is began to gain official rules and regulations. This change coincided with the process of parliamentarization. Although these two movements were not caused by one another, they tended to appeal to the same group of people, and so they often attracted the same audience. The shared audience explains why cricket has 'clubs' instead of 'teams', and 'laws' instead of 'rules'.

I agree with what Meghan has said. I would definitely say that the the formalization of cricket, adding 'laws' and 'clubs', was a sign of a maturing England. One that was growing tired of constantly being at war with others. They wanted to have a dignified sport that could be respected, one where the rules and consequences were clear. Malcolm makes it clear in chapter one that the English were attempting to find a way to peacefully settle conflicts in the eighteenth century using discourse and discussion rather than attempting to force their views down other peoples throats by using violence to 'prove their point'. Obviously cricket wasn't perfect right away, and players got hurt, but as time went on and safety rules were developed, the rate of injury went down. It seemed (for that time at least), that people were less interested with bloody sports than ever before. KLudwin16 (talk) 01:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Cricket and the Parliamentary System

The landed class of England seemed to dominate the culture of cricket during its inception. Due to their unity an involvement together, the Aristocracy became increasingly involved in competitions. The articles also discuss how, as the parliamentary system of government developed, cricket developed alongside it. Having a parliament meant that internal disputes could be resolved in a nonviolent fashion through debate and discourse. This aspect of political life, according to the articles, was transferred to the aristocratic social life, where they competed for higher social status through nonviolent means. The article seems to contradict itself at first as it mentions that violence was very prevalent in early cricket matches, which is not consistent with a nonviolent form of social competition. However, it begins to make sense as the article lets time pass and mentions all the rules and restrictions put in place to lessen violent episodes. As the parliamentary system became more established and better understood, violence became less common during cricket matches.

It seems as though neither truly had an affect on the other, but they are rather similar results of the same aristocratic trend manifesting themselves in different areas of English life.

JFrye61 (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I also mentioned how cricket is a civilizing force in England. While sports and politics did not influence each other, they developed side by side. I agree with JFrye61's analysis. I wrote about a similar topic on the Cricket in England page under a new subheading "Cricket in Society." Cricket was an exercise of civility and teamwork that extending into the political system. As England's parliamentary system grew stronger, so did the refinement of their sports with complex methods of playing and thorough rules. Julesaj11 (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Englishness and National Identity

Over the duration of this course, we are trying to establish what elements come together to define Englishness. In chapter two of Globalizing Cricket – Englishness, Empire and Identity, author Dominic Malcolm opens up his discussion of Cricket as quintessentially English with a more general discussion of what creates national identity itself. He states that these elements that form the basis of national identity “may be biological (leading to ethnic nationalism) or cultural (civic nationalism) but they are always somewhat arbitrary, identifying certain commonalties as significant” (p31). In specific relationship to Englishness, Malcolm sites the use of ‘British’ and ‘English’ as synonyms and therefore “conflated entities.” Additionally, he believes that because England has been so allied to British imperialism it has since been “defined by inclusion and expansion rather then by exclusion and inwardness.”

The emergence of Englishness can then be broken down between two perspectives: that of the ‘modernists’ and that of the ‘ethicists’. Modernists hold that “nationalism is a cultural and political ideology produced by modernity.” In turn, ethicists believe that “nationalism require a sense of common history, unifying myths and symbols, and cultural practices characteristic of ethno-cultural communities” (p32). Personally, I believe that in today’s global society it is impossible to limit a sense of national identity to one specific ethnicity. But that does not mean that there is not a shared culture amongst those who consider themselves English. It seems that the simple answer may be to consider the Anglo-Saxon version of English ethnicity to be the most accurate. But as explained in the legend of King Arthur, even the Anglo-Saxon’s were immigrants to the British Isles. Instead, I tend to agree with the modernist perspective that English individuals share a culture in the legends of how the nation developed before it was a part of Great Britain, and in its diverse ethnic make-up from the time of imperialism and into the modern-age.

Jbenes4 (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Is cricket a reflection of a former Englishness or a modern Englishness?

In chapter I, Malcolm explains that cricket was once an intensely violent game. Players would often engage in acts of violence, and even spectators would become hostile under certain circumstances. Most instances of violence were the result of matches that did finish the way one side had expected. The shame of both the players and the spectators who lost was only exasperated by losses they suffered from their bets. Malcolm retails of a match in the Chelsea Common in 1731 that was ended prematurely because of a fight that had broken out “over a disputed wager”. With quick implementation of rules or laws these violent outbreaks were slowly reduced; however, the laws of cricket still permitted gambling until 1884. Interestingly, by the beginning of the nineteenth century, some fervent supporters of cricket actively repressed this aspect of cricket as well as English history. Not surprisingly, these supporters were also opposed to the advent of industrialization in England, which is similar to sentiments shared by other advocates of English national identity such as H.V. Morton. These gentlemen, Nyren and Pycroft for example, felt that this new world that was emerging was in direct opposition to what they perceived to be English, and could even be a threat to tits existence. Therefore, they sought to redefine cricket in order to preserve its “English” characteristics. What affects this redefinition of cricket has produced not only on English culture, but also on the cultures most closely associated with it, e.g. former colonies, would be an interesting choice of study. I suppose that by doing so modern cricket exists as it does because of such efforts. Can it be said that the forerunners of cricket were ultimately successful in preserving their England within cricket, or did they unwittingly irreversibly alter the definition of cricket, and therefore Englishness contrary to what they had planned? JHCRosero (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Allen Guttmann, author of From Ritual to Record: The Nature of Modern Sports, put forth several characteristics that distinguish pre-1750s sports to modern sports. Among those criteria are:

1) Secularism: modern sports are not related to "formal" aspects of religious worship

2) Equality: modern sports stress equal opportunity, not only in participation, but in the idea of a "level playing field"

3) Specialization: modern sports expect elite participants to specialize in certain positions (i.e. linebacker)

4) Bureaucratization: modern sports not spontaneously organized

5) Rationalization: modern sports structured in "purpose-built venues" with increased environmental control, regulated instrumentation and participants prepared using "latent scientific techniques and knowledge" (stadiums, rather than on the street)

6) Quantification: actions are translated into numeral data (i.e. quarterback rating)

7) Quest for Record: modern sport participants expected to "increasingly advance performance by which the progression of humanity can be seen."

According to those characteristics, cricket is only "modern" in the sense that it follows the first four criteria. However, cricket does not follow the "rationalization" aspect of the game since cricket has multiple game forms (i.e. Twenty20, 50 overs) and many of the teams represent either rural towns or "sub- or supra-nation-states." Furthermore cricket games are not standardized or regulated to a large extent. Not only do they have differing game lengths, some games occur at night, under artificial lights, as opposed to day matches. Or some shorter games utilize a white ball instead of a red, which has been speculated to behave differently. Even the wicket (playing field) has not been entirely standardized, with maximum and minimum measurements set forth, but not regulated. Also specialization is not necessarily stressed in cricket, with some players playing only Twenty20 matches, but the great majority playing all forms of the game, and players are expected fill a variety of roles on the field. All of these factors, lead to the presence of inequality in the playing of cricket, therefore violating the second criteria to some degree.

Therefore according to Guttmann cricket is modern in some sense of the word, but also unmodern in other ways. But categorizing cricket as either former or modern English does not take into account the evolution of the game in context of a changing England and idea of Englishness. So-Van51 (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Violence in Cricket

Hi everyone! I've added a section on the History of cricket (1726-1763) page about violence in cricket. This was very interesting to me since Malcom began chapter 1 (I believe it was also in some of the introduction) by discussing how cricket was a sport that really built "civilization" in England and Englishness. Clearly, and as he also states, cricket is seen as a "genteel" sport, and still is viewed today as a gentleman's sport with many rules that make it seem prim and proper. However, the history of cricket's first emergence seemed to suggest the opposite--there was quite a bit of violence, injury, and even death that occurred! I look forward to discussing this with you tomorrow! Aependleton29 (talk) 03:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

After reading just the introduction and chapter 1, I was surprised to see how many contradictions there are in cricket in regards to the violence and the image cricket portrays, at least in its early years. It is supposed to be a "civilizing" and "genteel" game, as Anna says, but the behavior of players and spectators seemed to be brutish. I also found it interesting that for a game that is the origin of phrases about fairness (such as playing with a straight bat), it was very unfair. On page 6 of the introduction, Malcom describes all of the ways cricket is not fair and how it is un-modern. Nicolex711 (talk) 14:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I expanded the section called "Cricket in Society", which is part of the "Cricket in England" page because I thought this subject was really interesting. Also, that section talked a little bit about the beginnings of Cricket, but had no mention of the period in which it was really violent and I really thought this needed to be included in there. Annabel392 (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Origins of Cricket

I added a paragraph to the History of cricket to 1725 page to the "Theories of origin" section. The section really only discussed one theory of origin, but in the introduction to the book I found it interesting that it is not very clear where cricket truly originated. The various sports with different similarities to cricket suggest that it may have had more of a worldwide origin, collecting pieces here and there and putting them together to form what we now know as modern cricket. --Mollykluba (talk) 05:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Citing Sources

Everything you post in Wikipedia should be verifiable, so in the event of a dispute, people can examine your source and support one side of the debate or the other. "A good rule of thumb is that one footnote after a sentence is almost always sufficient," via Citation overkill. Recruiting other people (like classmates in this project) to join the discussion and help verify your edits is the way to ensure that your edits stay. --Oline73 (talk) 13:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Cricket and English Identity Through Literature

I added to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_national_identity#Englishness_as_described_by_Dominic_Malcolm_in_Globalizing_Cricket_.E2.80.93_Englishness.2C_Empire_and_Identity writing about how cricket becoming a part of English identity was due in part to its presence in literature linking it to national identity. Nicolex711 (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Women in Cricket

I find it interesting that Malcolm briefly mentions women in cricket in the introduction, and even while referring to cricket players used he/she sometimes. However, looking at the table of content of the book there does not seem to be a chapter about women, and from our readings so far they are not mentioned again. Malcolm talks about cricket being used as a way to "other" certain cultures and people in chapter 2, I wonder how women were integrated into the sport and the attitude towards that, since women are a group that are usually seen as "others." Nicolex711 (talk) 16:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I thought this was a very interesting topic as well. On page 17 (Chapter 1) Malcolm says that, "Notices also indicate that the participation of women was not uncommon". I'm wondering how they participated, if their versions of the game were considerably different or not, and whether they played with men on the same field or had separate women's games (although I'm assuming they did). Annabel392 (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The Laws of Cricket

I, too, have edited on the article History of cricket (1726–1763). I added onto the section on "The Laws of Cricket". I talked about violence and gambling by saying how it influenced in creating the laws. I also commented on how the creation, by aristocrats, of these laws made it evident of the status competition in cricket which Malcolm discusses on pages 20-21.Mvictoria93 (talk) 16:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Individualism of Cricket

In the Introduction, Malcolm addresses how cricket is a strange sort of team sport because so much of the game is players performing as individuals. He addresses how important the captain is to the team in terms of decision making, claiming that there is no other sport where the captain is as important as he is in cricket. This individualistic nature of the game reminded me of the conversations we had while watching the film Chariots of Fire and makes me wonder whether individual players are seeking fame nationally as a team or individually as players. I would like to edit the main cricket page to further address the individual play aspect of cricket, but was not allowed to edit the page. Did anyone else have a similar problem? BrittanyW1220 (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC) BrittanyW1220

The article is semi-protected; it is likely that if you make a few more edits on other pages over the next few days that you would be able to edit that page before the end of the week. Harrias ^talk 17:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Harrias semi-protected is supposed to prevent anonymous users from vandalizing the page, no? Why would registered users making good-faith edits be prevented from editing? Oline73 (talk) 01:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It prevents anonymous and new editors from editing; normally after a small number of edits, and a few days, an editor will gain the permission needed to edit a semi-protected page. Harrias ^talk 23:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I've included a new subhead in the Cricket in the West Indies page. There was very little discussion of the societal impact of the game in the colonized areas, or the tension during games post-colonization. Also, I briefly discussed the importance of Cricket overcoming segregation when playing against West Indies teams. Julesaj11 (talk) 16:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The Duckworth-Lewis Method

I contributed a bit to this page about the band and some of their individual songs. However, it would be extremely helpful if I knew how to add a new page/link because I wanted to make a new page for every song. Each song has a lot of symbolism and meaning in them and I would like to research them and explain them. Taylormcallister17 (talk) 19:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Taylor, if you search for a title of an article and one doesn't exist, you'll come to a page with that article title as a red link. Just click the link and start the page. It's frowned upon to start a page with incomplete or disorganized content though, so it might be good to write a basic version in your "sandbox" or add a section on the project's talk page to help get feedback and collaborators before posting it live. Starter articles tend to get deleted quickly, usually by a bot. It helps to recruit collaborators to hunt down quality sources and assist in copy editing, etc. Also, you may want to add the article with (song) in the title so it is less ambiguous.--Oline73 (talk) 05:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Just a small, but important correction - articles are never deleted by a bot, there is always a person, actually a number of people, involved in the decision. Roger (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Signing edits and use of English

Could I please point out to all the editors taking part in this project that edits made to articles should not be signed, only edits to talk pages. I will also take the time to ask that editors use British-English when editing articles relating to cricket, as that is the appropriate language for almost all the articles concerned. Harrias ^talk 22:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance, Harrias. Is there a page with common differences between British-English and American-English?--Oline73 (talk) 05:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR gives a basic guideline. I seem to recall that there is a list somewhere, but I can't find it at the moment. A Google search will bring up a fair number of external websites with a list of common differences though. Harrias ^talk 08:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Note that there are a large number of articles about cricket and cricketers written in other varieties of English; Australian, Indian, South African, Carribean, etc. The "close national ties" clause in WP:ENGVAR is particularly relevant. Roger (talk) 14:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit Wars and Civility

I just wanted to say I'm impressed with the activity of this class. I'm just here to help your instructor with this project, but I am following the events closely. I know it can be frustrating to have edits reverted, but hang in there. This is a learning experience for all of us and I'm happy to see that you are all demonstrating good judgement in your communication with outside administrators and editors. It is difficult to get edits to "stick" on well-established articles that have reached a level of maturity. Work to make a case on the talk pages and treat the inclusion of minor edits on article pages as big victories, because they are. Also, please keep in mind that not everyone uses diplomatic language in their communication here, so please don't take the bait and let yourself get dragged into a flame war. If someone responds to your edits or on your talk page in a rude or disrespectful manner, you can let me know by adding a message to my talk page: talk:oline73. This link may also be helpful when dealing with a combative editor of your work: Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot. It's always best to take the high road, as you have been doing so far. Think of this whole project as a way to learn to defend your work with facts, sources and reasoned arguments. Justifying your contributions and defending your sources is a terrific way to create lasting memories of the course material and I look forward to learning with you all. Keep up the good work!--Oline73 (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

This is all wise observation and good advice, by the way. :) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:ANI etc.

Just for the record, there were questions raised about this project at ANI and the education noticeboard. Something like referring it to the third umpire. It's just that nobody bothered to inform you. But it's OK: Not Out. Play on. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Jon. we appreciate your advocacy! --Oline73 (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

This WikiProject is problematic

There already is a WikiProject for Cricket, but the main problem is that as this is an academic project it is supposed to be registered and situated under WP:School and university projects. That Project page contains information, guidance and rules for projects such as this. Please seek their assistance to resolve the problem. Roger (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I agree that it probably is a good idea to add this course to WP:School and university projects--mostly for the sake of documentation. But in fact there's no one way of doing things. In the past, sometimes course projects have set themselves up as Wikiprojects; sometimes they haven't. I don't see any particular problem to be resolved here. This project doesn't in anyway claim to replace or compete with Wikiproject Cricket, as should be completely clear. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Credible sources

If your course is going to teach you anything about cricket or about "Englishness", you need to use credible sources. The book by Malcolm has no credibility as pointed out at Talk:History of cricket to 1725. He uses one source (Lang) which has been disparaged or simply ignored by all subject experts and he misuses another source (Bowen) by citing some of his wilder views that are now discredited. This means that, like Lang a century ago, he is a sensation-monger whose views do not hold water. As such, any edit that cites his book will be reverted per WP:RS. If you look at the talk page in question and the revised article, you will see the names of authors your tutor should be asking you to read. If you hope to learn anything about cricket, you are wasting your time without credible sources, not to mention the disruption you are causing to our articles. As for "Englishness", which part of England are you studying? England is and always has been a multi-faceted society; Yorkshire for example is virtually a foreign country vis-à-vis the southeast. How do you assess the "Englishness" (what a stupid term that is) of a scouser or a geordie or a brummie, if you even know what those are? You really do need to tell your tutor to get his act together and find you some books that will actually teach you something. What a shambles (and that's a good English word you can learn). ----Jack | ^{talk page} 01:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not associated with this class in any way, but I strongly suspect that it is precisely the problematic, changing, and contested nature of "Englishness" that is being interrogated within it. As one might expect from reading a project that takes an Irish band to illuminate the issue. As such, while these are good points, I suspect that you are giving far too little credit to the class and its instructor.

Beyond that, yes, obviously the reliability of any source should be considered carefully. I have no particular dog in this fight, but Malcolm's book certainly looks like a reliable source to me. It is published by an academic press, as part of a series on globalization and sport. It's certainly a far better source than most I see around here. If you disagree, the place to take the dispute is the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.

Of course (and you may want to read WP:RS on this), the fact that a source is reliable is no guarantee that it is correct. And undoubtedly there are often arguments, sometimes strong arguments, in academia as well as elsewhere, in which opposing arguments are disparaged or subject to critique on various grounds. If the argument made by a source is controversial, then that should be duly noted here. But it should not be eliminated merely because others (or you) happen to disagree with it. That is very unencyclopedic.

In short, the debates and the issues that you raise are eminently suitable for academic discussion, but are not particularly germane to Wikipedia. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

And I have saved you the effort by taking the matter to the right venue myself. Your thoughts there are welcomed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

User:jbmurrayThanks for bringing the discussion to the reliable source page and here as well. Jack, While I understand your points about some of the sources we're discussing, I believe the message is being buried under a disputatious and disrespectful tone. I'm not going to debate your message above point-by-point, but I will politely ask that you discontinue this approach. The students and instructor in this project would have gladly entertained your ideas (and possibly agreed with many of your arguments) if the tone was more civil and professional. I don't question your passion for the articles on Cricket. I don't question your knowledge of the history either. I do question your approach here if for no other reason than it is counter-productive to your goals. Calling this a "shambles," calling student edits "garbage," and "nonsensical," and questioning how much a professor knows about his home country (without even asking if he is in fact, English) is totally out of line. Your commentary on the course is out of the purview of your role on Wikipedia and it is inexplicably combative. Maybe I'm wrong, but I assume your goal as an editor is to use Wikipedia to help educate people about Cricket. If that is true, I would think you would welcome an opportunity to encourage learning, debate and thought.

It seems that your goal is simply to shut out other voices and discourage students (or anyone not in your project) from contributing to the Cricket pages. The responses from the students, the professor, other editors and myself have been cordial, inquisitive and open-minded, but we are not receiving the same in return from you. So far, our students (and others) have made a case for why Malcolm and other sources are both verifiable and reliable as per Wikipedia's standards (see links above). You have made allusions to these sources being discredited, but have not produced evidence backing up these claims. It would be helpful to everyone involved if you would cite specific, verifiable, reliable sources to make your argument about either Malcolm, Bowen or Lang. I presented facts on the links above as to why I feel these works deserve inclusion to some degree and I am hopeful that you can make reasoned counter-arguments (based on cited sources) to my claims. If you can prove through cited material that each of the books you don't like deserve further scrutiny from the students in this project, more power to you. That would certainly be helpful. I'll ask again as politely as possible that you refrain from personal attacks, attacks on the course associated with this Wikipedia project and continue this conversation in a respectful and inclusive manner. --Oline73 (talk) 13:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I am more than happy for anyone to make correct and credible edits based on recognised sources. I have already pointed out the list of sports provided by MollyKluba is useful and can be added to hurling, golf, baseball, etc. The problem in History of cricket to 1725 was the dogmatic use of Lang's "theory" which has been presented as not merely plausible but verging on fact. I have taken pains to outline the names of recognised subject experts and authorities who take a consensus view of origin and I have explained what that view is as well as providing citations where I have these to hand (I could provide more but can't at present cite page numbers). In addition, I have cited one authority who is online (so you can read it yourself) and who politely dismisses Lang's views as "idiosyncratic".

I have come across another example of Malcolm's unreliability. Assuming your students are quoting him correctly, he has apparently stated that a certain condition was included in a set of laws written in 1727. This is completely incorrect. For a start the "laws" were known as Articles of Agreement and the alleged statement is NOT included: the articles are reproduced in full in the WP article. On that basis also, evident presentation of false information, the source is unreliable.

The impact of your project on these articles, into which a lot of work has been done, is disruptive. I know the edits are in good faith but you are using material that contradicts recognised authorities and you are also applying undue weight to these "theories". The way that the origin section is written now takes due account of the fact that "alternative views" have been expressed but emphasises the consensus and makes clear that Lang in particular is discredited. By the way, I don't understand your focus on Bowen: the problem there as CDTPP pointed out is that Malcolm has misconstrued Bowen's views and made something out nothing. Bowen produced an excellent book fifty years ago but much of it has become outdated in the light of subsequent research and analysis: even so, where it has been cited by ourselves it remains valid. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 16:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Going forward, I would recommend using the talk pages on the various Cricket-related articles to explain these issues to anyone who makes an edit you think is inconsistent with the facts. I'm sure you'd agree that no author (including people who write articles on Wikipedia) gets things right 100% of the time. Finding factual errors in a book does not make the author an unreliable source. If someone cites the author and quotes a specific passage that is factually incorrect, I think anyone of us is justified in removing the edit and explaining (with sources to back-up the argument) why it was removed. I also realize that some of the articles we are both editing are up for review. Some of the criteria for an upgrade in class may not have been met yet, so I think it would be a great use of this medium to point out which areas of the articles need improvement. If there are certain portions of the articles that you feel are reasonably "complete" but other sections that need specific additions or rewrites, please explain that on the talk pages involved and maybe we can help you fix the issues and fill in the blanks. Thanks again for clarifying. --Oline73 (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Cricket in the Caribbean

I added on to JHCRosero's additions in the section "Expansion of Cricket" in the article Cricket in the West Indies. I added more about how the segregation continued as inter-island competition came about. I don't think I did my citations correctly though - could use some help fixing them! It created a new citation every time I cited the same source and I'm not sure how to fix that. (whoops, wasn't logged in - the edits on here and on the West Indies page by 147.4.36.65 are me!) --Mollykluba (talk) 03:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I also did some work on the Cricket in the West Indies page. If someone could explain how to cite sources, that would be super helpful. KLudwin16 (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

A suggestion from an uninvolved Wikipedian

The movie Lagaan may be of interest to participants in this project. A cricket match is the vehicle for the "liberation" of poor Indian villagers from oppressive taxes imposed by the cruel British colonial regime. Roger (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Roger, we appreciate the tip! --Oline73 (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Among the themes in the movie that I found interesting are many dialectics which resonate with the culture of cricket: gentlemen/peasants (resonates with the traditional English "manor versus village" matches), coloniser/colonised, gentleman/scoundrel (role inversion where the supposed gentleman is the scoundrel and the rough uneducated peasant turns out to be the gentleman), fair play/cheating, Enlishmen/"natives", rule of law/whim of the ruler (both the tax laws and the laws of cricket). I saw the movie about ten years ago but it made a lasting impression on me. Hope you find this useful. Roger (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Cricket in America

Hello. I added onto the Wikipedia article "Cricket in the United States": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cricket_in_the_United_States. I added a bit under the History section.Mvictoria93 (talk) 16:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

A suggestion from a Wikipedian

The life and history of Ranjitsinhji is a fascinating (and well studied) case study of the Victorians having to adjust their ideas of what is meant by an "English"man, because of the cricketing prowess of an Indian prince who played for England. And if I say so myself, we have a pretty good biography article on him. Check out the references in the article for further reading on the topic in general, not just "Ranji" himself. --Dweller (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, Dweller, I appreciate it. --Oline73 (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

To add to Dweller's suggestion, the book on Ranjitsinhji by Satadru Sen in "Further reading" is an academic study rather than a cricket book, which I suspect may really tick the boxes you are looking for. As I've also said in a few places, Beyond a Boundary is a book which I think would be invaluable for what you are trying to do here. It is all about the identity (for want of a better description) of West Indian, and particularly Trinidadian cricket, and how "English" ideas were adapted there. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:SANDBOX

Given that your "project" is experimental, why aren't you using sandboxes to create your edits? You can copy an article into a sandbox and then make edits to your heart's content for the purposes of your exercise without disrupting existing articles which have been created for the benefit of the readers. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 17:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Users are using the sandbox to experiment and test the markup tags they are learning. This was already addressed and implemented, but we thank you for making that suggestion. Once they know how to use the correct markup tags, they discuss content edit ideas on the talk page for this project and for the talk pages on individual articles. Oline73 (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

And given that your project is limited term, why don't you keep the edits in userspace only (e.g., sandbox) so that you do not disrupt articles that have been subject to years of work by people who know the subject? This whole project as such is essentially experimental and it should not in any way impact "live" pages. If you are marking people's work, you can do that in a sandbox just as easily. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 19:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you would make that suggestion. Doesn't that defeat the whole point of doing work on a wiki? If you only want the people in your group to be able to edit a document, why not move the Cricket project offline to a private google doc or write a book or and article for a magazine? Why not spend your time working on something that others can not edit, if you object to the very idea of multiple editors? I applaud your efforts to research and write about Cricket, but if you don't want collaborators a wiki is a poor choice of platform for your work. Anyone, including anonymous users should be, and in fact are, free to edit pages on Wikipedia. I believe that is the point of a wiki. If this anti-wiki sentiment is the basis of this whole situation, I apologize but Wikipedia is not a closed system by design. If I misunderstood your comment above, please clarify. Thanks. --Oline73 (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I can only suggest you read again what I have written above. Your involvement here is non-standard as you are not seeking to improve the articles but instead to use them for the purposes of a college course assignment. Articles are for the benefit of the readers and not for experimental purposes and your activity amounts to an experiment. So, any article you want to work with and mark, copy it into a sandbox or other userspace to give your students freedom of editing without the risk of project members reverting or overwriting their work. You are showing no consideration for the readers or for serious editors who have to clean up your inevitable errors. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 19:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure where you got the idea that we are not trying to improve the articles. It is clear that the students are working to improve the articles, even if you disagree that some of their edits are not improvements. We expect there to be give-and-take and pushback on certain edits. In fact, that is one of the reason people choose to edit Wikipedia, so that they have to defend facts that in another setting would go uncontested. Anyone can edit or revert anyone else's work on an open, public wiki like Wikipedia so the freedom of editing without risk is the opposite of what Wikipedia is all about. The only experiment here is whether or not students can learn about various subjects by constructing Wikipedia.

I strongly disagree that students looking to improve articles are somehow being inconsiderate. I am also not sure what you mean by "serious editors." I think you would agree that the students have exemplified the 5 pillars of Wikipedia as well or better than any of the editors on the pages. They haven't violated copyright, they've expressed a neutral point of view and most importantly, they have interacted in a respectful and civil manner. In addition they are doing good research and putting serious thought into how things should be phrased, what new sections are needed and a host of other serious editing tasks. Hopefully we can put this issue to rest and carry on with editing, writing and civilly discussing each others' work. Thanks for your feedback. Oline73 (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Page moved/renamed

I have renamed this page (on wikipedia we call it moving the page, as the old title still exists, but as a redirect to this one). Almost anyone can move most pages, but it is generally best to ask or do a requested move for anything contentious. I removed the word WikiProject from the title as I, and a few others, interpreted it as implying a link with the Wikipedia: WikiProject Cricket. As you can see from the above few posts, we are happy to help and answer questions, but this should be seen as being separate. Good luck with the class. Pity you didn't do the class a few years ago, as back then Englishness and cricket meant dispair, depression and disappointment. The-Pope (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Strange then that you did not follow your own advice and ask or do a requested move! Anyhow, I've moved it to the title "Wikiproject: Englishness and Cricket." I hope this resolves any difficulties you had with the previous title.

(Me, I miss the days when watching English cricket perpetually involved despair, depression, and disappointment. It's just not the same these days, however much the team tried on the first day of the most recent NZ test.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, The-Pope. Did a member of our project request the move? I am not sure why this was done (especially without consensus). Multiple users User:The Interior and User:jbmurray agreed the idea had no merit, so until we reach consensus and are brought into the decision making process, please revert the name.-- Oline73 (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It's certainly true that The-Pope went against consensus. But if he's happy with the current name (Englishness and Cricket), rather than some kind of move-war, let's stick with that, I suggest. There are more important things in this world. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

My reasons for "not following my own advice" and "moving against consensus" is that my advice was for the new editors, the students. I consider my experience in WikiProject matters to be extensive enough to allow me to be bold and just do it. The dissenting voices were not WikiProject Cricket members/regulars, so I felt there was enough polite questioning of the existence of the page in various locations to warrant its move. So no, a member of your project didn't request it, members of WP:CRIC did, and wanted you to move out of your ambiguous/misleading original location. You might consider this a bit of an OWN issue, but i think having some ownership of your Wikipedia:WikiProject namespace is not a bad thing.

To me, having done a lot of work on the role WikiProjects play in cleanup, categorisation etc, classes like this should not be labeled WikiProjects. Someone posted a generic definition of something like "a WikiProject being a group of people working collaboratively on a common theme or topic". However, I, and I'm sure the WikiProject Council and the WP:1.0 team would probably also add to that "with a defined article quality-class and/or importance rating system". The namespace setup also probably doesn't help by not having a dedicated WikiProject namespace. Having one or two of these mini or pseudo projects isn't a problem but it would get very messy very quickly if every college class started creating mini or pseudo projects. I understand that the page name is just a side issue to the other issues you are having, but I hope you can see that there is some reason for not wanting the Wikipedia:WikiProject prefix filled with "non-official" or partially developed WikiProjects. The-Pope (talk) 22:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Just a note, that "generic" definition was not my own, but the one found at WP:WikiProject. I see no positive outcome from limiting WikiProjects to something with a " defined article quality-class and/or importance rating system". There are many ways to improve articles on a subject area besides the article ratings. In the Projects I'm active in, the talk page is the crux - that's were people come together to work and discuss. I define a WikiProject by its participation - if it's got people, and they're working together, it's a legit WikiProject. There's no process for approving a Wp, so "non-official" isn't really a useful term. The Interior (Talk) 23:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The-Pope missed out probably the ultimate example of English depths of cricketing incompetence: The Summer of Four Captains. It's one of Wikipedia's "Featured Articles", ie it has been peer-reviewed as being of the highest quality. --Dweller (talk) 12:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Note, on the naming issue, I have started a bigger picture discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Should the "Wikipedia:WikiProject" prefix be reserved for "full projects/sub projects/task groups" or any gathering?. Any input or opinions would be appreciated. The-Pope (talk) 03:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Although I don't think it's worth arguing over at this point, I find it inappropriate that someone would conduct an obviously contentious page move unilaterally. I agree that course projects are, at this point, generally best conducted via the course extension, though this is not at all the first course project set up as a Wikiproject, but all of that is besides the point. If you come across a situation like this again, please act differently. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

If it was an article name, I'd agree. As it was effectively "cybersquatting" in a well-established WikiProject space, I will act the same way every time. Surely project members can control their own project space. The-Pope (talk) 05:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Unless I'm misreading the move log, this was never in the space of Wikiproject Cricket. "WikiProject Cricket and Englishness" is not the same as "WikiProject Cricket/Englishness." No Wikiproject has a unilateral monopoly on every word in their name. I don't want to push this issue because the professor/ambassador involved as well as jbmurray don't want to push it, but seriously, unilaterally making a contentious move is never a good idea. "It could be confused with Wikiproject Cricket" would be a good reason to start a RM (and I agree, it probably should've been renamed,) but it's not a good justification to make a contentious move unilaterally. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The consensus here seems pretty clear that we don't want "instruction creep" restricting what group efforts can and can't describe themselves as Wikiprojects. As such, and as I indicated I would here, I've moved this page back. I don't think it's necessary, but nonetheless in deference to the sensibilities of Wikiproject Cricket members, should they really fear any confusion, I've moved it to the name "Wikiproject Englishness and Cricket" rather than "Wikiproject Cricket and Englishness." --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

ANI discussion

With some reluctance, I have taken some of the issues raised here to ANI. Anyone is invited to comment there. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Societal impact of cricket in the West Indies

Hey guys, just posting here so the class knows I added a few paragraphs about the societal impact of cricket in the West Indies on this page Cricket in the West Indies if anyone wants to take a look.

Jbenes4 (talk) 13:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I just come from Cricket in the West Indies. Curious as to what goes here. College assignment using wiki articles, right? But, hey, are you guys only using a single source? That's not cool. Especially a new book. Okay, your edits are into the WI racial question and, my view, you're getting out of line. A lot of reverts and amends already. You want to follow that line, you have to use CLR James. His book is mandatory, okay? But I'm interested in your concept. Will see what else you've done and come back later. --Marco (talk) 07:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Malcolm

I promised to follow up on my comments at RSN.

:The actual text of Malcolm is -

In the 1755 laws, provision was made to allow an injured batter to retire and to resume his/her innings at a later time (a further indication that such injuries were relatively common), but not to be replaced or substituted. Presumably due to the suspicion that such a regulation would be flouted (and the ramifications this would have for bets placed on matches), an additional law decreed that the umpires were to be judges ‘of all frivolous Delays; of all Hurt, whether real or pretended’ (Rait Kerr 1950: 97–98). Globalizing Cricket: Englishness, Empire and Identity, Dominic Malcolm

So the volume does not make the claim that this appeared in the 1927 agreement. Rich Farmbrough, 22:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC).

I will attempt to check my copy of Rait Kerr within a few days. Rich Farmbrough, 22:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC).

Since that is archived I will confirm here that this is a reference to the facsimile of the 1755 booklet "The game of Cricket as settled by the several cricket-clubs particularly that of the Star and Garter in Pall-Mall. Rich Farmbrough, 15:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC).

Thanks for this. I have always suspected that the issue was more a matter of misreading the book than the book itself. But as I don't have the book myself (some parts of which but not all are available on Google books) I hadn't been able to check. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)