Talk:International Cricket Council

International Cricket Council is avery good governing body which coordinates the international cricket all over the world. the test playing nations are India, Australia, Pakistan, New Zealand, South Africa, England, Zimbawe, Bangladesh.

Shifting to Dubai

The BBC article doesn't say anything about Malcom Speed's tax payments.

New Members 2005

I've added the four new members announced 28 June, 2005: Guernsey, Jersey, Mali, Slovenia, and upgraded the five moved from Affiliate to Associate status: Belgium, Botswana, Japan, Kuwait, and Thailand. Maybe someone can update the map graphic? -dmmaus 28 June 2005 23:00 (UTC)

Also, as mentioned on the map's Image page, France is incorrectly left uncoloured. Loganberry (Talk) 22:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

South Africa

I thought South Africa left the ICC in 1961 as it left the Commonwealth then, and so was not able to be a member. Indeed, the "Tests" they played from that time to 1970 were not recognised as Tests by the ICC at the time (even though everyone else recognised them as Tests). I have therefore changed the date in the table (which was showing 1970), jguk 28 June 2005 23:27 (UTC)

Team names

The links to teams are, currently, a bit of a mess. In some places there are links to [[French cricket team|France]], in others, [[Norwegian Cricket Board|Norway]]. What should we use? I'd prefer the team link, personally, as I think an article on the Norway cricket team (sorry, Pakistan 'G') is much easier to make and write than the article on Norwegian Cricket Board, and can also encompass more. Sam Vimes 21:24, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

It should be linked into the Norwegian cricket team. I was surprised at how much there is on Norwegian cricket in English on the web. I've been busy at work, which has reduced my article-writing (I was hoping to help out more on the English and Sri Lankan cricket seasons and to have completed the 2005 ICC Trophy by now - but there goes). I'm equally surprised you haven't written it yourself, Sam:) jguk 21:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I will get onto it at some point...only there's the Test match in Sri Lanka, two ODIs, NL games, an "ODI" between WI A v SL A and ICC trophy stuff to write...oh yeah, and it should be Norwegian, of course. But you agree that linking to the team in this article is better than linking to the board? At least we're more likely to get blue-links that way Sam Vimes 22:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, as we keep waffling on here, Sidp has been bold, made it all much easier to organise, and rendered this debate fairly useless. Sam Vimes 22:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

National team adjectives

I've changed some of these on the basis of how common they are. In each case I've tested the alternatives with Google simply adding "team" to the end, so that in the first case I compared "Argentinian team" to "Argentine team", found the latter was much more common and so edited. I'm listing the countries I have changed, in case there's a good reason to change any of them back. In each case the option I've chosen is listed in bold. Where the country's correct adjective is actually less common than simply using the noun (as in the case of Mozambique and St Helena) I've simply added a redirect to the noun form.

Associate members

• Argentina: Argentinian 769 hits, Argentine 5,490
• Botswana: Batswana 1, Botswanan 14 (Batswana would seem to apply to the race, not the country.)
• Nepal: Not changed despite "Nepalese" being more common than "Nepali" (by 695-526) as the team article already exists. Instead, I've put a redirect from Nepalese cricket team.
• United States: added redirect from United States cricket team.

Affiliate members

• Afghanistan: Afghani 88, Afghan 578
• Bahamas: added redirect from Bahamian cricket team
• Bhutan: Bhutani 1, Bhutanese 299
• Iran: Irani 119, Iranian 9,340
• Maldives: added redirect from Maldivian cricket team
• Mozambique: added redirect from Mozambican cricket team
• Panama: Panaman 0, Panamanian 273
• Sierra Leone: added redirect from Sierra Leonean cricket team
• St Helena: added redirect from St Helenian cricket team
• Vanuatu: added redirect from Ni-Vanuatu cricket team

Good work there. Now to actually write the things. ;) Sam Vimes 21:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Your wish is my command! Loganberry (Talk) 23:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

What about Harare meeting?

This obviously is no longer "going to occur" in March 2006; I hope that a knowledgeable editor will now update us. Rlquall 00:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

This is a rather confused and unbalanced article which suffers from a lack of proper editorial "grip". Much of the content is random, much of it wrong and too much of it is unsubstantiated by references or citations. Sports Fan 11:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Location

I interviewed ICC officials in the Dubai office who confirmed to me that a benefit of the move to Dubai was to be closer to the Sub-continent, especially India. There is nothing POV about this nor anything remotely contentious! PaddyBriggs 07:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you source it then please? 'Cause alone it looks like it pov, as its as close to the sub-continent from dubia as it is to england.--THUGCHILDz 07:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually Dubai is FAR CLOSER to Mumbai than it is to London and closer still to Karachi and Colombo. Best source is Wisden - I'll dig it out! Regards. PaddyBriggs 07:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

ICC's handling of umpiring controversies

I spent quite a deal of time researching and then writing up a very detailed and thoroughly referenced section about the handling of certain recent umpiring controversies which have reflected adversely on the administration of the ICC. This section was casually deleted in its entirety by THUG.

The ICC has received a great deal of media attention throughout the recent 2007 Cricket World Cup which has focussed on its performance in its role as an ambassador for the game of cricket generally. Rightly or wrongly, the manner in which the ICC is perceived to be handling controversial issues subsequently reflects on the game of cricket.

This material I drafted is relevant subject matter in the context of the Wikipedia article on the ICC and I therefore think a broader discussion is needed on its merits. I have reinstated the material for the consideration and comment of the Wikipedia community and kindly ask that no user unilaterally remove it until its merits can be debated.

I see that one of THUG's comments when he deleted the section was that he did not believe that Umpire Hair has been banned by the ICC. The article which I footnoted refers to the fact that 7 out of the 10 ICC panel members voted to prevent Hair from officiating further but I acknowledge that he was not fired from the job and continues to get paid by the ICC. This however was not the purpose of my comment. If a User thinks that the words can be improved in any way (rather than just being deleted wholesale) please comment accordingly.--Calabraxthis 06:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well first of all, I would like you to get my user name right: it's THUGCHILDz not THUG. Second, this isn't a umpire controversy because the Darrell Hair issue is different from the issue with the final as speed explained in you reference and The disparity of treatment between the two incidents provoked commentators to observe that if an umpire correctly enforces the rules then he may stand to lose his job, but if four officials incorrectly apply the rules in the finale of a globally visible major tournament, the politics of the ICC may nevertheless operate to grant them absolution. is fully pov and is sourced by a comment. Third, There's no motion as of yet against Malcom Speed[1]. This simply doesn't need a section in this article. Things could be added to Malcom Speeds article but this just isn't a big thing as of yet. The Oval controversies is already covered in its respective articles and so is the final's error by the umpire's. The ICC isn't at fault for it as it's the umpires and match referees and there's certainly not much talks about the ICC not handling the situation right, because simply those two aren't related and didn't cause one of the biggest controversies in cricket's history, it was an error but it's not the same level and there's no motion from the national cricket boards as to go with a vote on should the referee and umpires be there or do they have no more confidence in them. Also, the ICC backed Hair up and still gave him appointments even after the vote for him not to umpire at test level. So I don't think it has anything to do with either and this isn't an umpire controveries as such I'll remove it. If anyone else wants to see what the edit was this.--THUGCHILDz 06:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to agree with Thugchildz on this one. The section in its current form should not and cannot be included in the article. It seems very POV and remember, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. However, do some reviewing to remove POV sections and it might become suitable for inclusion. --mdmanser 07:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)