Talk:Rutgers University

Contents

1 Images 2 1174 or 1774? 3 Redundancy? 4 Football 4.1 Poll on football content 5 1993 WTC bombing

Images

If official university photographs are considered copyright violations, should that also extend to the scan of the drawing of Old Queen's? While the drawing itself might not be copyrighted, my understanding of copyright law is that the scan itself is. This would be analogous to copyrighting an edition of an uncopyrighted text. I might be wrong but it seems as if the drawing is taken from the Rutgers Timeline website, which would garner the same protection as would an original photograph. —csswasey Tue Nov 23 2004 7:39 AM

• The difference being I first got permission in writing to use the Old Queens drawing. You, in your instance, did not. —ExplorerCDT 04:53, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1174 or 1774?

It admitted its first students in 1771 and granted its first degree in 1174.

How is this possible? --cprompt

The 1174 has to be a typo. I believe it was 1774

didn't it go out of business AGAIN in the 1930s and was then bought by the state of New Jersey? If yes, that should be part of the article as well... Hwarwick 7/6/04 (class of 81!)

No, it did not. --ExplorerCDT 11:17, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely not. There is no truth to that, in any way what-so-ever. Rutgers entered into a compact to become the state university with the state of New Jersey in 1956, but even now the Trustees still "own" the school, its land, and any buildings or other property in existence before 1956. —csswasey 16 November 2004

As a followup, the relationship between Rutgers and New Jersey can be thought of as one in which the Trustees own the school and the Governors administrate it as the state university. It's more complicated than that since the Trustees really only legally control everything in existence before 1956, but this is the general gist of things. Legally, it is possible for either party to withdraw from the compact, per the Rutgers Act. Such an eventuality, the chances of which are infinitesimally small, would be nightmarish due to the present-day patchwork of state and trustee owned buildings and property. —csswasey 01:14, 17 November 2004

Redundancy?

How many times does this article have to say that the school was chartered as Queen's College in 1766? Or that the institution was affiliated with the Dutch Reformed Church? Once is enough. It's not necessary to include those facts both in the introduction and in the history section. Darkcore 19:28, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• I give you the DRC repeat. I didn't see where you moved it last week. However, if you can't count, the point of it being established as Queen's College in 1766 is mentioned twice, once in the intro, and in the history section. If you're going to say "eighth oldest institution of higher learning" you qualify that remark. There's nothing wrong with restating this when explaining the history in depth. Is twice too much? Certainly not. Three times? Perhaps. But there isn't a third mention. Methinks you doth protest too much! --ExplorerCDT 19:46, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Football

I have put the image of the 1882 team in to the Football#Canadian and American football but there is an inconsistency between what is said there:

The first match generally said to have occurred under English FA (soccer) rules in the USA was a game between Princeton and Rutgers in 1869. The rivalry between the two colleges has persisted ever since and many people consider this to be the first US college football game. However, the rules under which they played have changed substantially since 1869. In fact, at the time, most US university teams used rules which were closer to the soccer rules, although this was soon to change.

And this page which says:

On November 6, 1869, Rutgers became the "Birthplace of College Football" when it defeated Princeton, six "runs" to four, in the first intercollegiate football game ever played (the site, then a field, is now occupied by the College Avenue Gymnasium). Instead of wearing uniforms, the players stripped off their hats, coats, and vests and bound their suspenders around the waistbands of their trousers. For headgear, the Rutgers team wound their scarlet scarves into turbans atop their heads. The rules, more resembling those of English rugby than what developed into American football, included limiting each team to 25 men on the field at once and banning throwing or running with the ball. Rutgers got Columbia University started in the grid sport the following season and in a few years most of the East's colleges and universities were represented on the gridiron.

The Princeton University page is of no help it dismisses the game in one sentence: In 1869 Princeton competed with Rutgers in the first ever intercollegiate football game, losing 6 to 4. Is it because they lost? Just as Rutgers does for the first baseball match and do the same thing. ;-)

If this page is correct and it was a closer to rugby the link to rugby needs changing to rugby football. The clause "banning throwing or running with the ball" is interesting because that is the fundemental diffrence between rugby and soccer and was the cause of the schism. The first FA rules had banned running with the ball but a player could make a fair catch and claim a mark and if a player of touched the ball behind the opponents' goal line, his side was entitled to a free kick at the goal 15 yards from the goal line.

The image is interesting because thre are 12 players and the ball seems to be a soccer ball. See also Talk:Football#Rutgers Vs. Princeton, 1869 --Philip Baird Shearer 11:41, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In looking at the photo, I don't see a ball. When I wrote the Rutgers page, my writing was heavily influenced on publications, books, and webpages which were either sponsored by Rutgers, or written by Rutgers Professors (i.e. William Demarest, Richard McCormick). None of those sources says anything remotely close to comparing the first intercollegiate football game with "soccer." In fact, every source made repeated references to its similarity to "rugby."

Chap standing three from the left appears to have his right arm resting on a ball which is resting on the arm of an armchair. But it may be something else do you have access to a larger picture? Philip Baird Shearer

If it is good enough for Rutgers to draw the line at a comparison with "rugby", it is good enough for the article, (q.v. [1] (http://www.scarletknights.com/football/history/first_game.htm)). Given they were the host of the first college football game, their interpretation is as close to the Gospel truth as far as I'm concerned. The only reason for the debate was a presumptious soccer-frenzied maniac who tried to impose his opinion, unsupported by any research, on the article.

The reason the Rutgers baseball game with Princeton in 1862 gets one line or so, is because there isn't much written or available on it. Secondly, Princeton's wiki entry doesn't say much about athletics, so I wouldn't be surprised that they would only give it one line.

I even put in a smiley because I know that many Americans have difficulty with a British sense of humour! Philip Baird Shearer

Besides, there are not that many who have a clear memory of a Princeton-Rutgers gridiron match up, as the last one happened in 1980.--ExplorerCDT 00:21, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That is a very good source. Thank you. Please have a look at History of rugby union you will see that the crucial point about the Rugby game "is a fine disregard for the rules as played in his time [at rugby school], first took the ball in his arms and ran with it". To be a descendent of the Rugby game, running with the ball in hand is the key. It seems from the description on this page and the description of the game's rules on the interesting page link you have provided that the game "banning throwing or running with the ball" and "The ball could be advanced only by kicking or batting it with the feet, hands, heads or sides." That would defiantly put it on the dribbling game (or a Pelé called it The Beautiful Game) side of the schism because there is no running with the ball in hand. But I think that a good case can be made for saying that it was neither. That it was an alternative game of football. Which before the FA and the RFU was the norm in the UK as well. The Football page goes into the history of diffrent types of games in some detail. Philip Baird Shearer 02:24, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Well, if it involves "dribbling" we might as well say it resembles Basketball. ;-) --ExplorerCDT 02:38, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ah denial...more than a river ;-) The bloke in the picture is holding a round ball. And even the Rutgers football homepage (cited above) says: "Leggett, captain of the Rutgers team ... suggested that rules for the contest be adopted from those of the London Football Association. Leggett's proposal was accepted by Captain William Gunmere of Princeton." Hello?!?! The "London Football Association" invented soccer. Also, it is pretty clear from my research that the rugby-type games were not big in the US until the late 1870s, and got rolling after the game between McGill and Harvard in 1874. The Rutgers-Princeton game was the start of US college football, but not as we now know it.... Grant65 (Talk) 13:52, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Ah! I'd missed that! The "London Football Association" would seem to be a clincher. Did the FA rules OF 1869 allow for 25 men a side? The other stuff about "The ball could be advanced only by kicking or batting it with the feet, hands, heads or sides." would seem to be consistent with the Early FA rules of 1863, as stated on the Football page " a player could make a fair catch and claim a mark and if a player of touched the ball behind the opponents' goal line, his side was entitled to a free kick at the goal 15 yards from the goal line."Philip Baird Shearer 15:22, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If Rutgers officially refers to it as derived from "rugby" and the historical resources in their libraries and archives point to it as such (which I have reviewed), it won't be changed, and I will continue to revert any attempts to do so until the powers that be (at Rutgers) officially say otherwise. --ExplorerCDT 11:15, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why is Rutgers supposed to be the only authority on Rutgers? We might as well just refer people to official web pages and do away with Wikipedia articles altogether.

And you are only presenting part of what "Rutgers" says, namely that the rules were derived from rugby. As discussed above the Rutgers football site contradicts itself by also saying that the rules came from the English Football Association, which invented soccer.

As a compromise can I suggest that no reference to rugby or soccer is made in the article? Grant65 (Talk) 14:50, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Should we take that as a "no"? i think it's safe to say that at least three Wikipedians think the reference to rugby should be qualified and soccer should also be mentioned. So does "Princeton", if the The Daily Princetonian is anything to go by:

"What seems like the most elementary part of the game to many observers — carrying the ball — did not even exist. The oblong ball had to be moved down the field by batting at it, kicking it, or any other means one could muster. It is often described as having "rugby-like" rules, but the game was more like soccer.

"In order to score a goal, the ball had to be forced into a goal that was very similar to a modern soccer goal, crossbar and all. Rutgers was able to accomplish the feat six times on the day, while Princeton could only score four goals."Thad Hartmann, Wednesday, September 15, 2004, "Football is not quite the same after 135 years"  (http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2004/09/15/sports/10704.shtml)

Will you now agree that the reference to "rugby" should be qualified and soccer should also be mentioned? Grant65 (Talk) 04:29, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Poll on football content

Under the dispute resolution process specified at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution, I am proposing a poll, advertised at Wikipedia:Current_surveys, on the description of the 1869 football game in this article. Under the guidelines of the dispute resolution process, I am now asking how the poll should be conducted:

What questions should be asked?
What will the possible answers be?
Where a question has three or more possible answers, are people allowed to select more than one answer?
When is the deadline?
How will the survey be totalled?
Will there be a summary of arguments, or a series of mini-essays, or some other way to inform users prior to the survey?

Grant65 (Talk) 23:42, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

You are so going to regret going through with such a proposal. I'll take your challenge because I know I can prove you wrong (substantive primary evidence that you will compel you to change your precious football article (something I've not really cared about much anyway)). When you don't win will you finally give it up?

Here is my counter to your challenge.

Your questions:

1.) What questions should be asked?

Just one: "Was the game that gave birth to College Football played by Rutgers and Princeton (then the College of New Jersey) on 6 November 1869 more closely related to rugby, soccer, a combination of both, or some other sport entirely?"

OK.

2.) What will the possible answers be?

Answers: A.) Rugby, B.) Soccer, or C.) A combination of the two or D.) some other sport entirely.

OK.

3.) Where a question has three or more possible answers, are people allowed to select more than one answer?

No. A combinatory answer is provided in option C.

OK.

4.) When is the deadline?

Make it one week (7 days) of discussion, like discussion for those who request administration, etc. See below, Question 6.

How about one week from 00:00 UTC Monday November 22?

5.) How will the survey be totalled?

How do you recommend? Just a simple adding up of who falls on which side.

Whichever one of the options gets a simple majority. In the event of a tie, a run-off, using the same method.

6.) Will there be a summary of arguments, or a series of mini-essays, or some other way to inform users prior to the survey?

Forensic debate. We will agree on a date to begin the survey, before that debate we will research and write our arguments in the form of an essay (no more than 2000 words—footnoting not counting against that total). Once the day of the "survey", we will post our essays. After a full 24 hours, you and I post one, up-to-800-word rebuttal only to the materials contested, avoiding repetious restatement of the argument, in each other's essays. Then, let the survey participants decide the question based on the essays, without commentary.

OK; 300w-500w should be more than enough for me on both occasions, but 2000w is fine if you want to do that. The "essay" to be posted by 00:00 UTC, Saturday November 27; the rebuttals by 00:00 UTC Monday November 29.

After this, we should bury the hatchet, accept the result. No need to take this any further. You've taken it too far already. —ExplorerCDT 00:19, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I will never regret the truth being revealed, even if I am proved wrong :-) If you have "substantive primary research" which shows that it was the rules of Rugby School that the 1869 game was based on, and not the Football Association, I think you should give a précis — fully referenced — of that now and save yourself future trouble. Please bear in mind that — regardless of what is claimed, Rugby School's version of football, which was the only kind of "rugby" in 1869 — allowed full handling of the ball and running while carrying it, something which does not seem to have been the case in the Rutgers v. Princeton game. Grant65 (Talk) 10:23, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

My answers to your suggestions regarding the poll are above.Grant65 (Talk) 05:05, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Can we do it a week after that? If you're American, you'll recognize that this coming week is Thanksgiving. Given the amount of travel I have, I wouldn't be able to get anything done by then. My Thanksgiving week is packed, especially since I have a 3-day work week to pack with five-days work. However, the week after, works fine, Perhaps starting December 3rd with posting of essays? --ExplorerCDT 05:27, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How about 23:59 UTC Friday December 3 for the inital posting and 23:59 UTC Sunday December 5 for the rebuttal? Also, would you mind if we put a notice in the article itself to say that the passage is disputed, and mentioning this page? Grant65 (Talk) 07:50, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Well, we are a little late, but better late than never. A basic argument by me is at Rutgers University: debate on football content. I've found some interesting details in the course of researching it. I'll give ExplorerCDT a week to respond. Grant65 (Talk) 14:55, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

1993 WTC bombing

In the book "The New Jackals," among other written and primary sources, I have heard of only a Nidal Ayyad as the only suspected terrorist in the 1993 WTC plot that had a background with Rutgers. Ramzi Yousef, according to the written works that I've seen, was never a student at Rutgers. -written by a current Rutgers student

• Ramzi Yousef was enrolled in two classes, there are alumni and faculty who remembered that experience, and there was a brief article detailing such in the alumni magazine in the mid-1990s. I had forgotten Ayyad when compiling the alumni section of the article. And you are just a student now, not a purported expert as you mentioned in your recent edits. If you were familiar with reviews of the book, many "experts" actually detracted Simon Reeve's work as being inadequately researched.
• Further, I'd encourage you to write an article on Nidal Ayyad as there is none currently.

I orginally made the edit and this post above anonymously. Now, I have registered to continue the discussion.

The FBI believes that Yousef's entry to the United States on 1 September 1992 was his first experience on American soil; however, there have been unconfirmed reports submitted to the Diplomatic Security Service that Yousef may have traveled to the United States before then.

I believe that it is very unlikely, given the fact that Yousef carried out the WTC bombing on 26 Feb 1993, that he would have bothered to enroll in classes at Rutgers (which probably would have started in the first few days of September). Moreoever, Yousef is known to have been trained in explosives at camps in Afghanistan and did pursue higher education in the UK; he also arranged for bomb making manuals to be sent to him in the United States. I am fairly sure that someone like Yousef woudl not benefit much from a few classes at Rutgers. I too have spoken to a faculty member, but only about Ayyad; no mention was made of Yousef.

This could be an honest mistake of the faculty members or alumni magazine reporters which you had mentioned. You may know that books on terrorism are hotly debated as many sources are confidential personal interviews; however, I know of counter-terrorism officials from the NY/NJ metro area who reference this work. As for my claiming to have been an expert- I cannot exactly recall the wording that I had used, but if I did use such words it was clearly an exaggeration of my research interests and I apologize for misrepresenting myself. I am very interested in your sources, and I would appreicate it if you could e-mail me personally with some further information. Thank you for your response.