Talk:Scotch Professors

Accuracy of this article

This article, in its original form, is not balanced and makes assertions without considering other, non-scottish evidence. For example,

the original article stated that Queens Park was responsible for the first international between England and Scotland. This is not true. CW Alcock spent nearly two years advertising in Scottish papers to try and raise a team from north of the border. He tried flattery and even suggested a game in the borders! There was no response until 1872. The 1870/1871 matches contained one player from Queens Park (Smith) so they must have known about it...

the reference to the combination game does not take into account developments elsewhere, most notably Sheffield rules and its long pass, the Royal Engineers combination Game (early 1870s) and CW Alcock's 1871 preference for "scientific" play. These have been conveniently ignored. Also there is no contemporary account of passing in the international games until at least 1874 and is certainly not mentioned as part of the Scots team playing style in 1872 and 1873.

the article implies that Scotch Professors took the game to Brazil and Argentina. Charles Miller apparently brought the idea from Southampton (not Scotland) well before the professors were on the scene. The game had already been taken to Argentina by the English in the 1860s. Again this is conveniently forgotten. The "Professors" may well have had an influence, but again the article is misleading

Overall this article is more about nationalism than football and should either be deleted or merged with History of Scottish football —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conetraffic (talk • contribs) 13:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of directly referenced evidence from this page that shows the "Scotch Professors" passing game had already been developed by the [Royal Engineers AFC]]

Your removal of directly referenced evidence from the page on Scotch professors (on the grounds that they cannot be sourced) is not consistent with Wikipedia's philosophy. The references are all easily accessible: I got them with 5 clicks from the British Library website. Anybody can access them there (although, if you are not part of a UK academic institution, I think they may charge).

What do you mean by the message below?

(rv. given the choice between reliable contemporary, expert sources which state unequivocally that it originated with Queens and an uncheckable reference which sounds very much like OR il take former)

Again this does not conform with the philosophy of Wikipedia: why should your references be valued more than mine?

I suspect that you do not like the fact that your football club were not the first to develop passing. The "unequivocal" sources you mention have not considered the evidence that you have deleted, presumably for the same reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinigi (talk • contribs) 13:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I sense an edit war in the making here, so I'll attempt to mediate in the hope of preventing it from escalating. There are credible sources which credit Scots and Queens Park in particular with the development of the passing game. There are credible sources which stress the role of Royal Engineers. Sheffield Rules clubs can state a claim which pre-dates either. All of them played a part in the development of the game, but we should not be advocating a particular point of view at the expense of others. As a tertiary source we should provide attribution and let the reader decide.

However, this is a debate which for the most part belongs more to passing (association football) than this article. The role of the Scottish players in the early days of professionalism is a notable topic of which the use of a passing game was one part. To say Queens Park "above all other clubs pioneered the passing game" without qualification is misleading when there are a significant number of football historians who would dispute it. At the same time, a lengthy rebuttal pushing a particular point of view is also inappropriate. The Royal Engineers have little to do with this particular article. I suggest removing the paragraph about Royal Engineers, and toning down the wording about Queens Park. Attribution is always helpful too, for instance it could be mentioned that FA secretary C. W. Alcock credited Queens Park with developing the passing game, whereas his successor Frederick Wall described Royal Engineers as the first to use "the advantages of combination" (The source used for that is David Goldblatt's "The Ball Is Round" simply because I had it in front of me and its a reasonably well regarded book). Oldelpaso (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Edits such as this are the most shamelessly blatant examples of Original Research imaginable. The original sources for this article are modern, reliable and explicitly, specifically, credit Queens park with being founders of the passing style and playing the major role in the first international game. The sources Kinigi is trying to insert are simply contemporary accounts which happen to describe a team doing things like passing the ball and whatnot which he has chosen to interpret as proof that the Royal Engineers (or whoever else) were founders of the passing game. Honestly i find it hard to think of a more blatant case of OR+POV pushing at the expense of proper, reliable referencing and NPOV. siarach (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

How on earth can a reference to "The Enclyclopedia of British Football" be considered original research? It is reasonable that other explanations should be mentioned. There is a clear political agenda to omit any differing views here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinigi (talk • contribs) 16:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't suggest a political agenda. It is reasonable that an article about the early Scottish players focuses primarily on their contribution. Looking at your addition to passing (association football), particularly the "Summary of the Royal Engineers early playing style" section, you may want to read up on the "synthesis" part of the no original research policy, which starts: Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources. Even if published by reliable sources, material must not be connected together in such a way that it constitutes original research. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the article subject, then the editor is engaged in original research. Citing primary sources for a given fact contained therein is encouraged. But since Wikipedia is a tertiary source, articles shouldn't engage in independent analysis. A secondary source needs to be cited and attributed for analysis etc. Oldelpaso (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed new wording

• Existing: However professionalism was eventually established in Scottish football in 1893 although Scotland’s most powerful club and founders of both the passing and international game, Queen's Park, initially refused to participate in the new professional league (not joining until 1900) and remained committed to the amateur principles even after entering into competition with professional clubs.
• Proposed: However, professionalism was eventually established in Scottish football in 1893. Queen's Park, ten-times Scottish Cup winners and pioneers of the Scottish style of play, rejected professionalism. The club initially refused to participate in the new professional league (not joining until 1900) and remained committed to the amateur principles even after entering into competition with professional clubs.
• Rationale: Firstly it is a really long sentence which needs splitting. Putting their cup achievements is less subjective than "most powerful club" - by 1893 the Old Firm were challenging for that mantle.

• Existing: The role played by the “Scotch professors” and Queen’s Park FC — who above all other clubs pioneered the passing game and the start of regular Anglo-Scottish international fixtures — in the early history of football...
• Proposed: The role played by the “Scotch professors” and Queen’s Park FC — cited by contemporary football figures such as C. W. Alcock as pioneers of the passing game and the start of regular Anglo-Scottish international fixtures^(ref) — in the early history of football...
• Rationale: Replace a peacock term with attribution.

On a slightly different note, a couple of the references are to blogs and suchlike e.g. http://scotzine.com/blog, and ought to be replaced. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure im ok with all that. siarach (talk) 09:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)