Jump to content

Talk:Rhodes Scholarship

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 108.252.124.176 (talk) at 18:00, 9 July 2019 (→Rhodes: Anglo supremacy vs White supremacy). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives: /Archives2006-2011

Forbidden to marry in 1954

Page 86 of this document tells me that in 1954, Rhodes Scholars were "forbidden to marry". Does that mean their scholarship would be forfeit if they did marry? Because it seems to me they could not be legally prevented from marrying if they satisfied all legal requirements.

Why was this policy in place to begin with, and when did it change? -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 08:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the whys or the whens - although a very quick Google search this Harvard article shows it was still in place in 1956 - but when you say "could not be legally prevented", remember that we are talking about a very different legal era in England. There was, in the 1950s, no law about equality of pay for men and women (the Equal Pay Act 1970]), or race discrimination (Race Relations Act 1965), or discrimination on the grounds of sex or marital status (Sex Discrimination Act 1975). BencherliteTalk 09:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(To quote Jeff Fenech out-of-context: "I love youse guys!" Nice to see both of you here! Pdfpdf (talk) 10:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC) )[reply]
Thank you both. What I'm getting is that if a RS announced that he and his fiancee planned to marry next week, how could anyone have stopped them? Would they have physically tied them up? Being already married would render such a marriage bigamous and thus null and void; but simply being a Rhodes Scholar would have had no effect on the legal status of the marriage. So, I'm assuming there must have been some condition of the scholarship that said that if a scholar married, the scholarship would be forfeited. That's a far cry from being "forbidden to marry". -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 11:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ummmm. Think of it from another angle. For a long time, women in the Australian Public Service were "forbidden" to get pregnant. Obviously, although it "slowed many down", it didn't actually stop any who wanted to get pregnant from doing so. But it did end their employment.
So yes, you are on track, but realise that Bencherlite is a competent "legal eagle", and is coming from the legal definition side. I'm fairly sure he agrees with you from the practicalities and reality side. (But he's more than competent to present his own POV, so I'll leave any clarification to him!)
Does that help? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see what you mean now, Jack. The eligibility wording, at least initially was "Candidates must be unmarried". The rule was relaxed for a while for the First World War, but thereafter marriage led to forfeiture of the scholarship. Again, the rule was relaxed after the Second World War until 1950. The justification was that the Trustees thought that a scholar would not gain full benefit from Oxford if he had to add domestic to academic burdens. BencherliteTalk 18:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Landmarks

This article could use a section on the landmark changes in the selection process for Rhodes scholars from the USA. When was the first African-American selected? When was a scholarship first awarded to a non-jock? (I think it was Mark Kindleberger, 1967, who had no athletic credentials but had been Editor of the Michigan Daily.) And, of course, this would be the place to refer to the first women, in 1977. There may well have been other major changes of which I am unaware. Moreover, changes in the selection processes in other countries would be equally interesting. C. Cerf (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article could use lots of things! Yes, there are indeed "other major changes of which" you are "unaware", and not just relating to the USA. And yes, not only could "changes in the selection processes in other countries ... be equally interesting", they could be more interesting!
"When was a scholarship first awarded to a non-jock?" - Errr. 1904. (The first year of awards, and a LONG time before 1967. To John Behan.)
So, what is your point?
  • Are you proposing to do something? If so, what?
  • Are you proposing that somebody else do something? If so, who, and what?
  • Or are you proposing something else? If so, what?
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden comment

Someone has put this as an "Editors' note" at the top of the article, as a hidden comment:

"Here" is Rhodes Scholarship

rhodes scholar redirects here
rhodes Scholar redirects here
rhodes scholars redirects here
rhodes Scholars redirects here
rhodes scholarship redirects here and, of course,
rhodes Scholarship IS here.

Separate pages:

Notable Rhodes Scholars redirects to List of Rhodes Scholars
Category:Rhodes scholars

I removed it as unnecessary but was reverted. It is unnecessary because the redirect template at the very top tells us that "Rhodes Scholars" redirects here to start with, and it is unnecessary to specify that variant capital spellings of those words also redirect here, because that's hardly surprising. It's unnecessary to say what the page name is, everyone can see that. We have a link (as a "See also") to "List of Rhodes Scholars" in the article, and why do we need to know that another page redirects to that? And this very page is in Category:Rhodes scholars, so why do we need to be told that that exists as well? What purpose does such a note serve anyone editing the article? BencherliteTalk 15:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

<smile> It's been there since 8 September 2007 - we're just 3 days short of its 6th anniversary!
It was put there because, at that time, there was a major reorganisation and renaming of Rhodes Scholarship pages and page names. Maybe after 6 years it is indeed no longer necessary.
However, I'm a little puzzled as to why it hasn't previously been deemed unnecessary, (for example, on 19 January 2010), and why it is now? (But that's probably more rhetorical than a request for information.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 21:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At nearly six years old, it's almost old enough to apply for a Rhodes Scholarship itself - and should at the very least be choosing which college it wants to go to! On 19th Jan 19102010, I just used Hotcat to add a category so wouldn't have seen the comment. BencherliteTalk 21:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It serves no purpose whatsoever. Theroadislong (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Theroadislong: No, absolutely "no purpose whatsoever"! (You're not prone to understatement, are you ... ) In case you didn't realise, there is a difference between "unnecessary" and "no purpose". Pdfpdf (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uncritical

The whole entry is uncritical and reads like an ad for Oxford and the Rhodes Foundation. For instance, 'prestigious'? By whom, for what? 'elitist' might make more sense. So few people are selected it makes no sense to assume they have special abilities, but it does make sense to assume that they are being given a special favor. 'Widely regarded'? Mostly among investment bankers. There is not a whole lot of science you can learn at Oxford these days. And so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.52.31.150 (talk) 13:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is normal that wikipedia pages (or other scribes) read like the pamphlet from that organisation. We need to get accustomed to that. It's information - a critical evaluation is quite another thing. If you want a critical evaluation the researcher must be somewhat impartial which takes time, which must be paid for. If you have to be critical in a negative way, you could be sued by the organisation. Few people these days have got the time and expertise to evaluate without requiring payment and then have it checked by a lawyer. Those who do things for a hobby take the pamphlet information and we can then use that as a foundation.

Wikipedia and other sites are not the begin and end all of all information sevices. It is to trigger further research and more importantly THINKING.

While people bemoan all sorts of things from the article it has been conveniently overlooked that Cecil Rhodes determined the condition 'to make war impossible'. That is what needs to be noticed.
Rhodes like Alfred Nobel saw the misery and destruction which the wars cause and awarded prizes for people who had done something for peace.
Take the former Rhodes Scholar and deposed Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott for instance who did just the opposite. He upped military spending significantly, even paying foreign troops for protection in Australia, while cutting expenditure for people left right and centre. Then he willingly sent Australian forces into the Syrian conflict. One would hope, that the Rhodes Scholarhip Trust could send out REPRIMANDS to those people like Tony Abbott - that he did not live up to the terms under which he was given that scholarship. The issue that scholarship recipients do not enter public service any more is system-inherent. The public service is, according to prevailing ideology, replaced by contractors, because the public service is being phased out. It is therefore not surprising that recipients go to Wall Street or become partners in Goldman & Sachs. The world has moved on in that department, thinking that contractors are always better than public service. Current ideology could be described as 'make as much hay while the sun shines and engage in philantropy later'. 58.174.193.15 (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rhodes lived at a time when a considerable portion of the world's population still lived in mud huts and, often ruled by despots, were fighting, torturing, and killing each other at every opportunity. Rhodes' view was that it was the duty and moral responsibility of Britain and the 'more advanced nations' to help these peoples progress to take their places in the modern world, because whether these peoples liked it or not, the modern world was going to eventually make itself felt by them, and it was better for these peoples it be introduced by nations with organised humane laws and customs rather than others 'less civilised', such as occurred in the-then Belgian Congo.
And if you look at the many of the countries that gained independence from the British Empire most weren't s***-holes when the British left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.52 (talk) 10:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The WIKI article on Rhodes Scholarship reads a like a public relations piece or an advert.

I am of the opinion the article does not give a full picture of Cecil Rhodes and why he set up the Rhodes Scholarship.

The Wiki article reads....

.....The scholarship enabled students from territories under British rule or formerly under British rule and from Germany to study at Rhodes's alma mater, the University of Oxford.[25] Rhodes's aims were to promote leadership marked by public spirit and good character, and to "render war impossible" by promoting friendship between the great powers....

It is not honest to leave out that Mr. Rhodes wanted Anglo Saxons to dominate the world.

In his last will and Testament Mr. Rhodes wrote:

....."I contend that we are the finest race in the world and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race. Just fancy those parts that are at present inhabited by the most despicable specimens of human beings what an alteration there would be if they were brought under Anglo-Saxon influence, look again at the extra employment a new country added to our dominions´....

Rhodes, Cecil (1902). Stead, William Thomas, ed. The Last Will and Testament of Cecil John Rhodes, with Elucidatory Notes, to which are Added Some Chapters Describing the Political and Religious Ideas of the Testator. London. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hausfrau Róisín (talk • contribs) 19:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

White and Non-white scholarships

I seem to recall that originally Rhodes scholarships were for European-descended students only. If I recall correctly this was subject to a successful court challenge (in the 1960s?), and scholarships were thereafter open to all races. Anyone got a ref for the court case? Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassandrathesceptic (talk • contribs) 15:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Cucas refs and content

Sorry that I removed the text there. I didn't notice it among those huge cucas refs. I've removed the refs. Cucas is a terrible source. It is a COI, forprofit org that is highly questionable. Five years ago, I got rid of all the cucas refs in articles put there by a spammer. The last two were just removed, one by me and one by another user. The spammer and discussion about cucas is coming. Let me dig it up. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some of it. There was another spammer. I'll look.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More:

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, User:Education experts appears unrelated. Never mind that link. Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Anna, that all makes sense. Thank you also for your work in dealing with spammers and other questionable additions. I had little idea there was quite so much of this. MPS1992 (talk) 19:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MPS1992. And thank you for catching my accidental removal of content. All the best. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opening Paragraph

It doesn't make sense that more than half of the opening paragraph is dedicated to listing other scholarships, rather than detailing more about the program itself. Would make more sense to write about the program's global reach / impact / notable alumni / academic merit and reputation / recent expansion to new countries. Related scholarships should be listed later, as those are not to be assumed the main reason why people read the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.218.144.233 (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thank you for pointing this out. MPS1992 (talk) 22:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rhodes: Anglo supremacy vs White supremacy

I have changed the phrase "Rhodes' white supremacist" beliefs to Anglo-supremacist. I'm pretty sure that Rhodes was not advocating the supremacy of White (Dutch-descended) Boers, when their women and children were being herded into concentration camps during the Second Boer War, so that Old Cecil and his pals could control some diamond mines. He was indeed a supremacist, but of an Anglo-Saxons Uber Alles variety. Claíomh Solais (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Saying "I'm pretty sure" with no citation to any reliable reference doesn't qualify for changing White-supremacist to Anglo-supremacist. The article it links to is titled White-supremacist and within it the word "Anglo" is not mentioned once. If you Google: Anglo-supremacist you'll mostly find "White-supremacist" before the phrase Anglo-Saxon heritage. Google "Anglo-supremacist" (including the quotation marks in the search results to find exactly that phrase) you will find it but it's clearly not a popular term, having just 5,480 results. Meanwhile, Google: "White supremacist" (including the quotation marks in the search results) and you will find "About 9,620,000 results". It seems simple that "Anglo-supremacist" isn't the right term. But really, it's your edit that has to bare evidence and you provided no citation to back you're "pretty sure" statement. I've gone ahead and changed it back to White-supremacist. I made a new subject about this at the bottom. V 108.252.124.176 (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Israel needs to be added

See http://www.rhodeshouse.ox.ac.uk/israel There are 2 people admitted in 2017 - e.g. https://english.tau.ac.il/vision/rhodes_scholar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.177.134.178 (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Rhodes Scholarship. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

Hello! I can't edit this page as I am an employee of the Rhodes Trust, but I wanted to flag some news:

1) There have been some interesting recent partnerships between the Rhodes Trust: Partnering with The Atlantic Philanthropies to create the Atlantic Institute which is hosted at Rhodes House and there are collaborations between Atlantic Fellows and Rhodes Scholars. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/rhodes-trust-launch-new-institute-and-expand-scholarships

Creating the Schmidt Science Fellows - this will be administered from Rhodes House [2] http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/Eric-and-Wendy-Schmidt-seek-to-build-the-next-12271209.php

2) The number of Rhodes Scholarships have expanded a lot in recent years - the 2013 table on this page needs to be updated as does the paragraph which reads "As of 2017 scholars are selected from over 20 Rhodes constituencies (64 different countries) worldwide.[41] In 2015 the Rhodes Scholarship extended into new territories, first with the announcement of a number of scholarships for China,[42] later with the announcement of one to two scholarships per year for the United Arab Emirates.[43] The organisation administering the scholarships is preparing to begin naming scholars from China. The move into China is the biggest expansion since women became eligible in the 1970s.[44]"

Media sources: [1] [2]

So the correct numbers are as follows: AUSTRALIA - 9

BERMUDA - 1

CANADA - 11

CHINA - 4

EAST AFRICA - 1 This covers Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda, South Sudan and Burundi

GERMANY - 2

HONG KONG - 1

INDIA - 5

ISRAEL - 2

JAMAICA & THE COMMONWEALTH CARIBBEAN - 2 This covers Antigua, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Trinidad & Tobago, Jamaica, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, St. Kitts-Nevis, Montserrat, Anguilla, the Turks and Caicos Islands, Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands

KENYA - 2

MALAYSIA - 1

NEW ZEALAND - 3

PAKISTAN - 1

SINGAPORE - 1

SOUTHERN AFRICA - 10 This covers South Africa, Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Namibia and Swaziland

SYRIA, JORDAN, LEBANON AND PALESTINE - 2

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES - 2

UNITED STATES - 32

WEST AFRICA - 2 This covers Benin, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, the island of Saint Helena, Senegal, Sierra Leone, São Tomé and Principe and Togo.

ZAMBIA - 2

ZIMBABWE - 2

New GLOBAL Scholarship - 2

3) Over recent years there is a much greater focus on collaboration and convenings happening at Rhodes House with the Rhodes Scholar community - promoting the idea of a Fellowship of fellowships and moving from a focus on the individual to a focus on what the community can achieve.

Many thanks Wikipedians, (Babettet (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC))[reply]

  1. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/feb/19/rhodes-scholarships-opened-up-to-students-from-uk-and-rest-of-world<
  2. ^ https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/rhodes-trust-launch-new-institute-and-expand-scholarships

Political bias controversy

An editor has begun an edit war to add a "Political bias controversy" section to this article. The only sources cited in that section are rightwing media ([1], [2], [3], and [4]) so I don't know if a controversy really exists and, if it does, if it's important enough to be included in this (or any other) article. In fact, at least two of those sources - http://www.thecollegefix.com and http://dailycaller.com - don't even appear to be reliable sources so they shouldn't be cited in any article.

@Livysmite: Regardless of what one believes about this issue and the sources, editors shouldn't edit war instead of discussing the material here in Talk. ElKevbo (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ElKevbo: @Pug of the day: Editor originally deleted the material while it was still being worked on, then turns around and accused me of editing war. Editors should at least wait until new sections are finished, not delete them a few minutes after they were first started. Now deleted again. Regarding the evidence, there is no need to evidence left wing political bias, there is merely need to evidence a controversy over left wing bias. Wall Street Journal and Fox News are major international news organizations. An allegation, with evidence, was made via these organizations. Fox News played a quote from a Rhodes Trust official denying the allegations. In the WSJ the CEO of the Rhodes Trust denied them. Rhodes Scholars alleging political bias, denied by officials, covered by international news, is clear cut evidence for there being a controversy. The deleted section should be restored. Why should such information be withheld? Political bias and speech crack downs in academia are an important topic, this clearly is an important part of it and hence info about it needs to be on this page.Livysmite (talk) 08:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested changes to introduction paragraph

Would it be ok to change the introduction paragraph? I agree that Cecil John Rhodes was a vile human being but he does have his own page dedicated to what a nasty piece of work he was. It's my understanding though that the actual scholarship as it stands in 2018 is actually a progressive movement and very inclusive, so perhaps the past controversies should be limited to the controversies section?Pug of the day (talk) 15:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to introduction section

Could we perhaps tone down the controversies in the introduction page? I understand if they need to be included for the perpses of the page, however couldn't we just say something like, 'controversial business man?' My reasoning being is that as it stands in 2018 there is nothing controversial about the scholarship and any past controversies should really be confined to the controversies section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pug of the day (talk • contribs) 16:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of "Criticism of political bias" paragraph

I am proposing that the paragraph on "Criticism of political bias" paragraph and wanted to know if there was any consensus on this issue? It seems to me like the paragraph was written by a lone right wing keyboard warrior piggybacking on the popularity of the Rhodes must fall campaign. If anyone objects please let me know ASAP. Pug of the day (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would be hesitant about removing anything just because one thinks that it might have been written "by a lone right wing keyboard warrior". Let's not make assumptions. But, looking at the sources for the section, I don't see that the section is needed if there was not wider coverage of this particular aspect. MPS1992 (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This may merit one sentence at most but maybe not that much. ElKevbo (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @ElKevbo, if I do the deleting for now, then if anyone else wants to re-add a sentence or two about this at a later date they can. Sound good? Pug of the day (talk) 06:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ElKevbo: @Pug of the day: @MPS1992: Editor originally deleted the material while it was still being worked on, then turns around and accused me of editing war. Editors should at least wait until new sections are finished, not delete them a few minutes after they are first started. Now deleted again. Regarding the evidence, there is no need to evidence left wing political bias, there is merely need to evidence a controversy over left wing bias. Wall Street Journal and Fox News are major international news organizations, there was WIDE coverage, much wider for example than for the section on quality of education, covered in local papers. An allegation, with evidence, was made via these organizations. Fox News played a quote from a Rhodes Trust official denying the allegations. In the WSJ the CEO of the Rhodes Trust denied them. Some Rhodes Scholars alleging political bias, denied by officials, covered by international news, is clear cut evidence for there being an important controversy. The deleted section should hence be restored. Why should such information be withheld? Political bias and speech crack downs in academia are an important mainstream topic, e.g. biased hiring of staff, censorship of conservative speakers, Evergreen, Mizzou, Harvard racial quota admissions and so on. Rhodes Scholarships are clearly an important part of this and hence info about it needs to be on this page. Livysmite (talk) 08:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.@Livysmite:Thanks for getting in touch. I see what you mean about only needing to evidence the controversy over the alleged left wing bias. However myself,@ElKevbo: and @MPS1992: both agreed that there weren't enough sources to support the section. It is my understanding that Fox are America's equivalent of the Daily Mail and they publish a lot of right wing synthetic-news. Therefore I am not sure if Fox is really an appropriate source to support your asertion if we remove them from the picture then there aren't many sources to support your claim at all. In fact there is overwhelming evidence suggesting that the The Scholarship is politically neutral. If you have any further comments or edit suggestions please respectfully put them forward here. I would be more than happy to discuss them with you. Best regards, Pug of the day (talk) 12:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pug of the day: You first accused me of being a lone right wing keyboard warrior, now YOU tell ME to be respectful? Clearly the deleted section did not vandalize the article. This talk should show an unbiased person that there is plenty of evidence for an important controversy. You assertion that there is overwhelming evidence that the scholarships are neutral is your personal value judgement, stated without any evidence. The interview on Fox mentioned that there are, I think, 10 Democrat Rhodes Scholars in political office, and 1 Republican. If true, this is clear evidence that the Scholarship is extremely biased. But this is not even needed, merely evidence for a controversy, and that evidence is clearly there. Fox News is not like the Daily Mail, your understanding is incorrect. As an example, their election decision desk usually calls elections sooner than any other network, due to their better modeling compared to other networks. They have liberal contributors, are a major international mainstream News Organization. For some reason you "forgot" WSJ in your retort, with respect: negligent at best. WSJ is another major international news organization. Fox and WSJ featured two different Rhodes officials denying bias allegations, underlining that this is an important issue. Daily Caller and College Fix, the other sources, may qualify right leaning. But why wouldn't we expect right leaning organizations picking this up, given that the allegations are in regard to left wing bias. Fox and WSJ, two of the largest TV/Video and Print/Online Mainstream News networks picked it up as well. The article on the Rhodes Trust is not that long, suppressing a controversy that goes at the heart of what the scholarships are - selection of their scholars may be politically biased - with claims that the sources of the allegation are biased, is ridiculous. Let the reader have the info, and decide for themselves. Wikipedia is not thought police, but information provider.

Political Bias Controversy

Since there have been no further retorts I'd like to go ahead an add a section on the political bias controversy back into this article. The four original sources, including two of the largest and most well known news organizations in the world, are comfortably sufficient to warrant mention on Wikipedia. I have found additional sources which I will add in. The assertion that the political bias controversy is not important/existent because sources like WSJ and Fox are themselves biased does not stand up to examination, and would seem to turn the matter up-side-down. Two senior Rhodes Trust officials, the CEO and the American Secretary, denied allegations of political bias and biased scholar selections, demonstrating the importance of the matter, which is also closely related to widely reported censorship and bias issues within the education sector in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livysmite (talk • contribs) 23:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That your sources only come from one far end of the political spectrum makes me doubt that this is a genuinely noteworthy issue and make it appear more like a political attack which Wikipedia should not propagate or repeat. ElKevbo (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have to stop your editing war, this is the second time that you delete this section minutes after it has been posted. Fox, WSJ and Yahoo are not right wing sources. Hechinger Report is left wing. The section is well sourced, is not vandalism, adds information. Stop making up stuff and calling everything you don't agree with far end of the political spectrum. You can personally doubt that this is important, but this is not a reason to keep deleting this information.Livysmite (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears a group of editors is working together here to prevent the spread of information. The section on the political bias controversy has been improved with additional sources. Fox, WSJ, Yahoo are huge news networks, yet group of editors seems to claim they are right wing (yahoo is if anything left of center), which is not true. Daily Caller and College Fix are conservative but not fringe. Hechinger report is a left leaning publication. I think the case for including this section is strong and clear and have seen no valid argument against it. It is simply not true that Fox is like the Daily Mail, or that WSJ is right wing. We can't base decisions about the exclusion of information on personal opinion or objective untruths. How can this be resolved? Can an administrator adjudicate?Livysmite (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources you've cited are unabashedly biased so their judgment in political issues that directly speak to their bias is questionable. The other sources you've cited are weak "the organization denies this charge" stories which aren't very meaningful in determining if there is anything noteworthy here.
Seriously: Has anything happened here other than "right wing media report that right wing activists accuse organization of being liberal and organization makes half-hearted denial?" ElKevbo (talk) 23:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, WSJ, Fox and Yahoo are not right wing, but mainstream. Hechinger Report is left wing. The sources are diverse, numerous and credible. The CEO of the Rhodes Trust gave a statement to the WSJ strongly denying the allegations, the US Secretary did the same to Fox, calling the Rhodes Scholar who made the allegations a liar, basically. This is not half-hearted, but all in, by the most important people the Rhodes Trust has. How can a major controversy that goes to the heart of what the scholarships are about - scholar selection - reported on prime time television and in major print and online publications not be required contents for this wikipedia article? You reasoning simply does not hold up to examination.Livysmite (talk) 00:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WSJ and Fox are definitely right wing (or, in the current U.S. political parlance, "conservative") and you denying that makes it difficult for me to take you seriously. Yahoo is not a very noteworthy news organization.
Has anything happened as a result of these political attacks? Or were they just reported by sympathetic authors in aligned or (second-rate in the case of Yahoo!) media organizations and ritually denied by the organization? Even if this information is credible - and the evidence so far doesn't support that! - then we're not obligated to include it simply because it was written about. It has to be something meaningful especially with an organization that has as much history and scope as this one. "Did anything happen as a result of these reports?" is a perfectly adequate bar for inclusion in this article. ElKevbo (talk) 01:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What political attacks do you speak of? The Rhodes Trust selects people for a prestigious scholarship. That is its main function. A controversy over the selection criteria and political bias in selecting scholars goes right to the heart of the matter. A ritual denial you mention would have been some PR person sending a pre-made statement. This was not the case here. The CEO and the American Secretary both weighed in personally with denials, presumably because the controversy is so important. Wikipedia sources only have to be reliable, this mainly means that there has to be a fact checking/editing process going on at the source. For example Fox, WSJ, Daily Caller, College Fix clearly fulfill these criteria. Additional sources were provided, demonstrating that this controversy was widely publicized. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources: "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Your reversion based on sources being biased is objectively against written wikipedia guidelines. This not being important is your personal opinion, countered by the fact that the CEO of the Rhodes Trust personally weighed in on the controversy. The whole point of the Scholarships is to select people, if there is a controversy over the fairness of the selection process, then this is very important. I don't see how your reasoning can stand up. Livysmite (talk) 07:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ElKevbo: @Pug of the day: @MPS1992: @DuncanHill: Having waited for further talk-posts from other editors, I would like to add the section on political controversy back in because the issue is important. Scholarship selection is central to the Rhodes Scholarships, if there is a controversy over it, which there is, then it clearly belongs here. Senior officials of the scholarships have personally weighed in, denying allegations. The section I would like to add back in mentions both sides of the controversy. The sources cited are reliable according to Wikipedia standards. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources/Perennial_sources Fox News is considered reliable. Daily Caller overall is considered reliable by some. WSJ is definitely reliable. College Fix is not mentioned, it is conservative, has an editorial process with fact checking, suggesting reliability. Quoted/cited articles from these sources are balanced and appear fact checked because both sides of the controversy are reported, suggesting the specific sources are reliable. ElKevbo justified his nearly instant deletion of this section (twice) with the sources being biased. However, as shown in the post above, this is not valid reasoning because biased sources can be reliable. Pug of the day justified his opposition with the assertion that I am a "lone right wing keyboard warrior", which is not valid reasoning either because Pug of the day could not know this. Also the political views of editors are not relevant as long as their contributions are constructive, helpful and balanced. In summary, the controversy over political bias at the Rhodes Scholarships is real. Rhodes is the most prestigious scholarship in the world, which automatically makes this controversy important. The fact that senior Rhodes officials weighed in on it with denials, underlines this further. Rhodes official Elliot Gerson who is quoted in this section, is also quoted in the section on scholars not entering public service. Sources cited are considered reliable by the Wikipedia community. Additional sources were added after the first round of deletions of this section, adding a contrarian voice that calls Rhodes Scholars for Diversity extremist, adding further balance to the section. There is hence no rational justification for deleting my contribution to this article on this topic, it is clear that this section belongs to this article about the Rhodes Scholarships. I hope this is sufficient to warrant the restored section to remain up this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livysmite (talk • contribs) 13:41, September 19, 2018 (UTC)

What I see is a manufactured controversy with only one decent source, some mildly tendentious language verified by a Fox video, and that's all. So no. Drmies (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are the only editor in favor of this material and two editors are opposed so unless something changes this material shouldn't be included. Feel free to seek broader input e.g., post neutral messages on Talk pages of relevant projects, initiate an RfC, ping all editors who have edited this article in the past __ (defined period of time). ElKevbo (talk) 17:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: the section has 7 sources, I outlined that most are obviously reliable. You can't just ignore this. You argument is hence invalid. @ElKevbo: consensus is not sorely determined by numbers. I have the stronger argument, while you have used reasoning that is opposed to wikipedia guidelines when you claimed that biased sources cannot be used. Drmies has also now deleted the controversy over Rhodes Must Fall activists. Bad!

Rhodes Must Fall controversy

@Drmies: You deleted this with the reasoning that Rhodes Must Fall has Wikipedia page. The reason this controversy belongs here is that the section here focused on Rhodes Scholars who are also Rhodes Must Fall activists, causing controversy. I'd like to put the section back up. It is well sourced, and important.

Same editors who collude to suppress info on the political bias controversy, are now also colluding to suppress the Rhodes Must Fall controversy. ElKevbo has been first to suppress the bias controversy some time ago, but didn't touch the Rhodes Must Fall section then, was later joined by Drmies and others to keep the bias section suppressed. Drmies in turn recently suppressed the Rhodes Must Fall section by just deleting it. Today ElKevbo colludes with him/her by deleting the section again minutes after my revision of it. It seems to become quite clear that a group of biased editors "protect" this page from information that suggests controversy over left wing bias and activism at the Rhodes scholarships, taking turn shooting down changes so that neither appear to be engaging in an edit war, when this is exactly what they are doing. Similar to what happened with e.g. the Sarah Jeong article over the racist tweets, when the info was all over the news but hadn't made it to the wiki page about her yet because politically motivated editors colluded to keep the info suppressed on Wikipedia, which in itself became a topic on some mostly conservative news sites. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Jeong — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livysmite (talk • contribs) 20:17, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That final comment about conservative news sites is telling. What an American would describe as conservative news sites would be seen by most of the rest of the world as rabid, right wing. You won't ever see balance there. And what such sources say rarely belongs in Wikipedia. As for bias, we all have our biases. The trick is to be aware of them and keep them out of our editing. On topic, I support the view of those who see content about Rhodes Must Fall as off-topic in this article. There have been too many recipients of the scholarships over the years, many controversial for a wide range of reasons, to justify emphasising a controversy surrounding just one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talk • contribs) 22:42, September 20, 2018 (UTC)
First, cut out the persecution complex bullshit. Second, I agree that this (shrill and ridiculous) criticism from (biased and ignorant) right-wing pundits may merit a mention in this article. But that must be done in proper proportion to its relative importance in the larger context of everything else that is or should be included in this article so it merits just a sentence or two preferably within a larger context of criticism and attempts at reform. What we definitely don't need in this article are multiple paragraphs of criticism of specific Rhodes Must Fall activists when that movement has its own article and those criticisms have no relation to the topic of this article. ElKevbo (talk) 03:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page macro edit

Hello I would like to get WP:Bold on this article. Obviously I want to keep the history, funding and motivation and still want to document the various controversies as they are part of its history too. But I feel the page is a tad unbalanced. Racism, sexism and inequality are very emotive subjects because they affect us all in some way, often as both victims and as perpetrators (even if we aren't always ready to self-reflect and change how we treat others). I can't help feel that some of the edits on this page have been influenced to much by emotion and that has been reflected in the language, rhetoric and how the piece is weighted. Therefore, I would like to re-work the article into a balanced piece that does not glorify or celebrate rhodes or the Rhodes scholarship in any way but but accurately covers the full subject including the controversies, but in a fair, neutral constructive way. I am planning on making the edit beginning of next week. If anyone has any ideas or concerns please contact me before then. Pug of the day (talk) 08:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quality of post-graduate education at Oxford - removal request

Hello. I cannot help but notice that the section title 'Quality of Post-Graduate Education at Oxford' is really badly cited. Two of the sources are from blogs that are clearly not authoritative voices in their field. The Times resources are not open access, The Harvard Crimson article clearly refutes the claims and although The Oxford Times does have editorial independence it does seem to be a bit too close to the subject to be classed as an independent source. Would anyone object to me removing it or at least rewording it? Pug of the day (talk) 13:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I may have some more time to look at this properly in the next day or two, but just to throw this in here now: The Times being behind a paywall -- annoying though it is, I am certainly not going to give them any money -- does not in any way affect whether they are a reliable source. See WP:PAYWALL. In instances where it's unclear what a paywalled source supports or whether it supports it (or whether something may be too closely paraphrased from a source, as often happens with book sources), it is sometimes appropriate to request of the person adding the material that they provide a quote from the source. MPS1992 (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Modern history

Hi @MPS1992:,@ElKevbo:,@Livysmite:,@Cadbury333:. I want to rewrite the history section so it includes more present day history. I propose doing this by maybe breaking the history into three sections; funding and motivation, 20th century, 21st century. This way anyone wishing to learn about the scholarship's history and how it has changed over the years can do so. It would be great if we could all collaborate on this and come up with a page that is coherent and informative. At the moment it seems to focus too much on Cecil Rhodes and not enough on The Scholarship itself. I am looking forward to hearing all of your thoughts on this. Kind regards, Pug of the day (talk) 21:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't see the need for this. MPS1992 (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to see what you can come up with! ElKevbo (talk) 23:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK.@MPS1992: Would you mind elaborating please? If you are worried about certain aspects of history being swept under the rug I assure you that isn't going to happen. I merely seek to balance the page so that it is neutral. Pug of the day (talk) 07:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ElKevbo: Do you wish to see what I intend to upload before uploading it so you can throw your two cents into the ring? Pug of the day (talk) 07:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It might be helpful for you to share proposed edits here in Talk but you're also to just make the edits. ElKevbo (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, folks. Given my own academic background, I tend to err on the side of writing too much, rather than too little. I think user:Pug of the day's idea of segmenting the history of the scholarship into eras is a good idea...but to do it properly would require a fair bit of reading, as there are many comprehensive sources published: Ziegler's Legacy, Kenny ed. History of the Rhodes Trust, Schaeper and Schaeper's Cowboys into Gentlemen, and several first-half of the 20th century publications on the scholarship mainly written for an American audience. My most recent edits were simply intended to provide more information on the specifications in Cecil Rhodes's will...I am happy to collaborate on the rest of the history of the scholarship. I have in mind another edit addressing the issue of "race" in the early scholarship, by which Rhodes himself (in his Will) really meant other European nationalities; but the issue came to a head with the first African American candidate, who did receive the award, Alain LeRoy Locke: did Rhodes's comments on "race" also apply to "colour"--as these words were understood in that era, by the men (they were all men) who were charged with overseeing the program both at Oxford and in the various countries. Cadbury333 (talk) 12:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)Cadbury333[reply]

21st century History

Hello @ElKevbo:@MPS1992:@Cadbury333:@Livysmite: I would like to start my macro page edit by adding a bit more to this section. I feel the modern history should include a bit about Nelson Madella's involvement with the scholarship. I suggest adding a paragraph about the Mandela-Rhosdes Scholarship in the 21st Century history section. Pug of the day (talk) 08:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion of notable Scholars and their career Tradjectories

I would like to expand this section so that it includes subsections about Human Rights, Social Justice and Advocacy, Science/medicine and the arts. I am aware that it will take a lot of research but I thinks it's necessary to balance the page as a whole. Pug of the day (talk) 08:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Funding and motivation

@Livysmite:Would you mind if I edit this section so it reads a little better and is a little shorter. I feel that a lot of this information might be better suited to Cecil Rhode's biography page which has a section for the his Rhodes Scholarship and his political views. I understand that it is important to include that he wanted to further the understanding between the British Empire, Germany and the United states. We probably don't need 6 paragraphs to say that. I think a couple of paragraphs would do. Also could we perhaps move this section further down the page and start with the history section? Or merge funding and motivation with the history section altogether as technically it is part of the history anyway. Pug of the day (talk) 09:27, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pug of the day:I find the newer, edited and shorter version of this section - the motivation part, in particular - to still be a bit too short. It leaves out certain details that I had originally put in a year or so ago (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rhodes_Scholarship&oldid=859220830). Any object to my re-adding some of that detail? We should also add to the bibliography, as many books/articles about the scholarship are missing.Cadbury333 (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

expansion of notable Rhodes Scholars and career trajectories

Up until now this page has focussed on a small group of Scholars who happen to shout the loudest and receive the most press attention. This has led to a very one sided and poorly weighted page. I propose expanding the notable Rhodes Scholars and career trajectories so the page gives a clear overview of Scholarship's purpose. Pug of the day (talk) 15:17, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Anglo-supremacist" vs White-supremacist

The last sentence of the first paragraph reads, "Since its creation, controversy has surrounded both its former exclusion of women (thus leading to the establishment of the co-educational Marshall Scholarship), and Rhodes' Anglo-supremacist beliefs and legacy of colonialism."

In the edit panel, it is clear that it reads, "Since its creation, controversy has surrounded both its former exclusion of women (thus leading to the establishment of the co-educational Marshall Scholarship), and Rhodes' Anglo-supremacist beliefs and legacy of colonialism."

It seems odd that Anglo-supremacist is displayed in the article and it seems a bit misleading. "Anglo-supremacist" links to a page titled "White-supremacist" and nowhere in it does it mention the word "Anglo" or "Anglo-supremacist". I'm going to remove the Anglo-supremacist titled and replace it with White-supremacist. If anyone disagrees please discuss why. 108.252.124.176 (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rhodes_Scholarship&oldid=905526579"