Talk:List of Rhodes Scholars

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

Notables[edit]

Note: This discussion has been "pruned" - the full text is archived at Talk:Notable Rhodes Scholars/Sept07

I have suspicions that some of the redlinked names here are vanity/vandalism and propose that they all be removed, unless accompanied by a good external source. If they're notable then they should have a WP article to support the claim. —Moondyne 02:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also "have suspicions that some of the redlinked names here are vanity/vandalism".
And I agree that "If they're notable then they should have a WP article to support the claim." I'm forced to wonder about 1998's Deer Hunter (placed in the 1980s list), and some of the other redlinks are not particularly informative. e.g.
James Bathurst University Of Sussex, University Of Melbourne
Tom Krieger (Virginia and Virginia Tech) productivity consultant
Rather than delete them, I turned these three into hidden comments.
Cheers, Pdfpdf 11:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few redlinks I checked turn up sparse results on a google search, just enough to verify the claim, but nothing else. I went so far as to write a stub on one - Arthur Stanley Roe before seeing the light. I will keep searching for more sources though but don't hold out much hope. —Moondyne 17:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[Irrelevant waffle from Pdfpdf (talk) removed - see Talk:Notable Rhodes Scholars/Sept07 if you must. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)][reply]

My aim is always to turn red to blue and and I'd love to see a completely blue list here. I'm happy to work with you to achieve that. My original point was that the list had a few dubious entries and as they were only a few, it'd be doing little harm to remove the reds entirely. As for deleting or commenting out, the effect is the same. It is generally accepted that its OK to have redlinks in articles as that encourages articles to be written. But we don't have to follow every guidleine literally. But I'm honestly not fussed as long as I know someone has an eye on it and it is not getting flooded with rubbish. Have a good weekend! —Moondyne 17:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Peter Rathjen is next on my hitlist. —Moondyne 17:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PPS: I do like the table - much better. —Moondyne 17:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you like the table.
Currently, I would divide the redlinks into four categories:
  1. I'm surprised these aren't already blue links
  2. Thats a bit vague!
  3. This person doesn't sound likely to be notable
  4. I don't have sufficient information - yet - to make a judgement
(I would also say some of the blue links fall into some of these categories too, but let's deal with one problem at a time!)
So I've created these four lists. So what? When I started, I thought they would be useful. Now, I'm not so sure.
Your thoughts? Cheers, Pdfpdf 00:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Question regarding Olympic athletes: Does being / having been an Olympic athlete in and of itself make you notable? (My guess is "yes", but I'd like a more reliable opinion than "my guess"!) Pdfpdf 09:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further P.S.
Pdfpdf 02:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red links[edit]

I'm surprised these aren't already blue links
  • Albrecht Graf von Bernstorff Germany Trinity 1909 German diplomat, executed for conspiracy against Hitler, 1945
  • John Monk Saunders Washington Magdalen 1918 Screenwriter of Wings and The Dawn Patrol
  • Eric Prabhakar (India & Christ Church 1948), Indian Olympic athlete
  • Thomas A. Bartlett (Oregon & University 1951), President of the American University in Cairo, 1963-1969, Interim President of AUC, 2002-2003; Chancellor of the University of Alabama System, 1981-1989; Chancellor of the State University of New York, 1994-1996
  • Laurie Ackermann (Cape Province & Worcester 1954), Justice of the Constitutional Court of South Africa
  • Lord (Johan) Steyn (Cape Province & University 1955), UK Lord Justice of Appeal
  • Virendra Dayal (India & University 1956), Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations
  • Ranjit Bhatia (India & Jesus 1957), Indian Olympic athlete
  • Manmohan Malhoutra (India & Balliol 1958), Assistant Secretary-General of the Commonwealth
  • Paul Bamberg, Professor of Mathematics and Physics at Harvard University
  • Rt Rev Thomas Frerking OSB (Harvard 1966), Abbot, Abbey of St. Mary and St. Louis
  • Stephen A. Oxman (New Jersey & New College 1967), U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Canadian Affairs, 1993-1994
  • J. Gustave Speth (South Carolina & Balliol 1964), Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme, 1993-1999, Dean of School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale
  • Walter B. Slocombe (Michigan & Balliol 1963), U.S. Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, 1994-2001, Senior Advisor for National Defense for the CPA, Baghdad, 2003
  • Richard H. Trainor (Rhode Island & Merton 1970), Principal of Kings College London
  • Elliot F. Gerson (Connecticut & Magdalen 1974), American Secretary of the Rhodes Trust, Vice President of the Aspen Institute, Deputy Attorney General of Connecticut
  • Annette Salmeen (California & St John's 1997), 1996 American Olympic gold medalist in swimming
  • David R. Woods (Rhodes & University 1963), Vice-Chancellor of Rhodes University
"That's a bit vague ... "
  • Tanjore R. Anantharaman (India & Trinity 1951), Indian metallurgist
  • Ranjit Roy Chaudhury (India & Magdalen 1955), medical scientist
  • Peter Rathjen (South Australia & New College 1985), Australian stem cell scientist, Dean of Science, University of Melbourne 2006-
  • Brian K. Whittington (Mississippi) Math & Science and Songwriter 1984
This person doesn't sound likely to be notable
  • Gilles Berthiaume (Keble 1966), Program Manager, Fujitsu Siemens Computers
  • J. Michael Kirchberg, Jr. (California & Brasenose 1967), USNA, American educator
  • Robert Dowdell (Sydney 1979), Deputy School Administrator of Sydney Boys High School, Sheriff
I don't have sufficient information (yet) to make a judgement
  • Earnest A. Hooten Wisconsin 1907 American physical anthropologist
  • Herbert Eugene Clefton Minnesota 1919 Teacher in Minneapolis, then a Professor at University of Minnesota
  • W. Denham Sutcliffe (Hertford 1937), English scholar at Bates College, Kenyon, and Harvard.
  • Courtney Craig Smith (Iowa & Merton 1938), educationalist, President of Swarthmore College
  • Paul J. Bohannan (Arizona & Queen's 1947), American social anthropologist
  • Benjamin Bernard Dunlap 1959, President of Wofford College, Professor of humanities
  • David C. Hardesty, Jr. (West Virginia & Queen's 1967), President of West Virginia University
  • Deepak Nayyar (India & Balliol 1967), Vice Chancellor of Delhi University
  • Aftab Seth (India & Christ Church 1965), Indian Ambassador to Japan
  • William Dennis Shaul (Ohio & Exeter) Legal Counsel for House Banking Committee
  • James R. Atlas (Illinois & New College 1971), American writer (The New Yorker)
  • Paul Blustein (Wisconsin & Merton 1973), American author and journalist (The Washington Post)
  • Christopher Eisgruber (Oregon & University 1983), Provost of Princeton University
  • Ronald Tenpas (Michigan State 1984), Associate Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, 2005-

Sanity check[edit]

Pdfpdf,

Sensible - Agreed. (Embarassing, but sensible ... )
  • First glance and it looks excellent. Much better than yet another un-useful list and having a separate article is a good move also. I will try to look at it more closely over the next few days.
Thanks.
  • I apologise for dropping the ball on this. I've been distracted with issues closer to home and haven't had a chance to even look at Peter Rathjen, but I promise I will shortly. —Moondyne 06:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologise. (I don't see any urgency.) I was just interested; I wondered what "stem cell scientist" really means, and wondered if he really did study at UniSA. (If so, he must be one of UniSA's first Rhodes Scholars.) Pdfpdf 08:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red Link removal[edit]

Rathjen[edit]

No, I thought not. The List of SA Rhodes Scholars says: Peter David Rathjen studied at Blackwood HS, University of Adelaide, and New College (1985). (I've changed the table.) Pdfpdf 08:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done! —Moondyne 10:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Impressive!!
(i.e. The thoroughness and standard of your page, the speed with which you produced it, and Rathjen's achievements!)
Who are you going to take on now!? ;-) Pdfpdf 11:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Rhodes Scholars[edit]

Thanks. I was wondering why there's so few names in Category:Indian Rhodes scholars (2 currently), so from your first two categories above, I'd say Eric Prabhakar, Ranjit Bhatia, Manmohan Malhoutra, Tanjore R. Anantharaman and Ranjit Roy Chaudhury should be looked at (but they'll probably only be stubs). —Moondyne 12:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that there are not many Indian users of English WP. Good luck! Pdfpdf 13:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll bet there are. Category:Wikipedians in India shows several hundred at least. Wikipedia:WikiProject India shows they have 23000 articles and 71 featured articles which is comparable to Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia —Moondyne 01:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was a bad guess, wasn't it! At the moment, I have no idea why there are so few in "Indian Rhodes Scholars". I'm afraid I must concentrate on Income Tax for the moment, but I'll have a look around and see what I can find.

http://www.rhodesscholarships-india.com/history.htm

The 52 original scholarships
The scheme was unprecedented in scale as well as vision. Rhodes' original will provided for 52 scholarships each year. 20 scholarships were for countries then forming part of the British Empire: two for Canada (one each for Ontario and Quebec), six for Australia (one for each colony or state), five for South Africa (one each for Natal and for four named schools in the Cape), three for Rhodesia, and one each for New Zealand, Newfoundland, Bermuda and Jamaica. 32 scholarships were for the United States: two every three years for each of the then States of the Union.

No mention of India!

Scholarships to India and Women
While the 52 scholarships in the original will are still offered annually, a number of changes and additions have been made. These include introduction of scholarships to the Commonwealth countries including India. Prof. Asim Kumar Datta (Christ Church, 1947) and Late Mr. Lovraj Kumar (Magdalen, 1947) comprised the first batch of Indian Rhodes Scholars. For the first 38 years, India had one or two scholarships every year. The number of scholarships was increased to three per year in 1985, and four per year in 1991.
In 1979, Amrita Cheema became the first woman from India to be awarded a Rhodes Scholarship, and in 1995, Ms. Roopa Unnikrishnan became the 100th Rhodes Scholar from India. Since 1998, six scholars are elected from India every year. Unlike USA and many other Rhodes constituencies that have a "quota" for each state, Indian Rhodes scholarships are awarded on an All-India basis. However, our selection procedure involves zonal interviews (in the North, East, West and South zones) to shortlist candidates for the final interview and screening process.

So, very roughly, about 170 have been awarded.
(i.e. 1947-84: 38*1.5= approx 60; 1985-90: 6*3= approx 20; 1991-97: 7*4= approx 30; 1998-2007 10*6=60)
Not many for a country with a billion inhabitants. (Well, at least women are now eligible!!)

I'll keep looking for a list of names/dates. Pdfpdf 02:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting link. Perhaps an email to mailto:secretary@rhodesscholarships-india.com might uncover something. —Moondyne 03:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. If my search comes up empty, that will be the next step. Pdfpdf 03:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Content and title of "University" column in tables[edit]

68.34.126.100 has started to rename the column header as "District", after trying to work out what was in the column and trying to come up with an appropriate descriptor for the column's contents.

I agree that the column's contents are a random collection, and I'm not sure what it is that they are a random collection of!! Mostly, it looks like the area in which the university they attended is located. It doesn't seem to contain the area where they were born, raised, did their major work, or died. Hence, I have been changing the content to the name of the University they attended when doing the work which led them to be awarded the scholarship.

A number of points arise out of this, but I think the only important one is:

What should this column contain?

Opinions please. Pdfpdf 00:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sortname?[edit]

Is the use of a Sortname field in a table typical in Wikipedia? It seems clumsy to me. If being able to sort by last name is important, shouldn't we format the contents of the Name field as "Lastname, Firstname?" Mtrumpbour (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea if it is typical. (If there is another mechanism, please educate me.)
Yes, it is clumsy, but have you a better way to do it?
Yes, sorting by last name is important.
The problem with the name field containing "Lastname, Firstname" is that, by definition, everyone in this table is notable and hence (in theory) has a WP page, and I can guarantee you that not one of those pages has the title "Lastname, Firstname", so, by itself, your proposal is not an option.
You could go through and change every name to [[wiki-page-name|Lastname, Firstname]] if you wished, but that would be a lot of work, and what would you achieve? What is there already does the job, and I expect you will annoy lots of people if you make changes like [[Bob Hawke|Hawke, Robert J. L. (Bob)]] etc.
However, I might be completely wrong, so feel free to do whatever you please - just make sure that there is always in place a mechanism to sort by surname. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 05:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability - Bonnitcha[edit]

Jonathan Bonnitcha should be removed under classification of not being noteworthy. His sailing nor academic nor professional results resemble anything of 'noteworthy' standing. 203.129.53.87 (talk) 04:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having been listed as an "Olympian" should be referenced against the AOC's or AIS's list from Athens 2004 and back. Being part of an Olympic shadow or training team is not a noteworthy achievement (nor does it qualify them as being an "Olympian"), and results/performances of those should be checked. One of the members of this noteworthy list is not even Internationally-ranked, nor has received a result that qualifies them in the "A" or "Gold" fleet at any Group 1 event. An accurate assessment would be a Top-10 World ranked sports-person, or a medal-winner at any Olympics. Thoughts? Anonymous 15:35, 16 May 2008 (AEST)

Thoughts? - several!
  1. This is your opinion. Others have different opinions.
  2. As stated, this is a list of Notable Rhodes Scholars. By Wikipedia definition, if someone has a page on WP, they are notable.
  3. Bonnitcha is/was a Rhodes Scholar. He has a page on WP. Therefore, he is a Notable Rhodes Scholar.
  4. As far as this page is concerned, end of conversation.
I gather you are disputing his notability. That's your perogative, but you're doing it in the wrong place. You need to do that on Talk:Jonathan Bonnitcha, not here. With respect to this page, the points you are raising are irrelevant. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any further discussion on this topic is on the page Talk:Jonathan Bonnitcha

Notability - Bonnitcha Revisit[edit]

Jonathan Bonnitcha has been deleted from WP (personal page) due to WP:NOTABILITY (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Bonnitcha_%282nd_nomination%29). I would argue the same here, as the Rhodes Scholars page specifically requires 'notability' to be listed. Seeing as though his sailing results were the subject of the deletion of his WP page, his notability in Rhodes Scholars is no longer applicable. I would suggest either showing academic or professional notability, or a removal from the list. Suggestions? Taymaishu (talk) 01:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Divine Mafa[edit]

He is very notable and is a scholar of the new generation. If you have further questions, please direct them to me for future answers before deleting blacks from the site. thanks 69.143.57.71 (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that you saying he is notable doesn't make him notable. YOU need to supply EVIDENCE. There is no EVIDENCE either that this person was awarded a Rhodes Scholarship, or that he is notable. EVIDENCE. Pdfpdf (talk) 23:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And no, I am not going to chase you up for EVIDENCE. YOU need to supply it. Pdfpdf (talk) 23:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And the fact that he's black is irrelevant. Whites with no EVIDENCE get deleted from the site too. Pdfpdf (talk) 23:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

divine= He is very notable and has done a lot of work for poor people, in hands on situations in so many ways that you can not understand. He has helped in eradication of malaria, and also helped in rehabilitating children with cerebral palsy in africa. It makes me wonder why you have an issue with rhodes scholars who have not become politicians. In your mind, you seem to hae an issue with the fact tha, you yourself can not qualify for a rhodes scholarship. Youa are humiliating. the buck does not stop with you. Virginia

You're not paying attention, are you. I said you need to provide evidence. If he is so notable, why is there NO information on the web about these deeds? These things you mention are indeed very praiseworthy, but that's not the point. This is an encyclopaedia, and things that appear in it MUST be able to be verified. How can these things you say be verified? Please, I am asking for your help here.
"in so many ways that you can not understand." - Why can't I understand?
"It makes me wonder why you have an issue with rhodes scholars who have not become politicians." - What are you talking about? Look immediately above. Jonathan Bonnitcha is a sailor and windsurfer, not a politician. Explain yourself please.
"In your mind, you seem to hae an issue with the fact tha, you yourself can not qualify for a rhodes scholarship." - Again, what are you talking about. Explain yourself please.
"Youa are humiliating." - I'm sorry if I am humiliating you, but that's not my fault. The responsibility is on you to learn wikipedia's rules. If you don't learn them and make a fool of yourself, that's not my problem.
"the buck does not stop with you." - Again, I have no idea what you are talking about. Explain yourself please.
Also, it is extremely rude to remove other people's words, particularly when it changes the meaning of what they have said. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Title of this page - should it include "notable"?[edit]

Please read Wikipedia:LIST#List_naming: "The list title should not be misleading (and should normally not include abbreviations), but overly precise list titles can be less useful (and make the list difficult to find); the precise inclusion criterion of the list should be spelled out in the lead section (see below), not the title. For instance, words like "complete," "famous" and "notable" are normally excluded from list titles, and instead the lead makes clear that that list is complete, or is limited to famous or notable members." (emphasis added)

The page should therefore be at "List of Rhodes Scholars", with a proper lead section setting out the scope of the list. It should use {{sortname}} and every name should have a reference, rather than rely on the underlying Wikipedia article (and where there is no article yet, the reference will help allow the article to be written). With these other improvements, the list could easily become a Featured List, and I'll be happy to help with that. BencherliteTalk 08:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many points raised. At the risk of appearing to be "a bit strange", I'll number them for future ease-of-reference:
1) Your posting is the most informative and best explained talk page entry I've read this year! It is also the most concise. (Thank you!!)
2) OK, I can see why "notable" might want to be avoided. (Note, however, your quote says "are normally excluded", suggesting that there can be situations where there may be a case for including the word.)
3) I most definitely disagree that your quote leads to the conclusion "The page should therefore be at 'List of Rhodes Scholars'". More on this later.
4) I strongly agree that, whatever the pagename is, it should have "a proper lead section setting out the scope of the list." (I thought it did. Oh well, back to the drawing board ... )
5) Yes indeed, "It should use {{sortname}}" (Twelve months ago I didn't know about "{{sortname}}", and since I have learned about it, I'm afraid I've never quite been in the mood to embark on the conversion!)
Sorry - got-to-go. Will complete the post later. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6) "and every name should have a reference, rather than rely on the underlying Wikipedia article (and where there is no article yet, the reference will help allow the article to be written)." - Mmmmm. Interesting. My response has several threads:
6.1) The original intention was, as this is a list of notables, they all had pages, so there seemed no point in duplicating "stuff" from the underlying page into the list - that just doubled the amount of data to maintain, and created scope for the list and the underlying article to be inconsistent. i.e. version control problems.
6.2) In a hyperlinked environment, why duplicate information? Why not just link to "the" data.
6.3) Yes, there are good reasons to adhere to "the standard". However, it doesn't seem a very good standard to me, and at best, seems rather archaic and "paper-based".
6.4) What's wrong with relying on the underlying article? It seems more logical to me to have ALL the information in one place rather than spread over a number of pages.
6.5) There's a certain logic in the redlink argument, but, if one has a reference, why not draft the article and put the reference there? Putting the reference against a redlink looks/feels to me like laziness. (However, I gather there must be a greater number of people who have a different POV, otherwise what you state would not be "the standard".)
7) "the list could easily become a Featured List" - I'm surprised. (Probably a little flattered, too.)
8) "I'll be happy to help with that." - Well, I'd be foolish not to accept that offer, wouldn't I! Perhaps I better accept your offer before you have second thoughts, change your mind, and withdraw the offer! "Yes please".
Regarding point 3): As you can see from both the discussion history and the edit history, this page is subject to random editors adding the names of their personal heroes and their friends, without much regard to the notability of the subject. And that has been while the page has been named "Notable Rhodes Scholars". The Rhodes Scholar page says there have been 7,000 Rhodes Scholars, and 4,000 of them are still alive. If you rename the page to "List of Rhodes Scholars", you're opening the page to 7,000 potential entries (no matter how you qualify eligibility criteria, which will be ignored by zealots determined to immortalise their heroes). It would greatly increase the page maintenance overhead. As I said, I can see why you might want to remove "notable", but MoS does allow a certain flexibility with-respect-to "notable" in the page name. Is there a third potential pagename that would address both of our concerns?
I apologise for not having the skill to be as concise as you are. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notable doesn't need to be int he title of the page, if there is an issue with people who are non-notable in wiki terms that can be addressed by noting in the introduction to the list that people must be notable, or alternatively, if you're trying exclude non-notable people, does it really need to be a list, why not simply use categories, then if someone is notable enough for a wiki article, and is a Rhodes Scholar they can simply be placed in the relevant category. Assuming that a list is more desiarable becuase it allows for the inclusion of redlinks, a single reference and the amount of info that's need to justify inclusion in the list would be a horrible sub-stub that could easily get deleted, or someone sees a bluelink and assumes that there's a decent article without checking - a redlink says "write me, write me". Whether or not "notable" is included in the title, starting the name with "List of" certainly seems to be pretty standard. On referencing - remember that a Wikiepdia article is not actually considered a reliable source, there should be enough info here that the reason for inclusion can be determined without having to go elsewhere. David Underdown (talk) 12:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(reply to Pdfpdf, after edit conflict with DU)

1) Thanks!
2) No Featured List (including education-related lists such as List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford (my pet topic) and (for a transatlantic example) Dartmouth College alumni) uses "notable" in its title. I'm sure it would be one of the first "oppose" reasons if it was a candidate.
3) I still think that "List of Rhodes Scholars" is the way forward. Frankly, if "List of University of Oxford people" and its sub-lists can all cope without the word "notable", so can this much smaller sub-set of OU people. "Notability" is inherent in the concept of lists like these. I agree that not all 7,000 will be notable and any non-notable names can be removed, as I see you have been doing. However, the page history shows that it doesn't seem to be too frequent a problem these days, and a better-structured/referenced list makes it less tempting to mess around anyway. ("Zealots" will add their / their friends' names regardless of whether the page has "notable" in the title, surely?) Unreferenced names can be removed straight away. There is no need to worry about page size - if the list gets too long, sub-lists would be a possibility, but we're miles from that at the moment.
4) See other Featured Lists for examples. (And possible openings such as "This is a list of notable Rhodes Scholars" are disliked at WP:FLC!)
6) All the information must have a reference, and it must be on this page, otherwise the list would have no chance at FLC. I know it may involve a degree of duplication, but it has its advantages: the information is all available on one page and is more easily watched for changes than if each name's page has to be watched. Enforcing a need for references means that non-notable / unproven names can be more easily detected and removed. "The data", as you put it, is the underlying source, not the Wikipedia article, so this list needs the source. And the assumption that the underlying article has the information is not always the case - the third name I tried, Frido von Senger, does not mention which college he attended or which year, so where's that information coming from? The "redlink with a reference" is only a stepping-stone; it'd shouldn't be a list of redlinks (and won't pass FLC with many, if any, redlinks).
7) With a lot of work, see other FLs for examples.
8) Can we fix it? Yes we can!
Basically agree with David Underdown, save that lists such as this are a useful addition to a category since they present the information in a different, and potentially more interesting, way (the category Category:Rhodes scholars won't show you colleges / years / details at a glance).
BencherliteTalk 12:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Very skillfully argued!! (If I'm ever unfortunate enough to need the skills of a lawyer, you'll be my first point-of-call. The fact that you live in the antipodes might be a bit inconvenient ... )
It seems you have addressed every major point I have raised, and either proposed a solution or explained why it's not a problem. I don't totally agree with everything you say, but none my remaining concerns are of any great importance - certainly none are worthy of any further debate.
In the interest of conciseness, I'll simply say, "OK. What now?". Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 06:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. If you do decide to "rename" the page, please alter the lead paragraph before making the move. (I still have reservations about potentially "opening the floodgates".) Pdfpdf (talk) 06:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A handy list of NZ Rhodes Scholars[edit]

See this list. BencherliteTalk 01:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, this table is even more useful. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Rhodes scholars?[edit]

I'm not sure if there are still gaps in notable scholars (with particular reference to the comments above about those from India and NZ). For reference, Rhodes House keeps a complete list of scholars here: http://www.rhodeshouse.ox.ac.uk/about/rhodes-scholars/rhodes-scholars-complete-list —Preceding unsigned comment added by FunkyCanute (talk • contribs) 09:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing one name: Jeff Shesol, who has a Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thundermist04167 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added him to the table as "Author, speechwriter, political cartoonist" (feel free to improve that description). Maybe somebody should link his Wikipedia page back to this one? Jzimba (talk) 12:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added David Coleman (Vermont and University 1991), who has a Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Coleman_(education). Maybe someone should link his Wikipedia page back to this one? Jzimba (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about 'Richard Stengel'? He was a Rhodes Scholar in 1977. He's outgoing managing editor of Time Magazine. Regularly on TV and will be joining the State Dept. I would think he's noteworthy enough to be included on the list. What do the powers that be say? (Forgive my not knowing how to properly post here...) 68.109.18.55 (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I merged the above comment about Richard Stengel into the section on Missing Rhodes Scholars. Formerly it had been a standalone section. 108.41.59.144 (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Politics[edit]

Um. They all seem to be lefties politically. Would someone humor me and point out just one on the list that is a right winger or even a garden variety Libertarian? If not, maybe it should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.119.18 (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have created the "Politics" section to contain this comment - formerly, the comment had been plopped down at the very top of the Talk page, outside of the outline structure entirely. The comment strikes me as pretty irrelevant however. Jzimba (talk) 21:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Rhodes Scholars. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of Rhodes Scholars. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 06:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion[edit]

This list is currently pretty useful, it should be broken up by country or even university. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addition to the Rhodes Scholar List[edit]

Please add to the list W. Richard Jacobs, 1968 Caribbean Rhodes Scholar, University of the West Indies. He was the President of the Guild of Students at University of the West Indies, a Marxist Political Scientist, Trade Union leader and Ambassador Plenipotentiary and Extraordinary for Grenada (1979 -1983) to Cuba, Panama, Nicaragua, Mexico, USSR, Germany, Poland, Bulgaria and the Non-Aligned Movement. 162.216.161.117 (talk) 15:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of missing names in this list, as it only contains those for whom a Wikipedia article exists. See Help:Your first article if you're interested in starting one. Doug butler (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request to add Stephen E. Sachs[edit]

I request to add the legal academic Stephen E. Sachs. GuardianH (talk) 02:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Rhodes_Scholars&oldid=1209797350"