Talk:Rhodes Scholarship

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  White and  Non-white scholarships 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Hi . And thank you for catching my accidental removal of content. All the best. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Cucas refs and content 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thank you for pointing this out. MPS1992 (talk) 22:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening Paragraph 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rhodes: Anglo supremacy vs White supremacy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Israel needs to be added 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716232221/http://www.rhodeshouse.ox.ac.uk/section/faqs to http://www.rhodeshouse.ox.ac.uk/section/faqs
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070305220039/http://www.rhodeshouse.ox.ac.uk/infoscholar.htm to http://www.rhodeshouse.ox.ac.uk/infoscholar.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161226095857/http://www.rhodeshouse.ox.ac.uk/news/chinalaunch to http://www.rhodeshouse.ox.ac.uk/news/chinalaunch
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160923223946/http://www.rhodeshouse.ox.ac.uk/news/uae-launch to http://www.rhodeshouse.ox.ac.uk/news/uae-launch
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161123172624/http://www.rhodeshouse.ox.ac.uk/news/south-african-schools-scholarships to http://www.rhodeshouse.ox.ac.uk/news/south-african-schools-scholarships
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141224142940/http://cabot.harvard.edu/content/Post-Graduate.docx to http://cabot.harvard.edu/content/Post-Graduate.docx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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

message: 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 (, , , and ) 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.
 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)
thread_title:  Political bias controversy 

message: 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)
thread_title: Suggested changes to introduction paragraph

message: 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)
thread_title: Changes to introduction section

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Agreed. This may merit one sentence at most but maybe not that much. ElKevbo (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of "Criticism of political bias" paragraph

message: 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)
thread_title:  Page macro edit 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Quality of post-graduate education at Oxford - removal request 

message: Hi ,,,. 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)
replies: text: Personally, I don't see the need for this. MPS1992 (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

text: I'd love to see what you can come up with! ElKevbo (talk) 23:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Modern history 

message: Hello  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)
thread_title: 21st century History 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Expansion of notable Scholars and their career Tradjectories

message: 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)
thread_title:  Funding and motivation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  expansion of notable Rhodes Scholars and career trajectories 

message: 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)
replies: text: Rhodes lived in a time when the British saw themselves as having a sort of god given destiny to rule the world. In this, they saw themselves as very separate from the other major group of white people at the time, the Europeans. It was the British Empire, not the white empire. (Brexit might suggest the same sentiment exists among many today, and Americans didn't matter back then.) They saw Europeans as being clearly a lesser people, even the enemy. It WAS a distinctly Anglo-supremacist view, rather than a broader white-supremacist view. I wish you hadn't even so hasty in changing the article. Normal courtesy here involves waiting at least a few days after putting something on the Talk page before actually changing the article. HiLo48 (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Anglo-supremacist" vs White-supremacist 

message: Following initial deliberation with  and with a view to present information related to the scholarship in a fair manner based on reliable sources I propose including:  
"A scholar who declined an offer to take up the scholarship was Alimuddin Zumla."
This information was removed in December 2020 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rhodes_Scholarship&type=revision&diff=992571575&oldid=991761423 
Ear-phone (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Query