Wow! I've just had a look at the Scholarship Board, and what they are/have been. There’s a Conservative Politician. The Australian boss of News Ltd. A British senior bureaucrat (under both sides). The Queen’s Private Secretary (who’s a financier.) A former diplomat and Dep. Chair of Shell Oil. A boss of De Beers and Anglo American. An IT expert and administrator. And 3 professors. (Three! That’s a worry. We know all about professors – even if they work at the Bank of England)
That is not a group of loony liberals! And to pick one liberal – out of the 80-odd recipients a year - as an example of some sort of trend seems to me to be reaching a little. Academia – like the arts - tends to have a greater share of what you would call “liberals” than most walks of life (for whatever reason) but to insert “conservative bias” into an article where it is not particularly necessary seems to me to be a little gratuitous.
(I have just started thinking about an article on Tchaikovsky – should I spend half of it talking about his homosexuality?) AlanE 15:42, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
- Maybe if you wrote an article on Tchaikovsky and spared us the Liberal denial it would be a good thing - especially if you omitted family-unfriendly material. Bugler 15:45, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
Where's the family unfriendliness in what I wrote? (If you meant it for the Tchai. article, check my articles. I am never "family unfriendly") And why the cliche? Are you saying that group is a group of loony liberals? AlanE 16:05, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
AlanE, first of all, spare us the Wikipedia-style claim that so many historical figures were homosexuals. Go to Wikipedia if you want to grind that ax.
Second of all, I doubt you have a clue what a conservative really is, so spare us your insistthat the Rhodes Scholarship is run by conservative(s). The evidence is the absurdity in who receives the award, such as the non-athlete and non-scholar Bill Clinton.--Aschlafly 16:29, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
I made no such claim about about "so many historical figures" being homosexuals. I wouldn't because it is not true. In fact I have amended various articles to delete or minimise that claim by others. Neither did I say the Scholarship Board were conservatives - I said they were not "loony liberals"; there is an in-between. And one comment is not "insistence". I also happen to agree that Bill Clinton getting a scholarship was a travesty. But quoting one instance is not proving a trend.
Andy...go through my articles and tell me I am not trying to help in building an Encyclopedia - the medieval kings, the composers, the exploration articles, various other historical pieces, the deletion of factual errors. Andy, I am still finding parody and vandalism from the early months of last year and immediately amending or deleting as appropriate. In the 2 or 3 hours a day I have available to me to concentrate on CP(seeing as I am locked out from the early afternoon these days I am forced to do most of my editing from 4 or 5 am)I think I don't do too badly. I question an article and I get abuse. AlanE 17:12, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
Agree with AlanE
"Over time, the award has been increasingly given to liberal recipients lacking achievement in either athletics or academics. For example, scholarship recipient Bill Clinton had no athletic achievement and refused to release his suspect academic record either." First of all, one example does not a trend make. Let's see a graph or something. Second of all, if Clinton's school record were never released, then how do we know he was lacking academic acheivements? HelpJazz 16:01, 24 September 2008 (EDT) PS: Einstein also lacked academic achievements.
- Jazzman, if you're so keen to attempt to contradict Mr Schlafly, you might make some kind of attempt to back up your wild assertions with facts. Sticking your fingers in your ears and going "La, la, la, Aschlafly's all wrong" does not count. We are not Liberals here - at least, most of us aren't - and that kind of 'debating' tactic simply won't wash. Bugler 17:02, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
- That's helpful. If Andy makes a spelling mistake, should I keep it in and revert anyone who changes it? No, I don't think so, and I think you would agree. As for "wild assertions", would that assertion be "one example does not a trend make"? Tell me Bugler, what is your academic background? I humbly submit that I've had some training in data analysis, and this is not a "wild assertion". So it must be be "Clinton's school records were never released", but if that's a "wild assertion", then it should be taken out of the article. Or is it "how do we know he was lacking in academic achievements"? Well I'm not well trained in English, but last I checked a question can't be an assertion. So we are only left with one thing: my "wild assertion" must be "Einstein also lacked academic achievements". From Albert Einstein: "IN 1898, young Albert Einstein applied for admission to the Munich Technical Institute and was turned down. The young man, the Institute declared, "showed no promise" as a student." Who's sticking their fingers in their ears? HelpJazz 18:28, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
- Thanks HelpJazz... Bugler, I may have been a bit sarky in my original edit but my premises still stand: (a)that the Board are not, in the main, left-wing as considered by your average fair-minded person, and (b) as succinctly stated by Helpjazz: "one example does not a trend make." And while I am on this article I am going to change the "athletics" inferences to sporting ones...the scholarships include sporting prowess, not athletic. E.g. Bob Hawke was a cricketer; I have a mate who rows. (I shudder to think what Clinton may have played.)AlanE 18:50, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
For what it's worth, Bill Clinton played Rugby while at Oxford. --Hsmom 01:03, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
Well there ya go then....he can't be all bad! AlanE 14:14, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
Right. So that's two now out of the - what is it? - 80 or so a year. I could probably find a couple of scholars from the right but I would be wasting my time. As a matter of interest, has anyone else googled the Board? They really are not a hotbed of leftist radicalism. Really, what is the point of this pettiness? Less and less encyclopedia - more and more blog. AlanE 15:28, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
- No, you probably cannot find conservative recipients of the award, which is probably why you speculate rather than look.--Aschlafly 15:42, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
- I have no idea if there are more Rhodes liberals than conservatives, either before the recipients are picked or after they've attended Oxford. (Is their time at Oxford likely to make them more or less liberal than they were before? I have no clue.) However, here are two to consider: Piyush "Bobby" Jindal, current Republican governor of the U.S. state of Louisiana, and Heather A. Wilson, Republican member of the United States House of Representatives (New Mexico), and the second female veteran to be elected to Congress. I don't know if either of them are conservative or not, but they are Republican, and they were Rhodes scholars. I'll leave it to the rest of you to research how conservative they might or might not be. --Hsmom 15:57, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
- Thanks, Hsmom. I ran into an edit conflict, so I have wiped what Andy would have no doubt called a rant, and will just say this to him: Andy, your definition of "conservative" is a very narrow one. What most people in my country would call conservative (the "Liberal Party under John Howard, for example) you would not. No one has tried to counter my remarks about the scholarship board - to me as a middle of the road sorta bloke they don't, on average look left wing. Some may be. Certainly a "Conservative Politician" (that is a member of the British Conservative Party) is not going to be a raving leftie. The head of News Ltd. in Australia I know to be right of centre from interviews etc.,
The heads of DeBeers and Shell are unlikely to be socialist in their outlook. And so on. And my mate mentioned above - the one who rows - he was a member of the Young Liberals when young. Any Australian will tell you they are considered fairly right wing (By Oz standards). AlanE 16:40, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
Well, there ya go then. Kim Beazley was a Labor politician Yep. Of the Left? Nope. He was known as a right leaning politician. Certainly his backing came from the right. He was also popular in the community, actually gained over 50% of the vote in a election (but not the seats) and was considered by many to be "too nice a bloke" for politics. And there was no bigger friend to America than he.
- Bob Hawke. He was one of the most popular Prime Ministers Australia has ever had. He headed the labour movement before entering politics - from the centre. As PM he privatised two of Australias largest Gov't owned entities, floated the dollar, brought in the air force during a pilots' strike and generally oversaw financial reforms that formed the foundation for John Howard's economic success. And by consensus he organised a balance between the unions and business that lifted productivity like nothing before. He also was a firm friend to America. He took Australia into the first Gulf War. He really was a man for all seasons - left in some ways, right in others - he was seen as very Australian. When he goes he will be mourned by both sides of politics.
They may be "overwhelmingly liberal" to you, Andy, but not to most people here, and I would say, in Britain. (And we are now up to about .01 of the recipients since about the mid-fifties.)AlanE 14:59, 28 October 2008 (EDT)