Talk:Cecil Rhodes/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

/Archive 1 (2003-2008); /Archive 2 (2009-2012)

Archived topics

Untitled

• "Imperialist" - 16:15, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
• Do it for mummu - 03:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• archaeohistory - (unsigned)
• Vandalism or erroneous deletion? - 04:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Citations - May 23 2:12 AM 2006 (UTC)
• Sexual Orientation - 03:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC) to 14:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
• Neville Pickering - 15:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
• ideas section - 21:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Portrait - 03:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Was Rhodes a smoker - 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• What secret society did he found? - 17:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• Rhodes the imperialist - 12:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• "Rohdes" in photo caption - 21:54, 16 November 2007
• Childhood in England - 05:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• Forced Labour - 18:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Princess Radziwill - 09:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Charles Metcalfe - 10:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Add to LGBT Project? - 16:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Rhodes House Photo - 20:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Legacy - 10:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Connection to Rhode Island - 04:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• speculation vs examination - 14:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
• Last words - 06:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
• "a white supremacist" - 11:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Details of "ill health" and death, please

"he was dogged by ill health throughout his relatively short life. Rhodes died in 1902"
His "ill health" being what, exactly?
Cause of death; what, exactly?
Details, please (with cites). -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 16:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Massie: Dreadnought, Britain, Germany and the coming of the Great War, p.230 "Rhodes lived only six years after the raid. He suffered from cardiovascular disease, which he helped along by eating huge slabs of meat, drinking throughout the day, and smoking incessantly. His body near the end was bloated, his cheeks blotched and flabby, his eyes watery. His high-pitched voice became almost shrill: his handshake, offered with only two fingers of the hand extended, was weak; his letters, which had always ignored punctuation, left out words to the point of incoherence." if that helps. Sandpiper (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Colvin syas he had an aneurysm which was pressing on his heart and lungs. Sandpiper (talk) 09:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Rotburg, R - The Founder concurs - aortic aneurysm. Interestingly the book speculates (p676) that this might have arisen due to syphilis, though the most likely explanation is advanced arteriosclerosis, not helped by the large appetite for alcohol, tobacco, and food noted above. This said, as the book notes, it does not really explain his earlier various 'heart attacks' in 1872, 1877, and the 1880s. --Xdamr^talk 11:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

W T Stead 'The will of Cecil rhodes' , says p177, 'the result of the post mortem examination showed that with the exception of the aneurism of the heart, which caused an immense distension of that organ, he was in a perfectly healthy state. The heart trouble had been with him from his youth. when he attained manhood it abated somewhat, but after his fortieth year it returned and gradually increased until his death'. The times obituary article said the illness recurred when he returned to England to go to oxford, which is why he interrupted his studies to return to SA. Though the timing mentioned does not seem right. I'm not quite clear whether this just means classic heart disease which causes the heart to swell?Sandpiper (talk) 02:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Sexuality - weasel words

I think we need some clarification here about how we handle the issue of quotations from academic sources before we proceed. The section includes a direct quote from the academic Richard Brown who says:

"On the issue of Rhodes' sexuality... there is, once again, simply not enough reliable evidence to reach firm, irrefutable conclusions. It is inferred, but not proved, that Rhodes was homosexual and it is assumed (but not proved) that his relationships with men were sometimes physical."

It has been suggested that we name those that 'infer' and those that 'assume'. But aren't we simply summarising Brown's own conclusions and isn't it for the reader to go to read Brown if they want to know more about the whos and the whys? Otherwise it's not really workable is it? Contaldo80 (talk) 13:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

(I think you are being very polite. I'm getting grumpy about people who insist on "correcting" quotes.)

Yes, Brown did use "weasel words". Yes, Brown could have been less vague. But he wasn't.

It's a quote! (That's why it has those " thingies around it.)

In the case of unusual grammar in a quote, one can put (sic), but I don't think there is a similar such mechanism for acknowledging that an author has been vague.

"It has been suggested that we name those that 'infer' and those that 'assume'." - Indeed it has. However, it wasn't "us" who used the words 'infer' and 'assume', it was Mr Brown. (And even if Mr Brown were still alive, I doubt he would rewrite his book as a convenience to wikipedia.)

No, we're not summarising Brown, we're quoting him.

Yes, it is for the reader to go to read Brown if they want to know more.

Yes indeed - otherwise it is NOT workable, and never has been.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Sexuality - Jameson

Peculiar little cut there? Came here because i was just reading Massie: Dreadnought, Britain , Germany and the coming of the great war, and we just got to Rhodes. Massie keeps surprising me by presenting evidence on people's sexuality and then not drawing the bottom line. So wondered what was here. Massie's little understatements are to say about Leander star Jameson that: ' he met rhodes his first day in Kimberley and, "we drew closely together", Jameson said. Rhodes moved into Jameson's one storey corrugated-iron bungalow, where the two lifelong batchelors shared two untidy bedrooms and a sitting room. "we walked and rode together", Jameson continued, "shared our meals, exchanged our views on men and things and discussed his big schemes,".' Fancy. Then later he says, 'In 1896 when Groote Schuur was gutted by fire [Rhode's mansion], Rhodes was told that there was bad news. He knew that Jameson was ill: now, his face went white, he said, "Do not tell me that Jameson is dead". When he heard about the fire he flushed in relief. "Thank goodness" he said. "If Dr. Jim had died I should never have got over it. Jameson was at Rhodes side in March 1902 when the Colossus at forty eight, met his own death.'

Massie seems to agree that there is little evidence, but quite plainly is hinting by his choice of inclusions that Jameson and Rhodes were lovers. Interesting that in this case of insufficient evidence the article suggests another candidate, neville Pickering. Sandpiper (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see the article on Jameson fails to explain they lived together in Kimberley, but says Jameson was buried beside Rhodes. Well, how nice. Sandpiper (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Very happy to include something on Jamieson in this Rhodes article if you can suggest something. Agree better to at least refer. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not proposing going overboard on this. The earlier debate seemed to suggest some people wanting to ditch mention of his sexuality entirely, in part on the grounds it could not be referenced. Nor am I an expert on him to say whether or not it is really true there is insufficient evidence to judge. Massie seems to like to at least appear to sit on the fence (on other issues as well), but the description he has chosen to use doesn't leave much doubt as to his views, if you stop to consider it from this perspective. I mean, a quote that he and Jameson liked to talk about men? Obviously this could be entirely innocent, they lived in an almost exclusively male town, but just highlighting these particular quotes? Maybe he writes it this way so that it can go over the head of anyone not thinking about that aspect. People here challeneged the relevancy of mentioning sexuality. I think that ridiculous because quite clearly it still matters in society and would have mattered very much more at the time he was alive. The article about Jameson and the Jameson raids talks about that incident being out of character for him: pretty plainly he was put in charge of the raid by Rhodes because of a relationship of trust between them, whatever else.

Having said all that about the importance of addressing this issue, it seemed to me at least a question whether if one person is named as a possible lover, then other people who have also been suggested should get a mention too. I don't know if anyone is more knowledgeable about this and knows if any author has compiled a list? I was most amused reading around this in other articles that Jameson knew Kipling and Ian Hamilton, and that Kipling wrote 'If' about Jameson. Apparently Jameson's portrait still hangs in Kipling's old house. Obviously, all these people were part of the ruling elite in South Africa, so there is an entirely conventional explanation for how they came to meet, but they seem to have something else in common.Sandpiper (talk) 10:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting stuff, and as Contaldo says/implies, it sounds like it's worthy of inclusion. You have the texts, what do you suggest be included? (It sounds like that, on this occassion, referencing the information will not be a problem.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Heres a quote from 'The life of Jameson' by Ian Colvin 1922. Jameson nursed Rhodes through his final illness with singular devotion. p. 209 "Some hours afterwards Jameson uncovered the dead face that Jourdan might take a last look at his master. ' His Roman features,' says Jourdan, ' were more pronounced than I had ever seen them in life.Even in death he looked determined, dignified, and masterful.' The secretary, in his desolation, still could see that Jameson was ' fighting against his own grief. ... No mother could have displayed greater tenderness towards the remains of a loved son.'

Colvin also seems to have written a life of Rhodes, which has a much more sober description of the death scene and is dedicated 'to his friend LSJ from IDC'. LSJ then being still alive. Sandpiper (talk) 04:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Stead, The last will and testament of Cecil Rhodes, p. 190, says the last word he spoke was 'Jameson' (while stretching out his hand to him). Sandpiper (talk) 01:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Think your addition looks good. Of course the next issue is whether we add anything into the Jameson article to show the links with Rhodes? Contaldo80 (talk) 09:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I find wiki biographies are often stronger on dates and places than on personal details about the character of the people concerned. The Jameson article does state he was buried alongside Rhodes and then quotes a poem about separated lovers, but I know what you mean. To do so though means finding someone addressing the issue from the Jameson side. Then again, If Jamesons entire motivation in his career was to be with Rhodes, that is quite important and maybe a more human explanation of his life than the quotes there now saying his motivation was patriotism. There was a comment in Colvin, I think, where Jameson said after Rhodes death he could now go home to England for a rest. Though he never gave up trying to carry out Rhodes' wishes. Sandpiper (talk) 19:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Quotations section

This section was sourced and arguably relevant, so I'm putting it on the talk page for discussion/improvement rather than simply removing it, but I strongly dislike "memorable quotes" sections - that's what Wikiquote is for - so I did take it out of the article. If we're going to discuss the influence of some of these quotes, that's fine. It should be in prose form and worked into the article. In the case of the first quotation, it's important to establish why the quote is famous and what impact it had. What makes it relevant to the Wikipedia article rather than simply Wikiquote? (Recognizance (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC))

With regard to the first quote, I note that at least one author about Rhodes put it in their book, because I saw it there recently. As wih anything wiki, if someone extenally thinks a think is relevant, we do too. A quote is no different to any other piece of information about a subjetc. If it sheds light on the subject then it is pat of the material we consider when compiling an article. What is not relevant about 'i would annexe the planets if I could'? Sandpiper (talk)

I was tempted to remove the popular culture section in a similar vein (i.e. not permanently, just for re-organisation) but left it for now. It should be worked into a legacy/influence section though, of which the quotes can certainly play a part. Recognizance (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't agree so I have reinserted it into the article. I think that setting a figure in context is extremely important. If someone still has an influence in popular culture, or did historically, then that should be mentioned. What wikiquote do is up to them. What encyclopedia britannica do is up to them. I do not cut things from here because they also happen to be in encyclopedia britanica, nor because they also happen to be on wikiquote. You just conceded it is sourced and relevant. Sandpiper (talk) 08:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

If you want to indicate context and influence, include it in the body of the main article. general suggestion is that such a segment not be included. Ironholds (talk) 00:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

As you point out, that view is just a suggestion but even aside from that I dont really see that is says anything about whether to have a section dedicated to interesting quotes by the subject of the article. Sandpiper (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Can I suggest opening a Request for Comment on this matter? It'll get a few more (far more knowledgeable than I) eyes on it. Ironholds (talk) 14:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Recognizance and Ironholds. For what it's worth, (and that probably isn't much), I tend to support Sandpiper's POV. I guess I'm an inclusionsist - in my POV, the more relevant information there is in the one place, the better.

"but I strongly dislike "memorable quotes" sections" - Well OK, you're entitled to your opinion, but "WP:I just don't like it" is insufficient justification for removing sourced material.

(As it happens, I like such sections; as with the seemingly endless debate about Rhodes' sexuality (or lack thereof), it goes to giving some understanding of the nature, personality, character, etc. of the person.) Technically, many of your points are accompanied by excellent suggestions. But I see them from the "both/and" side, rather than the "either/or" side.

Two examples:

• "What makes it relevant to the Wikipedia article rather than simply Wikiquote?" - (I explained above what makes it relevant to the Wikipedia article.) I don't see why it can't appear in both places. As Sandpiper says, "What wikiquote ... [and] ... encyclopedia britannica do is up to them."
• "If you want to indicate context and influence, include it in the body of the main article." - I would argue, that is an additional/different function from the function of illustrating "the nature of the person". I don't see why the article can not address both functions - I don't see why it has to be an "either/or" thing.

(As for WP:RFC: I've never experienced it, and hence have no (useful) opinion on the matter.)

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It is excellent, yes, but it's a standalone quotes list. If you want to properly illustrate the character, weave it into prose. RfCs can be useful for getting more eyes on a discussion; say the word and I'll set one up. Ironholds (talk) 09:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - what is excellent?

"but it's a standalone quotes list" - Ummmm. Sorry, I don't follow. What's your point here?

"If you want to ... "' - Errrrr. I've already addressed that point. Am I missing something?

--Pdfpdf (talk) 11:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

1) the list, 2) it provides no way of illustrating Rhodes' personality because it's just... sitting there. It isn't weaved in with any prose to give context, there is no way for the reader to know exactly what it's trying to illustrate and it detracts from the encyclopedic feel of the article. Give me a poke if you'd like an RfC as a means of getting more opinions, or just a posting on the content noticeboard. Ironholds (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Quotations

[[:Image:Cecil john rhodes00.jpg|thumb|left|upright|Cecil Rhodes (Sketch by Mortimer Menpes)]]
Rhodes famously declared: "To think of these stars that you see overhead at night, these vast worlds which we can never reach. I would annex the planets if I could; I often think of that. It makes me sad to see them so clear and yet so far."

“We must find new lands from which we can easily obtain raw materials and at the same time exploit the cheap slave labor that is available from the natives of the colonies (disputed quote -sourcing needed). The colonies would also provide a dumping ground for the surplus goods produced in our factories.”

“Pure philanthropy is very well in its way but philanthropy plus five percent is a good deal better.”

"I contend that we are the first race in the world, and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race...If there be a God, I think that what he would like me to do is paint as much of the map of Africa British Red as possible..."

"In order to save the forty million inhabitants of the United Kingdom from a bloody civil war, our colonial statesmen must acquire new lands for settling the surplus population of this country, to provide new markets... The Empire, as I have always said, is a bread and butter question"

"To be born English is to win first prize in the lottery of life."

---

"Lottery" quote

Eminent though the Daily Telegraph is, I am unconvinced that a sports article in a newspaper is adequate as a reference, especially as most www sources provide the following version “Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life”. I don't feel qualified to make a change, but someone may want to review the quaotation. 122.107.58.27 (talk) 09:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Yes, I can't say I'm convinced, either.

It seems you are indeed correct on the wording.

My problem is that I can't find a "reliable" source:

• http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Cecil_Rhodes - No source quoted
• http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/England - No source quoted
• http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/the-lottery-of-life-683751.html - "The lottery of life", The Independent, 5 May 2001, www.independent.co.uk - Again, no source quoted. Being an Ozzie, I'm unfamiliar with "The Independent"; is it "a reliable source"? - (I'll use it until someone tells me otherwise.)
• http://thinkexist.com/quotation/remember_that_you_are_an_englishman-and_have/187784.html - Unsourced. Unknown reliability.
• http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2449746402 - Facebook. Facebook? - Unsourced.
• Etc. (Google returns 3000+). But I've yet to find a source.

Do you have a reliable source?

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

(P.S. "I don't feel qualified to make a change" - You are no less "qualified" than anyone else! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC))

Unfortunately, no "reliable" source - part of my lack of being qualified. I hoped someone editng this story would have access to a more authoritative source. It certainly sounds like something he would have said - perhaps Independent et al 122.107.58.27 (talk) 08:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear! Sorry - I'm afraid I haven't been anyone's "knight in shining armour" for decades. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

"cheap slave labour" quote

• “We must find new lands from which we can easily obtain raw materials and at the same time exploit the cheap slave labor that is available from the natives of the colonies. The colonies would also provide a dumping ground for the surplus goods produced in our factories.”<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.wce.wwu.edu/Resources/CEP/eJournal/v003n001/a025.shtml |title=Teaching a “Racist and Outdated Text”: A Journey into my own Heart of Darkness |last=Wong |first=Melody |publisher=Western Washington University |accessdate=2008-09-20}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Britten |first=Sarah |title=The Art of the South African Insult |publisher=30° South Publishers |year=2006 |pages=167 |isbn=9781920143053}}</ref>

The wording in this quote disputed:

1. It is contended (I remember reading it, but can not relocate it!) that, at the time this quote was made, slavery was no longer "an issue" in Africa.

2. The quoted text quotes "Bigelow & Peterson, 2002, p. 44" as the source. Page 44 of Bigelow & Peterson is about "1562: Conquistadores Destroy Native Libraries", and bears no relevance to Africa.

3. Also quoted is: "The Art of the South African Insult" - Can anyone find a copy of pg.167 and tell us what it says?

2. - "Bigelow & Peterson, 2002, p. 44"

The quoted source (http://www.wce.wwu.edu/Resources/CEP/eJournal/v003n001/a025.shtml) says:

Against his high-minded rhetoric, I juxtapose the comments of Leopold’s contemporary—the late 19th century British colonialist, co-founder of the De Beers diamond company, and eventual first prime minister of South Africa, Cecil Rhodes: “We must find new lands from which we can easily obtain raw materials and at the same time exploit the cheap slave labour that is available from the natives of the colonies. The colonies would also provide a dumping ground for the surplus goods produced in our factories” (as cited in Bigelow & Peterson, 2002, p. 44).

"Bigelow & Peterson" is: Bigelow, B. & Peterson, B. (Eds.). (2002). Rethinking globalization: Teaching for justice in an unjust world. Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools Ltd. Bigelow & Peterson's table of contents (http://www.rethinkingschools.org/publication/rg/RGTable.shtml#legacy) says:

• Burning Books and Destroying Peoples — 38 by Bob Peterson
• 1562: Conquistadores Destroy Native Libraries — 43 by Eduardo Galeano
• The Coming of the Pink Cheeks — 45 by Chief Kabongo as told to Richard St. Barbe Baker
• Song of Lawino: A Lament — 50 by Okot p'Bitek

(I suspect "p. 44" is wrong - somewhere in pp45-49 seems more likely)

Anyway:

• http://urbandreams.ousd.k12.ca.us/lessonplans/core/11/silko/docs/TheComingofthePinkCheeks.doc The Coming of the Pink Cheeks, Chief Kabongo, a told to Richard St. Barbe’ Baker; reprinted from Richard St. Barbe’ Baker. Kabongo London: George Ronald, 1955, 107-26. Reprinted by permission of A. S. Barnes & Co. and George Ronald. - Interesting reading, but makes no mention of "Rhodes" or "slave".
• The post-colonial studies reader By Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffiths, Helen Tiffin, pg547 gives another reference

It would seem that tracking down the sources of these quotes is "difficult"! Pdfpdf (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

3. "The Art of the South African Insult"

Pdfpdf (talk) 11:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Rhodesia -- the historical facts

In the introdution of this article it is stated that the state of Rhodesia split into Northern and Southern Rhodesia after independence. Not so. Northern and Southern Rhodesia existed as separate entities under the British flag before independence. When Northern Rhodesia became independent it became Zambia. Thereafter Southern Rhodesia had a name change to become just Rhodesia in the UDI period of Ian Smith -- and at last became Zimbabwe upon receiving its true independence from Britain.
Mieliestronk (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you have some references we can quote in support of the above information? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

(P.S. Please "sign" your postings on talk pages using 4 "~" (i.e. ~~~~ )

Quotes section

I support a move to Wikiquote. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

That's nice. However, it would be both more interesting and more useful to know WHY you support such a move. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the move to Wikiquote, and I can see that this was discussed earlier in this section, which have points that I agree with against keeping the quotes in here. I think "Overusing quotations" applies here; the quote section has quotes that have no context. Gary King (talk · scripts) 00:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Gary King on all points. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Diamonds

An individual named Fourie is mentioned in this secton as being the owner of Vooruitzigt, while he allowed the de Beer brothers to cultivate the farm. This is not known to be historically correct, as the de Beer brothers could not have sold a farm they did not own. The region was part of the British empire at the time, and as such, there was a record of the legal owner, and the De Beers mine is unlikely to have been named for them if they were not the owners. Other reseach also states that the De Beer brothers could not control the flow of prospectors, so they sold the farm for what they thought was a very attractive profit. According to British law related to minerals during this period, an individual could not establish multiple or large claims. The law restricting this was changed in 1876, while the farm was sold to Dunell Ebden & Co[1] in 1871. There is a wealth of information freely available. I would appreciate either more detail or the removal of the name Fourie from the paragraph. While Fourie was an Afrikaner who may have owned the farm befor the brothers De Beer, it is they who sold the farm to I consider to article to be incomplete, and without more information about who actually owned the farm other than the De Beer brothers, this paragraph looses some credibility. The part of South Africa where the farm is located is also extremely dry, and no crops are known to have been cultivated there. What is known however, is that sheep farming was more viable, and that land was used for grazing.

1. ^NYU Stern School of Business. Case Number: MKT04-01, December 2004

01:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC) ~LDB - June 9, 2011~

I concur with the above sentiment. I have the impression from edits to other articles (e.g. Kimberley) that the name "Fourie" is rooted in some kind of POV dispute around the diamond fields being "stolen" from the Afrikaaners by the British. In any event, it's unreferenced right now, so should probably go. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Afrikaans

Did Rhodes know Afrikaans, I noticed in the Alfred Milner wikipedia article it says Milner knew it? I'm asking to see if that should be included in the article. --RJR3333 (talk) 17:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Social Darwinist?

Today, I heard somebody claim Rhodes was a Social Darwinist. Does that hold water? I always assumed that that would require a biological view of race, which I'm not sure is his definition of race. When he says "the English-speaking race", that obviously includes both people of Germanic and Celtic extraction. So, when he speaks of race, what he has in mind is probably the cultural character. Also, does he really propagate the spread of the "English-speaking race" in terms of "survival of the fittest"? As far as I understand he didn't mean to wipe the people who don't belong to the English-speaking world off the face of the earth to ensure the survival of his own race. Rather, it is the mission (according to Rhodes) of the "English-speaking race" to civilize the others, right? Who can clarify? ---217.191.39.244 (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

You're quite right in your assessment, he was no social darwinist and didn't quantify the "English race" in terms of race, just culture. — Jon C.^ॐ 14:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

in text yahoo citation?

I have never seen a reference to yahoo answers in a wiki article before. Isn't this a bit unprofessional?

Mark Twain's sarcastic summation of Rhodes ("I admire him, I frankly confess it; and when his time comes I shall buy a piece of the rope for a keepsake"), from Chapter LXIX of Following the Equator, still often appears in collections of famous insults.[55] His account of how "Cecil Rhodes" made his first fortune by discovering, in Australia, in the belly of a shark, a newspaper that gave him advance knowledge of a great rise in wool prices, is completely fictional – Twain dates the event at 1870, when Rhodes was in South Africa – yet is occasionally accepted as true (see a posting on Yahoo Answers at http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080407061220AAi5ap3 (retrieved 22 May 2011)). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 05:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

No, not a reliable source, see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. The paragraph probably does not even belong in the Popular culture section. I have removed it for now; someone else might want to re-add the topic to another section of the article if it is of real importance to the article. --NJR_ZA (talk) 05:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

i wish i coud win the first prize in the lottery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.205.231.233 (talk) 13:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

White-washing/Western bias?

I was reading through this biography, and it seems very white-washed and cleaned-up compared to what I've learned about him. Maybe we should get more sources to help get a more diverse look at him and his record? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.178.121 (talk) 02:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

White-washing/Western bias?

I was reading through this biography, and it seems very white-washed and cleaned-up compared to what I've learned about him. Maybe we should get more sources to help get a more diverse look at him and his record? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.178.121 (talk) 02:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about "we", but you are welcome to add new/additional information if it is supported by reliable sources. Pdfpdf (talk) 05:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Corrections: WP:CIVIL

Please discus my edits before simply reverting them to your POV? Zarpboer (talk) 06:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC) @ClueBot NG: Zarpboer (talk) 06:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

@Chris_troutman -- Noted use of auto bot WP:TW - please check my edit and revert / or discuss?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cecil Rhodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110913230535/http://myfundi.co.za:80/e/History_of_South_Africa_Timeline_(1485-1975) to http://myfundi.co.za/e/History_of_South_Africa_Timeline_%281485-1975%29

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Misquotations

Does anyone have citations on the misquotations? The books that are cited in the endnotes are examples of where the supposed misquotes were used, not any citations that definitively show that Rhodes did not say these things.SmallMossie (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps "critics" instead of "detractors"

I see this:

Rhodes's views on race have led detractors to label him a "white supremacist", particularly since 2015.

I would suggest to change the word to "critics" as it sounds like "detractors" are people whose mission in life has been to take people down, which is a kind of unfriendly characterization of people whose interest is moreso to revise understandings of history to be, some would say, more honest and factual. Or, it could be "commenters" or "historians" if such is the case... but "detractors"? It's loaded language. SageRad (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not convinced "detractors" is so bad a word to use here, but I'm okay with "critics" as well, so I'll make the change. —  Cliftonian (talk)  19:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Paul Maylam

I wonder if the Paul Maylam quotation that currently closes the lede—"Paul Maylam identifies three perspectives: works that attempt to either venerate or debunk Rhodes, and 'the intermediate view, according to which Rhodes is not straightforwardly assessed as either hero or villain'"—is necessary or very informative? It seems to me that the same could be said of literally any historical figure. What could a historical perspective be if not a veneration, a denunciation or something in between? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 10:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, yes, I definitely hear what you're saying here, but the point is to add a bit of balance after the prior quote from McFarlane in which it is said that the Rhodes historiography "may be divided into two broad categories: chauvinistic approval or utter vilification" (ie that people either say Rhodes was awful or are awful themselves). Rhodes is a very controversial figure and it would be regrettable in my view to end on that note, which is essentially negative either way. Alternatively we could just remove both comments, McFarlane's and Maylam's, from the lead and let the reader decide for himself. —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Natives Land Act

This article says that Rhodes made an early drafting of the Natives Land Act. I can see that quote is sourced to the Guardian , so far so good. But the Natives Land Act was passed into law in 1913 and Rhodes died in 1902. The statement doesn't really make any sense without further facts setting out exactly how and why this man can be connected to a law made 11 years after his death. We don't even know what Rhodes is supposed to have written to attribute his connection to the Natives Land Act, 1913. So should we really take anything written in the Guardian to be true even if it is written by an activist? There is WP page on the Natives Land Act, 1913 it doesn't mention Rhodes at all . Hmcst1 (talk) 14:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Misquotations

It would assist us if editors can show how the misquotations occurred. The citations provided do not distinguish whether or not the references refer to misquotations or whether the subject of the misquotation is debunked in the text. Thus the section isn't very useful to scholars at all.197.89.23.25 (talk) 11:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Quotations and Misquotations

Does a section like this even belong in an encyclopedia entry about a person? Sure, verifiable quotes might be useful to biographers, but an encyclopedia entry is meant to convey information on the person and the effect they had on their contemporaries, rather than provide a list of trivia about them.SmallMossie (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

SEXUALITY

Why is Rhodes' sexuality not covered in this article? He was homosexual and never had relations with any woman in his life. His male lovers included Neville Pickering, Henry Latham Currey and, finally, Sir Leander Starr Jameson who was the trustee and residuary beneficiary of his will; Rhodes had a predilection for young athletic men with blond hair and blue eyes (not surprisingly given his views on Anglo-Saxon racial supremacy). Why is this man not listed in the LGBT category? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.166.37 (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Not only is it already discussed in the personal life section, you've not provided any references for your claims. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cecil Rhodes. 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/20101009043413/http://www.cecilrhodes.co.za/ to http://www.cecilrhodes.co.za/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130701143531/http://www.rothschild.com/our_history/1880-1914/ to http://www.rothschild.com/our_history/1880-1914/

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) 14:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Citations without page numbers

I wanted to verify claims made throughout article. However, I noticed page numbers are missing from book sources. This is a major issue and needs to be rectified. Mitchumch (talk) 10:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I have added Template:Page needed 38 times throughout article. Readers and editors need the ability to WP:VERIFY claims, especially, WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims. Mitchumch (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

No real problem here. If you have the book use its index. If you don't have it page numbers are no help. The problem is that the online versions have the text but not the page numbers. Rjensen (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

If an editor uses a source to support an assertion, then cite the page numbers. Failure to cite page numbers prevents verification and will lead to removal of content. I have routinely used sources with online versions that are missing page numbers. Consequently, I have contacted libraries to track down the page numbers because I knew precisely the content I wanted to cite. A reader has no idea the explicit text within the source you are referring to.

This article biography is also about a person that subscribed to ideas of race and racial superiority, particularly the superiority of the Anglo-Saxon race. Consequently, claims about this persons ideology and deeds require citations due to WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Since I first posted above in February 2016, the number of citations without page numbers has grown from 38 to 54. Mitchumch (talk) 10:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

which means you haven't been trying to find the pages yourself. Adding maintenance tags and hoping for others to do the actual work, that's what happens too often in the Wikipedia. --Maxl (talk) 10:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Rhodesia Didn't Exist During Rhodes' Life

"After overseeing the formation of Rhodesia during the early 1890s" - this is nonsense. The Republic of Rhodesia existed from 1965 to April 1980. 83.84.100.133 (talk) 00:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps see Rhodesia (region). --Craig (t|c) 03:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Using the term "racist" to describe Cecil Rhodes

I have had my recent edit reversed with the comment that "you need a better source.". I appreciate any effort to maintain the accuracy of this page but am unsure how to respond. The reference I used for my edit is the subject's own widely available essay to which I supplied a link and which is referenced in many of the secondary sources used by other editors on this same page. I assume good faith in this reversal but "better" is not clear indication of what would be satisfactory. Any help much appreciate, Thanks! Doviejamesdio (talk) 11:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)doviejamesdio

Which of the secondary sources that you mention, explicitly describe Rhodes as racist? MPS1992 (talk) 11:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Your contribution was to the lead section, which is meant to be an introduction to, and summary of the content given below. "It should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view". Rhodes' views on other races is discussed in the section Politics, that section doesn't support the unequivocal view that he was an "avowed racist". So I think that it was right to remove the "avowed racist" assertion from the lead. I'm not arguing one way or another whether he was a racist: rather explaining why I think another editor reverted your edit. I also think "avowed" might be stronger than WP:NPOV would allow, what would be lost by simply saying he was a racist (obviously supported by WP:INDEPENDENT source, and of course Rhodes' own words are not an WP:INDEPENDENT source). Wayne Jayes (talk) 11:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses. I appreciate the consideration as to what belongs in the lead section and how that should relate to what follows. As far as the specific language goes, "avowed" is the correct word to desribe someone who publicly claims a position and "racist" is similarly the correct word to describe someone who asserts that there are superior and inferior races. Rhodes language choice in the referenced essay looks like it was lifted from the the Wikipedia page for "Racism". The WP:INDEPENDENT page discusses the problems of using the subjects own writing as a source so as to prevent conflicts of interest and self promotion. I don't see how those concerns are relevant here. I think the real problem is that some people are uncomfortable acknowledging the magnitude of the crimes committed by Rhodes (and others) in Southern Africa, the justifications that Rhodes and his ilk publicly claimed for their actions and the ongoing suffering that has resulted. And some of those people happened to be high-ranking editors in the world of Wikipedia. Doviejamesdio (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be a misunderstanding in that last part. Both Waynejayes and I hold only the rank -- if you wish to call it that -- of WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED user, and there are 41,997 other people (at the time I write this) with the same "rank". This means that we're editors just like you are, just we've pushed the "Publish changes" button slightly more often.

I can't speak for Waynejayes, but I myself am not at all uncomfortable with acknowledging the magnitude of crimes. Instead, ignorance of such magnitude may be the issue in my case. MPS1992 (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. The high-ranking editor I'm refering to is the one who reversed my edit with nothing more than the comment "Regarding this, you need a better source" followed by some cut and past boilerplate welcoming me to wikipedia. I understand that Cecil Rhodes is a controversial figure and that his legacy is being fought over. But his writing on race is extremely clear as were the policies and business practices he pursued with regard to native Africans. He remains a hero to some white Africans and English imperialists but if he was not a racist than the term has been rendered meaningless. I'm curious about those who work to protect Rhodes' legacy, they seem reminiscent of Holocaust deniers in both motive and tactics. Doviejamesdio (talk) 08:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

That's certainly interesting, and I applaud your curiosity. But, please could you answer my question? MPS1992 (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Are you addressing me? I didn't mention any secondary sources. I referenced Mr. Rhodes own writing in which he professes his views on race unequivocally. There are, however, numerous secondary sources that refer to him as a racist including published books and articles in major newspapers. They're easy to find, if you're curious. Doviejamesdio (talk) 10:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I was addressing you. When you're ready, let's discuss these secondary sources, balance and due weight. And WP:FRINGE if necessary. MPS1992 (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

References

"White supremacist"

All of the three citations thus far on this epithet or characterization are from the past 10 or 11 months. I therefore don't think it merits being in the lede (or possibly even in the article at all). It seems like a recent flare-up. If there is nothing substantiating this characterization from the 20th century, this stuff should probably be relegated to something at the end of the article that mentions recent criticism. In the lede it has way too much weight (WP:UNDUE), which is not justified by a few items from merely the past year. Softlavender (talk) 15:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC) Cecil Rhodes flatly stated his belief in white supremacy. Is it really necessary to say he is "characterized" as a White Supremacist, then? Is it kind of like saying Martin Luther is "characterized" as a protestant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:445:380:4BC8:7400:4492:6058:4EE7 (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Softlavender, thanks for the note. There are discussions on this right now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard if you're interested in taking part. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  15:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• I see nothing wrong with the lead without the shaming tag given how it steps up to the controversies over his racial views at an appropriate point further down the section. Mangoe (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
• What's next, Category:White supremacists? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

A large percentage of historic world figures from centuries past could be characterized as white supremacist (national/cultural supremacist/etc) by today's standards. That Rhodes was and is well-known as a colonialist, and identified as such, is not controversial. It's simply unnecessary POV to put "white supremacy" in the lede when it's sufficient to discuss his views on race in context of his colonialist views in the body of the article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• Hi all--NPOV mean "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." There is no academic dispute on whether Rhodes was a white supremacist--he was, and instead the debate is on whether that outweighs his other contributions. The opening comment is also out of date now that other citations have been added going back decades: this isn't even about contemporary standards, given that the academic discussion of his racism and white supremacy goes back to the 1960s and that he was criticized as racist by the standards of his day. You can't separate his colonialism from his views of race (just as there were colonialists who were much less racist than Rhodes). Right now, the opening paragraph is unclear because it mentions that he gets either "chauvinistic approval" or "utter vilification" but doesn't explain why. The former is already implied (prime minister of SA, founder of Rhodesia, etc.), the latter is not explained (namely, that he was openly and proudly racist). If anything, Rhodes would find this discussion amusing given that he is quoted as quite openly saying that whites compose the supreme race. 62.232.56.222 (talk) 11:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

As I've said already, "white supremacist" is loaded language. I think that, regardless of the accuracy of the phrase, it will create an impression of non-neutrality in the article, and should be avoided. I'm comfortable describing Rhodes' views on race (provided they are based on reputable sources), but I'm not comfortable with that phrase. MikeDunford (talk) 12:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Briefly reviewing the references for Rhodes as a white supremacist, it does appear that all are from 2015. I think it would be very helpful to include earlier material (perhaps from the academic discussion in the 1960s) that makes this point. MikeDunford (talk) 12:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• I think it should be noted that the quote the IP user here is relying on, where Rhodes uses the phrase "supreme race" (which can be seen here), is not as unequivocal as he seems to be implying (i.e. that Rhodes said all whites are inherently superior to everyone else). In the passage quoted in the cited book, Rhodes is using the term "race" to mean the different population groups in the Cape Colony of the time, not the entire world. He refers to governing "natives living under communal tenure as a subject race", and "Treat the native as a subject people as long as they continue in a state of barbarism and communal tenure." Nothing about banning all blacks unconditionally on account of their colour. Indeed in this very passage he says "I do not go as far as the member for Victoria West, who would not give the black man a vote". He also says "If the whites maintain their position as the supreme race [in the Cape Colony]"—if, he says, not "whites are inherently the supreme race". Now for sure he is expressing rather contemptuous views of the black population here (elsewhere in the speech he graciously concedes that they "have human minds", after having said "the natives are children"), but I still think to summarise this with the epithet "white supremacist" in the opening sentence of the whole article is more than a little dubious.

Rhodes is also on record as saying: "I could never accept the position that we should disqualify a human being on account of his colour." (Davidson, Apollon (1988) [1984]. Cecil Rhodes and His Time (First English ed.). Moscow: Progress Publishers. ISBN 5-01-001828-4. p. 255). According to Davidson, Rhodes "all the while ... insisted that he was not proceeding from a racist position, not from any belief in the racial inferiority of Africans." (Davidson, p. 255). Davidson continues: "Rhodes's views rested on the belief that by virtue of its historical development European civilisation had stolen a march of two thousand years on Africa"—though the historian is quick to point out that "it would be wrong to imagine that this line of argument led Rhodes to conclude that the Africans should be introduced to European civilisation as quickly as possible". (Davidson, p. 255). I therefore disagree with the IP user when he implies that Rhodes would cheerfully accept the descriptor "white supremacist" for himself. —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:42, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Cliftonian. That's a very selective misreading of the quote. Drawing from the same source, Rhodes was concerned about the survival of Europeans (hence his grande imperial schemes stretching to the United States). If you look at the end of the quotation, he says "These are my politics on native affairs, and these are the politics of South Africa." The scholarship and historiography is really quite clear as to Rhodes' racism and white supremacist views. That quotation from Davidson, for example, is entirely consistent because the definition of white supremacy does not require one to think that a race is inherently superior--just superior. If there is a quotation from Davidson or others suggesting that Rhodes did not think that white people were superior, please show us. In my opinion, the academic debate is really quite settled. For example, here's another quote from Rhodes that's already in the article: "I contend that we are the first 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 gives."

I think it's very, very important that there be a description of Rhodes' views on race in the opening paragraphs, because they are again the foundation upon which his ideology of empire, imperialism and colonialism was based. To note allude to them is exactly what SageRad said--it's as if we're censoring what the academic community is essentially consistent on. If people don't agree with the use of the word white supremacist, what sentence would they add? 62.232.56.222 (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Rhodes said that Anglo-Saxons were the first race in the world, not whites in general. In fact that entire quote of yours refers to Anglo-Saxons as opposed to whites. This is why he extended his schemes to the US rather than Brazil, for example. I've no major objection to putting some stuff about his views on race etc in the lead, as I've always said, but simply dumping an epithet in the first sentence is 100% not the way to do it. —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Here's an example--check out the white supremacism and Nazism and race pages. Hitler was a white supremacist who thought that the Aryan Race was the most superior, with the Nordic people the most 'pure' specimen, followed by other types of European. The fact that he thought the Nordics were the most superior does not make him not a white supremacist. Rhodes is the same. To me, what worries me is that the arguments against using the word white supremacist seem to rest on people seeing it as a slur (as opposed to any academic sources actually saying so!), when we have multiple quotations from the man himself attesting that white people/Anglo-Saxons constitute a superior race, which is by definition what the term means. As SageRad says below, to exclude these views is its own form of POV-bias. As such Cliftonian, I think it would be quite good for you to write a passage that you think is appropriately neutral but still explains why Rhodes faces "chauvinistic approval or utter vilification," as the opening paragraphs now very generally and obtusely state.62.232.56.222 (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Here's my proposed new lead:

Cecil John Rhodes PC (5 July 1853 – 26 March 1902) was a British colonial-era businessman, mining magnate, and politician in South Africa. An ardent believer in British colonialism, Rhodes was the founder of the southern African territory of Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe and Zambia), which was named after him in 1895. South Africa's Rhodes University is also named after Rhodes. He set up the provisions of the Rhodes Scholarship, which is funded by his estate.

One of Rhodes's primary motivators was his belief that the Anglo-Saxon race was destined to greatness as, in his own words, "the finest race in the world". Under the reasoning that "the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race", he advocated vigorous settler colonialism and ultimately a reformation of the British Empire so that each component would be self-governing and represented in a single parliament in London. Ambitions such as these, juxtaposed with his policies regarding indigenous Africans in the Cape Colony—describing the country's black population as largely "in a state of barbarism", he marginalised them politically and advocated their governance as a "subject race"—have led recent detractors to characterise him as a white supremacist.

Historian Richard A. McFarlane has called Rhodes "as integral a participant in southern African and British imperial history as George Washington or Abraham Lincoln are in their respective eras in United States history. Most histories of South Africa covering the last decades of the nineteenth century are contributions to the historiography of Cecil Rhodes." According to McFarlane, the aforementioned historiography "may be divided into two broad categories: chauvinistic approval or utter vilification". Paul Maylam identifies three perspectives: works that attempt to either venerate or debunk Rhodes, and "the intermediate view, according to which Rhodes is not straightforwardly assessed as either hero or villain".

What do you think? —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

How about just integrating it into the paragraph on historiography? Makes it a little less disjointed, I think, in the opening, but otherwise, I think we're onto something most people could accept as NPOV! Something like:

Cecil John Rhodes' PC (5 July 1853 – 26 March 1902) was a British colonial-era businessman, mining magnate, and politician in South Africa. An ardent believer in British colonialism, Rhodes was the founder of the southern African territory of Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe and Zambia), which was named after him in 1895. South Africa's Rhodes University is also named after Rhodes. He set up the provisions of the Rhodes Scholarship, which is funded by his estate.

According to McFarlane, the historiography of Rhodes "may be divided into two broad categories: chauvinistic approval or utter vilification". Motivated by a belief that the Anglo-Saxon race was destined to greatness as, in his own words, "the finest race in the world," he advocated vigorous settler colonialism and ultimately a reformation of the British Empire so that each component would be self-governing and represented in a single parliament in London, under the reasoning that "the more of the world [Anglo-Saxons] inhabit the better it is for the human race." Ambitions such as these, juxtaposed with his policies marginalising indigenous Africans in the Cape Colony (present day South Africa and Namibia) with policies of disenfranchisement have led recent detractors to characterise him as a white supremacist. Given this history, Paul Maylam identifies three perspectives: works that attempt to either venerate or debunk Rhodes, and "the intermediate view, according to which Rhodes is not straightforwardly assessed as either hero or villain". Nonetheless, historian Richard A. McFarlane has called Rhodes "as integral a participant in southern African and British imperial history as George Washington or Abraham Lincoln are in their respective eras in United States history," with most histories of nineteenth century South Africa acting as "contributions to the historiography of Cecil Rhodes."

Thanks 62.232.56.222 (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello again—glad you liked my new version. In my opinion your revised version is more mixed up—better in my opinion to have one paragraph saying basically who Rhodes was; one on what his views and motivations were; and one on historiographic perspectives. The Cape Colony was not South Africa and Namibia but only part of what is now South Africa, so that part of your version would have to come out in any case. Do you think we might be able to settle on the version I posted above as a mutually acceptable compromise? I'm off out now but will be back later. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Fine by me! Future editors can work to make the language better. Actually, if anything the page should be improved in general. Also, here are some other sources for other editors to integrate as they see fit:

BBC: "Rhodes' detractors see him as a racist, and one of the people who helped prepare the way for apartheid by working to alter laws on voting and land ownership."

Guardian: "Rhodes began the policy of enforced racial segregation in South Africa and has been described as “the Hitler of southern Africa” by one of the organisers of the student campaign."

TimesLive.za interview with South African History Professor Paul Maylam (this would be quite good to integrate for the South African perspective): "Rhodes was an ardent white supremacist."

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--this would be a good source to add, because it was published in 1902 "Mr. Rhodes's last Will and Testament reveals him to the world as the first distinguished British statesman whose Imperialism was that of Race and not that of Empire. The one specific object defined in the Will as that to which his wealth is to be applied proclaims with the simple eloquence of a deed that Mr. Rhodes was colour-blind between the British Empire and the American Republic. His fatherland, like that of the poet Arndt, is coterminous with the use of the tongue of his native land. In his Will he aimed at making Oxford University the educational centre of the English-speaking race."

Another point that reading the 1902 article reveals is that it's linked directly to the Scholarships--how can the scholarships page on this be updated to present this in a NPOV? Quotation below:

Once every year " Founder's Day " will be celebrated at Oxford ; and not at Oxford only, but wherever on the broad world's surface half-a-dozen old " Rhodes scholars " come together they will celebrate the great ideal of Cecil Rhodes the first of modern statesmen to grasp the sublime conception of the essential unity of the race. Thirty years hereafter there will be between two and three thousand men in the prime of life scattered all over the world, each one of whom will have had impressed upon his mind in the most susceptible period of his life the dream of the Founder.

Thanks again 62.232.56.222 (talk) 12:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I've expanded the lead with the new paragraph I outlined above, and another before that briefly sketching his life for context. Hope this is all okay. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I want to point out that the nature of everyone having points of view means that things are rather relative. It could also seem rather blatantly POV-biased to not call a white supremacist plainly when there is ample sourcing and evidence to show that they are such. It may also be seen as unnecessarily harsh to not do so, to those who are more conscious of the effects of the long history of the idea and practice of white supremacy (tied with colonialism and capitalistic relationships, etc.) Reading that linked passage in the 1996 book The Making of a Racist State, it seems clear to me that an ideology of white supremacy was operating and Rhodes was a part of that. And yes, a category for white supremacists sounds like a good idea, not a bad one. SageRad (talk) 14:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I think a discussion about Rhode's views on race - which were not as simple as some here are making out - is perfectly fine in the article's main body. But to call him a white supremacist in the opening paragraphs is really a bit strange and clearly an attempt to paint him in a negative light that isn't neutral. To be consistent we should add the same term to the articles on Julius Caesar, Napoleon, Queen Elizabeth I, the Duke of Wellington, Abraham Lincoln, virtually every member of the British Parliament that abolished the slave trade, the captain of the English cricket team of 1897, the choir at St John's... you get the idea. Maybe then we can add a section on whether each of those supported gay marriage! I realise that for some people at this point in history they look back at others and want to view them through the prism of politics in 2017 but it's not very good for an encyclopaedia. It's roughly equivalent to finding sources from the 1910s up to the 1970s (and a few beyond) who would call Rhodes a man who brought civilisation to Africa. That was how he was perceived by his supporters. But surely everyone here could see why it would be wrong to have such things in the opening paragraph? I hope so anyway! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.155.44 (talk) 01:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Going too far the other way

The version when I made my comment contained the following paragraph in the lead:

Historian Richard A. McFarlane has called Rhodes "as integral a participant in southern African and British imperial history as George Washington or Abraham Lincoln are in their respective eras in United States history. Most histories of South Africa covering the last decades of the nineteenth century are contributions to the historiography of Cecil Rhodes." According to McFarlane, the aforementioned historiography "may be divided into two broad categories: chauvinistic approval or utter vilification". Paul Maylam identifies three perspectives: works that attempt to either venerate or debunk Rhodes, and "the intermediate view, according to which Rhodes is not straightforwardly assessed as either hero or villain".

We really do need to say something in the lead along these lines, attesting to the controversy around him that is hardly new. And I do think we need to say that his dealings with black natives are part of the controversy. The point in all of this is that his political and business actions are what make him important; his supremacist views figure into this, but they are secondary. Mangoe (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

"biological or maximal racist" vs "cultural or minimal racist"

The article at present includes: "According to Mensing 1986, pp. 99–106, Rhodes was not a biological or maximal racist and despite his support for what became the basis for the apartheid system, he is best seen as a cultural or minimal racist." It does not make clear what is meant by these two terms. From further reading I think that:

• "biological or maximal racist" is closely related to Scientific racism,
• "cultural or minimal racist" is closely related to Cultural racism,

so I have put those links in.

Also, the sentence is an almost exact quote from the reference, so I have shown that in the article. The reference goes to the front page of an article, which includes the words quoted. The rest of the article, including "pp. 99–106" does not seem to be easily accessible, but I have left that part in. FrankSier (talk) 09:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Lede section

@Grayfell: Let me state again that I'm not opposed to the content here. This is a complaint from an English-language perspective. The third paragraph has the topic being Rhodes's racism. We don't need to be repetitious; we could hypothetically add "Rhodes was a racist" every other sentence but it'd just make the article look bad. The lede should be the tightest written part of an article; it's supposed to be a succinct summary, and this is already covered somewhat by saying he's an imperialist (I guess non-racist imperialists did exist, but that's rare). Besides, the full sentence is

An ardent believer in British imperialism, Rhodes and his British South Africa Company founded the southern African territory of Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe and Zambia), which the company named after him in 1895.

This is a logical sentence - he was an imperialist, and so he expanded the British Empire. The thought follows. The bit about white supremacy isn't as directly relevant here. It'd be like saying "An ardent believer in British imperialism and the Scouting movement". True, but not the main point of that sentence. Anyway, this bit wasn't in the older and stable version (see this revision from May 2020).

(Also, if you really feel that talking about Rhodes' racial beliefs is so important that it has to happen in the first paragraph of the lede rather than the third, then rather than make the above sentence meandering, I'd rather include just a new sentence on Rhodes's racism.) SnowFire (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I just reverted back to an edit without the white supremacist label in the first sentence of lede after some minor disruption, and I'm unsure if there's a consensus here. If there isn't a consensus yet, for what it's worth, I don't agree with putting the specific "white supremacist" label in the first sentence, but letting his own racist views (in second sentence and beyond) speak for themselves. I personally find the white supremacist label apt, but it also conjures up a specific image in the modern day, not of an imperialist but of a separatist. Nanophosis (talk) 06:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The idea that including a factual description of him in the lede must be somehow similar to "every other sentence", as if that were the only option, is inappropriate and not appreciated. Rhodes was, factually, a believer in white supremacy: "If the whites maintain their position as the supreme race, the day may come when we shall be thankful that we have the natives with us in their proper position."(ISBN 978-0865432413, p 109), etc. The purpose of the lead, especially the first paragraph, is to summarize why a topic is notable. I do not think anyone is going to get very far claiming that white supremacy is incidental to the history of South Africa, and there is nothing wrong with summarizing this in the first sentence. Since this is apparently an ongoing issue, it might be best to hold an RFC if this is really worth contesting. Grayfell (talk) 06:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

"enabled" - no more Rhodes Scholars, or a typo?

The Rhodes Scholarship section seems to be worded as if it is no longer operating, as per the words "The scholarship enabled". Is this a typo? Words that were meant to indicate the scholarship was migrated to a new structure? Not really sure what this was trying to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.171.50 (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Why some people say the statue of Rhodes MUST go

Encylopedia Britannica made this comment about Rhodes: he "once defined his policy as 'equal rights for every white man south of the Zambezi' and later, under liberal pressure, amended 'white' to 'civilized'. But he probably regarded the possibility of native Africans becoming 'civilized' as so remote that the two expressions, in his mind, came to the same thing. [ https://www.britannica.com/biography/Cecil-Rhodes/Effects-of-the-Jameson-raid-on-Rhodess-career Encyclopaedia Britannica Effects Of The Jameson Raid On Rhodes’s Career]

Peter K Burian (talk) 00:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not make policy recommendations. Note that the Ency Brit article states: "As the will forbade disqualification on grounds of race, many nonwhite students have benefited from the scholarships." Rjensen (talk) 02:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Slight Factual error

The article currently has this line.

" In his last will and testament, Rhodes said of the English, "I contend that we are the first race in the world, and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race. I contend that every acre added to our territory means the birth of more of the English race who otherwise would not be brought into existence." "

This is inaccurate, that quote is from his political musings written during his time at oxford, it was published along with his last will and testament, as part of the 'eludicatory notes', but was not actually part of his last (or first) will: he wrote it in ~1875....mebe as late as mid-77.

Many many websites make the same mistake (and edit the quote somewhat), I suspect they may be using wikip as a source...talking of which, the source is the currrent source. 31.51.219.224 (talk) 14:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Possible issue with article pertaining to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view in lead section

First and foremost let me start by saying I have no personal love or fondness for Rhodes-- indeed-- I consider him an especially sinister and shady character. And an undeniable racist by modern standards. My argument hear comes strictly from a non-partisan, neutral point of view, wishing to see all significant and notable opinions heard out and expressed fairly in proportion to their prominence and notability, as per Wikipedia:Due weight. No matter how unsavoury we may sometimes find information that exists here, it has to given due weight if it has been given significant coverage by reliable sources. This is one of the basic foundations of wikipedia Wikipedia: Five pillars. As it should be, as this basic tenet of hearing all voices fairly is too the bedrock of civilised society.

Now, focussing on the article, the lead section quite rightly mentions the recent criticism of Rhodes. It would be absurd not to. Even a 96 year old former British South Africa Company administrator would struggle to argue against that. The issue here-- however, was that, for some time, this criticism was left unchallenged. It was presented in the article as though it were some sort of axiomatic truth-- completely ignoring the deluge of counter-criticism that also emerged simultaneously. This conflicts with Wikipedia: Five pillars, which states that an article must take on "an impartial tone that document[s] and explain[s] major points of view, giving [them] due weight for their prominence." It also elaborates "In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as 'the truth' or 'the best view'". This is clearly an instance of an issue having multiple points of view. The aforementioned counter-criticism was widespread and significant amongst a very large proportion of the right-wing media, and, to a much lesser extent, the left. Please check the relevant information here for sources https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cecil_Rhodes&diff=1014882259&oldid=1014849815. As such, I edited this article around a month ago to rectify this issue. The edit went unchallenged and has existed unopposed for a month. It has been made apparent however, that the inclusion of this point of view is unacceptable to some. I shall not speak for anyone, however, and will leave it to them to explain their objections-- as it may simply be the current wording that is problematic. I appreciate your time.VideoGamePlaya (talk) 23:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Arguing that Cecil Rhodes's actions were "normal" is not only ahistorical but extremely racist, because it implies that only Europeans are "normal" and black africans are not normal. BulgeUwU (talk) 11:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I looked at the Adolf Hitler and Holocaust wikipedia pages for advice on how to handle the issue of writing a wikipedia page for a violent imperialist whose world outlook was based on race, and neither pages included attempts to justify his actions. Therefore I do not see why fringe conspiracy theories should be included in summary of the Cecil Rhodes article. BulgeUwU (talk) 11:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I've tried to be reasonable here, but your attitude thus far has been borderline contemptuous, sadly. A real shame. I'm more than happy to discuss this here, but the fact you proceeded to again delete the information in question before any conclusion has been reached here (or indeed before giving me a chance to respond) does you no favours at all. You also haven't even made the slightest attempt to camouflage your obvious bias, which also speaks volumes. Nonetheless, I'm still going to assume good faith and act on the pretence that this can still be resolved sensibly and reasonably. This is obviously something you feel incredibly passionate about, and I appreciate that this is touchy subject, and I respect your conviction here, but no one on this website has the right to remove information they disagree with without it being discussed here first. As such, I am restoring the information until a proper conclusion is reached here, with the assistance of other users. This is in accordance with Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Please don't edit war as this helps no one.

Now, with that said, I'll take the time to address your points, despite the fact you appear to have ignored all of mine. Firstly, where is your source that this statement is ahistorical? And how does this statement imply what you suggest? With respect, I presented a swarth of reliable sources which make the claim, in some form, that Rhodes' views on race were commonplace, widespread and uncontroversial during his lifetime, held by numerous mainstream politicians in the 20th century. For example, The Guardian write ""What’s more, Rhodes cannot be regarded as a lone wolf, an especially abhorrent racist; the importance of race and breeding as explanations of good character were widespread within western culture in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Keynes, one of my intellectual heroes, was an advocate of eugenics as a young man; Woodrow Wilson, a great progressive American president and founder of the League of Nations, believed non-whites did not have the character to govern. Winston Churchill was as misty-eyed about the destiny of the Anglo-Saxon peoples as Rhodes." And "Dutch painters in the 17th and 18th centuries were fascinated by the new human beings in their midst – “negroes” and “hottentots” as they were called. And such words were used as titles for paintings." The Spectator write "It goes almost without saying that an historical figure should be judged by the moral standards of their time. The degree of racism exhibited by Cecil Rhodes was relatively unexceptional for his time." The Financial Times write "Rhodes' views on race were largely uncontroversial during his lifetime" The New Criterion find your argument "slightly preposterous" and a "PC attack" on Rhodes. I suspect you disagree with that wholeheartedly, and indeed I certainly wouldn't characterise your concern like that, but our opinions are irrelevant-- these sentiments exist out there whether you or me like them or not and have to be included in accordance with Wikipedia:Due weight, Wikipedia:Five Pillars and Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. I could find more to illustrate my point here, but it seems unnecessary.

The fact you attempted to characterise this view as a "fringe conspiracy theory" actually angered me a bit, I can't lie, as it is obvious you didn't even pay me the basic courtesy of reading (or indeed briefly looking) at any of the sources provided, as no sensible person would describe The Times, The Telegraph, The Guardian, The Independent, The Financial Times, The Spectator, The New Criterion, Huffington Post and New Statesman et al as peddlers of fake news. It also seems to spit on any sort of reasoned debate, but never mind. That's all I have to say about that particular point.

Lastly, you also seem to be labouring under the idea that the information, as currently worded, somehow implies Rhodes' is not a racist by contemporary standards. On the contrary, it blatantly states " whilst not denying his racism". It merely highlights how such views on race were commonplace in contemporary Western society at the time, even amongst the highest echelons of European society. This is in no way a crypto statement aimed at black people telling them they're somehow abnormal. This article is about a European man who lived in the Victorian/Edwardian Age. Obviously it is going to take a Eurocentric view when analysing him. It is important to highlight that by modern standards, Rhodes' is considered a racist. It is equally important however to highlight that by the standards of his age, the standards of the society within which he lived Rhodes' view were not considered to be anywhere near as controversial as today.

I'm not wholly unreasonable, however. And I'd like to think you're not as well. If you'd like to suggest another way to handle this. Perhaps to reword the sentence? I appreciate your time.VideoGamePlaya (talk) 20:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

The sentence you keep trying to revert has 7 citations, and every single one of them is just a stand alone link with no date/access/author/website information. BulgeUwU (talk) 10:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Writing that Rhodes's views were "normal and uncontroversial" is racist because it implies that only the views of white Europeans are "normal" and that Black Africans are abnormal. What point were you trying to make by sending me a paragraph full of racist quotes by even more white European imperialists? BulgeUwU (talk) 10:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with using bare URLs as references per Wikipedia:Bare URLs. I checked this beforehand. "There is nothing wrong with adding bare URL references to Wikipedia. If you only have time and inclination to copy the reference URL you found, we thank you for your contribution!" Properly citing references with the strange code used on this website is difficult for some. From what I can tell, there are citation bots that can automatically rectify this. Regardless, it is no reason for removal. As such, I have reinstated the information for what must be the 3rd or 4th time, and frankly your continued edit warring is childlike. Can we not resolve this like adults?

And I'm sorry, but you're simply repeating your own opinion to me again almost verbatim. The simple fact remains I have presented reliable sources here which illustrate that, sadly, such unsavoury views on race were common once upon a time. You, however, have presented nothing other than you're own opinion. You can't claim something is inaccurate without providing some evidence to prove this is so. You dismissed the sources I found, quite unjustifiably, as "fringe conspiracy theories", written by "racist […] white European imperialists." The fact you call a writer for The Guardian a racist imperialist is genuinely laughable and completely unworthy of any serious thought. If your strategy revolves around trying to discredit the sources I've provided, you will fail. Anyway, it's apparant you can't be reasoned with at all. I even asked you if we could agree upon a reword of some sorts, anything which would help us resolve this, and you've completely ignored it.VideoGamePlaya (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Willbb234: Every time this passage has been added it has been reverted. Please propose text here so that consensus can be build for its potential addition. Per WP:BRD you do not add text, then argue consensus is required to remove it. Sam Walton (talk) 23:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Samwalton9:I don't know who "Willbb234" is, but I can only assume you were addressing me here at the time. Firstly, you say; "Every time this passage has been added it has been reverted," The fact it had existed on the page for quite some time not withstanding, you seem to be implying that hordes of editors were practically clawing at one another in their attempts to be the first to remove it. This is incorrect. One single individual took issue, based entirely on this own personal objection to it-- citing no sources to justify his actions; instead, simply labelling legitimate sources he disagreed with (all listed above) as "fringe conspiracy theories". This is not an academically acceptable form of debate and should never be.

Secondly, "Please propose text here so that consensus can be build [sic] for its potential addition." Since when was this a rule here? Do I now have to seek the approval of self-appointed wiki commissars before editing anything? I was perfectly within my right adding the passage I did, which was well-sourced and simply added balance per the balanced argument rule, and, as I have stated many times above, went completely unopposed (as any attempt to add balance should do) for weeks until one individual took an entirely personal objection to it. Also, how on earth can you accuse me of not trying to 'build a consensus' when that was the whole point of my beginning this discussion?! Do else do you think I instigated this futile discussion? For fun? It's not my fault that nobody replied or seemed interested in the slightest. Like I said, literally only the one person taking an issue with it. And I notice you yourself had nothing to say on the matter-- something which may have actually helped resolve the issue at the time-- instead, just offering meaningless redtape.

Lastly, "you do not add text, then argue consensus is required to remove it." If a passage is well-sourced, has existed for some time without objection or controversy, then yes, some sort of source needs to be provided by the deletor to demonstrate why said passage should be deleted. It is unacceptable to just say "I don't like it and in my opinion, it should go." Where does it all end? By your logic what's stopping people from removing practically any information at all simply because they don't like it? Since when did that become a legitimate form of academic debate?

Frankly I stopped caring months ago, I knew from the get-go I would encounter resistance like this from the left who seem to think voicing any sort of opinion that isn't there's is a crime that needs to be punished and corrected. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2021/07/16/wikipedia-dominated-left-wing-establishment-version-truth-co/ He should know right?

Regardless, thanks for taking the time to actually say something, even if it was utterly pointless in my opinion, as no else bothered to.VideoGamePlaya (talk) 22:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)