This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Nigel Biggar is part of WikiProject Anglicanism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AnglicanismWikipedia:WikiProject AnglicanismTemplate:WikiProject AnglicanismAnglicanism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford articles
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Biggar said this bigoted remark on channel 4 news: "I don't think it is wrong for people of one culture to regard people of another culture, or at least to regard another culture as, in important ways, inferior. The reason why the British tended to regard themselves as superior when they went out to various parts of Africa and India was because it seemed to them self-evident that their ways, their technology and their science and their whatever... was better."
Source: Channel 4 News, June 6 at 8:03am ·
"Walking past a statue of someone who said: 'I prefer land to n******' is oppressive." Afua Hirsch discusses definitions of racism with a leading Rhodes Must Fall campaigner and an Oxford University professor who was key opponent of the campaign.
137.59.52.211 (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)R.E.D.Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Hi @User:Buidhe, we appear to be engaged in an edit war, which isn't good, so let's try to work this out in a civil manner. I don't think splitting the paragraph is justified in the manner you have done, but on the other hand, perhaps the book itself should get a subsection within the Ethics and Empire project section. What do you think? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
I am not opposed to the sectioning you propose, but I do think that academic and popular reception for books should be kept separate. Some books are well-written and superficially plausible to non-experts but get panned by specialist reviewers. Maintaining this distinction helps our readers judge for themselves the accuracy of books and how widespread acceptance of their claims is. (t · c) buidhe14:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
@User:Buidhe, I understand your reasoning, but it's important to remember that this is your own position on the topic and not necessarily standard practice on WP, so you should not have entered into an edit conflict with me simply because you feel strongly about the way the article should be structured. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Surely that reasoning could just as well be applied to your edits, after all, you could have just left my additions alone. There may not be a formal guideline, but that doesn't stop me from formatting the article to the benefit of our readers. (t · c) buidhe18:01, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
@User:Buidhe, Wikipedia protocol is Bold–Revert–Discuss. You made a bold edit, I reverted you, and you should have started a discussion, but instead, you reverted back. That is the issue here, nothing else. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Brd is also an essay . Are you interested in discussing the substance or just grandstanding about how I'm wrong? (t · c) buidhe05:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
An essay? That's conveniently dismissive, when it suits you. There's nothing more to discuss, obviously, especially since you aren't willing to admit that you could have done better. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
