Talk:Nigel Biggar

Include this racist quote
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.

Separate subsection for Colonialism
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)


 * 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 &#183; c)  buidhe  14:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @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)
 * 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 &#183; c)  buidhe  18:01, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @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)
 * Brd is also an essay . Are you interested in discussing the substance or just grandstanding about how I'm wrong? (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)