Seems the Telegraph waited two weeks and baked another vitriol pudding around the same draft document they worked the Newton angle on ( https://twitter.com/AllyFogg/status/1386591258685157378). Purely cynical. They don't believe a word of it.

Also, kindest possible interp is that Jim Moore has been played here. https://twitter.com/swgannon/status/1391305956844318720

(Note for anyone outside #histSTM sincerely trying to follow this: apart from the jarring, trivialising phrase "Darwin's wokeness", nothing Moore says actually undermines what is reported as being in the Sheffield guidance, which was probably inspired partly by his own work.)

(Darwin was a white supremacist and a racist, as were all but a few of the most heterodox of the researchers whose work defined the field. He also opposed slavery and rejected the interpretation of human races as distinct species. There is no contradiction here.)

A more productively debatable question is whether Nigel Biggar is an "Oxford historian".

Personally I don't think institutionally trained historians such as myself should gatekeep the term "historian" overall.

But Professor Biggar is not employed as a historian by either of Oxford's universities, and does not approach the issues as a professional historian would.

(I mention this, you understand, because the mechanics of the piece are worth knowing about, and not because it is possible to "win the argument". The headline – which is all most readers will register – is the point; the arguments are contrived to fit it.)