Talk:Enoch Powell

The introduction

In the introduction it says the 'Rivers of Blood' speech was criticized by the Times. surely other newspapers must have commented on it was well. Firestar47 (talk) 14:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Wolverhampton

Did he ever live or work in Wolverhampton? Sarcelles (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Length of Article

Someone tries to destroy the article in the name of "readability", but I disagree. Having all information in one place and use browser navigation and the "find" function, that each browser has, is much preferrable than trying to guess the obscure paget titles that people come up with to scatter the inconvenient information into oblivion. 2A01:4B00:AD1F:2D00:6A7C:DB5:41AF:3EA (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Personally I agree with you, but there is a fashion at the moment for people to complain that articles on which a lot of serious work has been done breach purely arbitrary limits for how long they "ought" to be. As opposed to the type of article which is ten a penny on wikipedia - under-researched and simply wrong in places yet still a bit too long to read in one sitting. I've never been a great fan of deleting stuff from articles - put very bluntly, it always comes from a certain kind of editor who knows a bit about the matter in hand, and who inevitably ends up deleting beyond his competence, and whose positive contributions (if any) will be trite and in need of correction. Nonetheless, splitting the article may well be the price that has to be paid to avoid some idiot deleting stuff.Paulturtle (talk) 05:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

None of this should be deleted (aside from the excessive use of quotation). It's a beautiful article, just not written in the encyclopedic style it should be. This article is much more detailed than for comparably notable politicians. However, that's a good thing in my opinion.

The issue is they style of writing. Each section should be able to stand on its own. Each section should not be part of a narrative style that flows from one to the next. While it is a very well-written article that was enjoyable to read, it is not encyclopedic. You'd have to fully read the article to get an accurate picture of Mr. Powell. If you read one section on its own, you'd learn nothing. Example:

The first paragraph of 1979–1982 section is:

"Following a riot in Bristol in 1980, Powell stated that the media were ignoring similar events in south London and Birmingham, and said: "Far less than the foreseeable New Commonwealth and Pakistan ethnic proportion would be sufficient to constitute a dominant political force in the United Kingdom able to extract from a government and the main parties terms calculated to render its influence still more impregnable. Far less than this proportion would provide the bases and citadels for urban terrorism, which would in turn reinforce the overt political leverage of simple numbers". He criticised "the false nostrums and promises of those who apparently monopolise the channels of communication. Who then is likely to listen, let alone to respond, to the proof that nothing short of major movements of population can shift the lines along which we are being carried towards disaster?"

Essentially, it's a quote. That's not acceptable reference-style writing. Each section should follow the same structure, namely:

1. a summary of the events/ideas presented by the scope of the sections title, and then.
2. extended descriptions of the ideas or events presented in that section either chronologically or by concept.

TheYearbookTeacher (talk) 01:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

NPOV

Does this article read non-neutrally to anyone else? I notice various right wing sources have been cherrypicked, like Ottawa Citizen, The WP:SPECTATOR, and Douglas Murray (and uses WP:Primary sources which is heavily discouraged due to WP:OR implications). The article appears to present him as a national hero, when the reality is that he remains incredibly divisive, and only really popular among the far-right. Contemporary media is fiercely critical of him (BBC and The Times). The article appears to rely on two books from the 90s and one from 1970, and cherry picks positive information (the 1998 book has been described as being openly sympathetic to Powell’s views, can't find other reviews). There is a wealth of newly published books on him from reputable publishers:

• Enoch Powell: Politics and Ideas in Modern Britain (2022) Oxford University Press
• Enoch Powell and the Making of Postcolonial Britain (2013) Cambridge University Press
• In the Shadow of Enoch Powell: Race, Locality and Resistance (2018) Manchester University Press
• The Lives and Afterlives of Enoch Powell: The Undying Political Animal (2021) Routledge
• There are also loads of journal articles
• There is also Enoch at 100: A Re-evaluation of the Life, Politics and Philosophy of Enoch Powell (2012), however it is published by Biteback Publishing and written by Greville Howard, Baron Howard of Rising, therefore likely to be very POV and not a best source

Considering this and the length issues, to what extent are we looking at a WP:TNT? Adding the POV tag for now, but would appreciate more discussion. Kowal2701 (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

What I find particularly odd is that this article is over 20,000 words, yet the "Legacy" section is only one sentence, when it is what a large amount of sources have focussed on. Kowal2701 (talk) 17:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

As ever, I would imagine that there is no section as nobody has rolled up their sleeves to write it yet. WP:SOFIXIT. Anna (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

This article is double the length it should be per WP:ARTICLESIZE, so I'm tentative about adding more content. I was hoping someone more experienced with BLPs would weigh in but that hasn't happened. Kowal2701 (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Enoch is very far from a living person. It's not a crisis. It seems that someone has read some biographies and got very excited and put lots of the detail into the article and loads of quotes. It happens, esp with notable leaders. They have clearly put a lot of work into the editing and adding. So, thanks to them for all the graft. Articles tend to develop in waves. Biographical books are often written as hagiographies and it can be hard to turn that into encylopedic content, in pitch. Anna (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Tags on current article, Jan 2025

I would say that the article looks pretty fully referenced. Not sure there is a need for a cn header tag. If someone wants a legacy section, they should write it and add refs. Anna (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

There are 29 {{citation needed}} tags. Why start a new section when there's one already opened about this? Kowal2701 (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Because I am trying to review all the current header tags and explain my edits. The current article size is 21k words. WP:SIZERULE suggests that 15k is excessive, so, yes, the articles should be reduced for readability. I would probably argue that 29 cn tags in a article of this length doesn't require a header tag. I would also suggest taking off the 'need of legacy' section as someone should just write it. Anna (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed on tag regarding legacy, I can write it but it might be in a few months time. Idk I think 29 cn tags is quite a lot considering there are big paragraphs completely uncited covered by a single tag, but in light of that if you still think it should be removed feel free to do so. Kowal2701 (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Cites are not technically required on every piece of article info. There is a tag on "the family moved to Kings Norton". Is anyone really disputing this or likely to? "Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged". WP:CITE. Anna (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I think someone is likely to challenge that if the article was to develop further and come under closer scrutiny. Per WP:USI Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines require all information to be citable to sources. When information is unsourced, and it is doubtful any sources are available for the information, it can be boldly removed. Kowal2701 (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Fwiw, I find it pretty unusual for this kind of biographical detail to turn out to be untrue or unsourcable, unless it's been intentionally vandalised. Anna (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

It’s very unlikely it’s intentionally wrong, but it can happen that a source gets mistakenly misrepresented. But at this stage and per WP:PERFECTION it’s okay Kowal2701 (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)