Talk:Enoch Powell

Too favorable to Powell

Much of the article, and the “Political beliefs” section conspicuously, smacks uncomfortably of apologia. Why is so much of this section dedicated to others’ views on whether Powell was a racist or not? Shouldn’t his own statements as included be enough for readers to reach their own conclusions, e.g., his quote “What’s wrong with racism?” Additionally, these external perspectives are almost invariably positive. Given his most influential speech, its content, its consequences (which are barely touched upon here), and his refusal to disavow it, how can it be considered of equal or higher relevance that he “Enjoyed speaking Urdu when dining at Indian restaurants," which is not even a political belief! The final word on his legacy in this section is someone else’s opinion that he was the “best hope for British freedom and survival.” There are many more examples of this kind of defensive or even laudatory tone. There are a grand total of *three* unequivocal statements of opposition to Powell's views across the roughly three pages of content making up the section, all of which are followed immediately by defenses. Given a total lack of any non-conservative or even merely critical evaluations in block quotations on top of this, the whole section ultimately reads like an attempt to soften or even rescue Powell's legacy and views, rather than give an accurate, let alone fair, sense of what they were or what most people (inside and outside of the UK) thought and think of them. The article and this section in particular are clearly defensive of Enoch Powell, which is a serious problem. The problem is structural to the article in its entirety and, although I plan to edit the section, it can’t be solved by the simple addition of a few contrasting opinions. Fantasmaguerico (talk) 06:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree. The article gives far too much weight to his various op-eds in the 1970s and afterwards. The extensive stress on his erudition and education strikes me as a ploy to drown out the Rivers of Blood controversy. The discussion of the controversy is far too slanted in his favour, and doesn't even begin to appropriately represent the scale of criticism against his beliefs. This article has been like this for a very long time, however, and I think it will need a special effort to reform it. theBOBbobato (talk) 13:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

And your second sentence "strikes me as" a classic example of a wikipedia editor reacting with hostility to an article which discusses matters of which he knows little and about a subject which he has been brought up to dislike. The article has been "like this for a long time" because it reflects published biographies of the man, of which there have been several. He had two extremely impressive careers - academic and military - under his belt by his early thirties. Powell became a hate figure in certain circles after 1968, but "Rivers of Blood" was only one part of his career, along with his campaigns for free markets and against inflation, against the EEC and as an Ulster Unionist.Paulturtle (talk) 02:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Description

Is "addicted to reading" a suitable phrase? 86.3.252.100 (talk) 15:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Political beliefs

Other than the final two short paragraphs of the "political beliefs" section, it is all devoted to Powell's views on immigration.

Other than immigration, Powell was known for his economic views and his views on foreign affairs, particularly the United States, the EEC and the British Empire. These views make up key elements of "Powellism".

There is brief mention of his economic views in the final paragraph, which is entirely quoted from Murray Rothbard, but other than that, none of these views are mentioned in this section. Should they be? Unusual.Octopus (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Pogo Stick incident

This is mentioned in the archives for this talk page - should there be a mention in the article text: a passing mention in the Ministry of Health section would do. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

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)