Talk:Enoch Powell
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Enoch Powell article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | Enoch Powell is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
.svg)
Political beliefs
editOther 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
editThis 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
editIn 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
editDid he ever live or work in Wolverhampton? Sarcelles (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Length of Article
editSomeone 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)