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 article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Unionism in Ireland, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Unionism in IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Unionism in IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Unionism in IrelandUnionism in Ireland
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Northern IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Northern IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland-related
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
a summary of the events/ideas presented by the scope of the sections title, and then.
extended descriptions of the ideas or events presented in that section either chronologically or by concept.
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:
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)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale..svg){kind=small}
.svg)
