Talk:Enoch Powell/Archive 2

Powell's reaction to the loss of India
The article states that Powell's reaction to the loss of India was to turn against the idea of Empire altogether. I've asked for a citation. It may well be arguable that this was his long-term reaction. But as I recall, his immediate reaction was quite different: there's a story that he went to see Churchill with a military proposal on how Britain could reconquer independent India. Churchill's reported response to his staff: "Who was that young lunatic you sent to see me?" Perhaps someone has a reference for this? Nandt1 (talk) 01:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Section: Later life and death
There is, in this section, a paragraph commencing, 'On 16 May 1994, Powell spoke at...'. The following paragraph commences, 'After his death...'. Within and between these two paragraphs there is no mention of his death. This standard of writing is shameful. Better would be expected of a literate 10-year old. Is there any chance of, at least, a semi-literate editor re-writing this?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.108.14 (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2012‎ (UTC)

Order of the British Empire
The article shows he was a Member of the Order of the British Empire however in the honours section of his military person infobox that he was an Officer of the Order of the British Empire, so which is it? Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 06:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Enoch Powell 6 Allan Warren.jpg to appear as POTD
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Enoch Powell 6 Allan Warren.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on February 8, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-02-08. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation of his name
Is the pronunciation (with Powell pronounced like "pole") correct? Most people seem to pronounce it to rhyme with "cowl". Anyone have a source? garik (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * No published source but "cowl" is correct. That's how he was called by commentators whilst alive (actually you can find the 1995 Michael Cockerell documentary on YouTube) and I chaired a meeting which he addressed in 1991. You may be confusing him with the novelist Anthony Powell (pronounced "pole"). MissingMia (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I've heard it pronounced like 'pool' (to rhyme with fool, stool etc.). But I do move in exceptionally posh circles. --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 11:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

If so, it obviously didn't catch on. Best to pronounce the name the way everyone else does.MissingMia (talk) 08:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

InfoBox matter - campaign medals
I do not know how to put medal ribbon symbols onto Wikipedia, but editors who can, note that he would not have been awarded the Burma Star without also being awarded the 1939-45 Star.Cloptonson (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Indian independence
I suppose that Ms Luce was not referring to the independence of the Native American Indians when making this absurd statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pamour (talk • contribs) 21:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Indeed. An aspect of American hypocrisy forgotten now that we are good anti-imperialists, but much made by British commentators at the time. That said, we were just as self-righteous in our dealings with French and German colonies as the Americans were with us.MissingMia (talk) 23:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * And yet Powell was in no hurry to get his British backside out of Ireland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.210.174 (talk) 08:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

This article is much too long
This article must be cut down and be given a broader tone. The problem isn't necessarily that Enoch Powell isn't an important enough figure to "merit" a long article, its that no attempt has been made to condense his life and opinions. The section on his period as a Unionist MP is the most egregious. It's nearly 6000 words long and does nothing but list his speeches and writings; On this day he said this, on that day he wrote that in this paper, and when this happened he had this opinion of it. There's practically nothing about his activities in gov't or relations with other politicians, and whatever there is is swamped by the rest. If another politician like Thatcher were given the same treatment the article would be longer than her own autobiography. We need someone with expertise in this subject to take an editorial attitude and summarize and highlight the major points about his life and career.theBOBbobato (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The place for a summary is in the introduction, and the problem with chopping material out of articles is that you never know what somebody else is going to find interesting or useful - there's nothing more irritating than going back to an article and finding something you added has been deleted by someone who "doesn't see why that's important", or has been chopped out by some "editor" who has ended up snipping beyond his knowledge and competence.


 * The comparison with Thatcher is not an exact one because she was in government for most of her career so a lot of her actions are tied up with the history of, say, economic policy or the poll tax. Powell had a much more varied career, starting with his early academic and military careers which are interesting in their own right. Very little of his career was actually spent in government, and his period of major influence was when he held great sway over public opinion from 1968 to the mid-1970s. He continued to be an important figure in the late 1970s because the Callaghan government was dependent on the Ulster MPs for its majority. He was basically a loner so his "relations with other politicians" are generally less important than his speeches and writings.


 * I don't entirely disagree that there's far too much direct quotation of his views on current events from about 1983 onwards when he had become a peripheral and somewhat batty figure, no longer having much real influence on events but often churning out clever-sounding quotes or newspaper article. His views were by then often quite silly once you penetrated beneath the intellectual veneer, like when he claimed that John Major was preempting the Royal Prerogative by putting himself up for reelection as Tory Leader in 1995. Some of these lengthy quotes could probably be summarised without much loss of substance.Paulturtle (talk) 12:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Well the thing was that despite not being in power he was still a prominent figure, that alone is reason to for merit, for example his stance on the EEC was credited with causing Heath to lose the election that he was previously winning, quite significant influence for just a backbencher, so while you may not agree with his views (batty? you clearly are not commenting from a neutral viewpoint), or have a strong dislike for him by saying his views were quite silly (he was a professor at age 25, so I think he is likely much more intelligent then you are!), you should not seek to minimize the wiki page describing him. He was very industrious hence there is a vast amount of material that should be devoted to him, his economic theories for example became the core of the Thatcher government.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arch r stanton (talk • contribs) 00:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * If you take the trouble to read my comments more closely you will see that I expressed neither like nor dislike for him, and wrote that he does deserve full and detailed coverage of his early academic and military careers and especially the period when he was a politician of first rank importance, between the late 1960s and 1979. However, I wrote that the coverage of his views on this, that and the other from about 1983 onwards, when he was no longer an important figure, are probably covered in a bit too much detail, although personally I prefer not to cut stuff out of articles unless it is plain wrong. As is not uncommon in people of extreme intellect (the chess player Bobby Fischer springs to mind), a lot of Powell's views did become increasingly eccentric as he grew older, e.g. that the CIA had assassinated Lord Mountbatten. I described his view of the 1995 Tory Leadership election as "silly" (that Major was breaching the Royal Prerogative by having himself reelected as Party Leader) which if anything is a fairly mild description - former professors of Ancient Greek are as capable as any other member of the human race of writing foolish and ill-informed things outside their own area of specialism.Paulturtle (talk) 13:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Operation Fernbridge/Abuse allegations
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/tory-mp-enoch-powell-investigated-as-alleged-member-of-westminster-paedophile-network-10142235.html

Since these allegations are already mentioned on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elm_Guest_House_child_abuse_scandal, I see no reason why they shouldn't be here. I'm not sure where to put them, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.36.194 (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Enoch Powell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090702140542/http://www.newstatesman.com/199901220021 to http://www.newstatesman.com/199901220021
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120717052230/http://www.expressandstar.com/days/1950-75/1974.html to http://www.expressandstar.com/days/1950-75/1974.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090112193428/http://www.henry-moore-fdn.co.uk:80/matrix_engine/content.php?page_id=584 to http://www.henry-moore-fdn.co.uk/matrix_engine/content.php?page_id=584

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

New section 'Dramatic portrayals'
I have added a new section, after Elections, called Dramatic portrayals, giving users opportunity to add known portrayals of Powell in drama (tv especially), kicking off with an upcoming play, What Shadows, to be shortly staged in Birmingham centred on the Rivers of Blood speech and its background in his friendship with Clement Jones. I am aware Powell has been much parodied by impressionists.Cloptonson (talk) 05:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Enoch Powell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110219220845/http://www.alor.org/Volume8/Vol8No47.htm to http://www.alor.org/Volume8/Vol8No47.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080719115306/http://www.alanthornhill.co.uk/sm_004.htm to http://alanthornhill.co.uk/sm_004.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Linguist
Powell was a scholar of Ancient Greek and classics, hence a philologist not a linguist. A lingiusts is someone who practices linguistics (which is the study of language in general), not just someone who specializes in a specific language. The only sources I could find with both "Enoch Powell" and "linguist" in them were linguistic analyses of the River of Blood speech, most of which described him as "a conservative politician".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * OK makes sense Rjensen (talk) 22:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Enoch Powell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511101758/http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/story.html?id=ac315342-4333-4bcf-8916-fe85d7d21746 to http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/story.html?id=ac315342-4333-4bcf-8916-fe85d7d21746

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Is one of the pictures on the page mislabelled?
There are two pictures of Powell on the page that appear to be mislabelled. One, accompanying the "Final Years" part of the page, notes the image of Powell as having been taken in 1987, while a second picture from a different angle that is featured in the "Personal Life" section of the page says that the image was taken in 1986 in Belgravia, London.

Careful analysis suggests that those two pictures were not taken one year apart, but instead during the same photoshoot. Notice that Powell's attire is identical in both pictures as is the background foliage and the bench he sits on in both pictures. It appears that there has been an error made in documenting those two pictures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.167.84.65 (talk) 15:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * You could contact the photographer Allan Warren on Commons, where the two photos were from.  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  20:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I should like to have been killed in the war
Somebody - one of his early biographers I think - said of this quote that it was the sign of somebody who was not entirely sane. Might make a useful addition if somebody can remember who and when.Paulturtle (talk) 06:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Unbalanced lead
Two thirds of the lead is about one speech, which is covered in depth in the body of the article. The lead of any article should be balanced. The speech may have brought Powell to wider attention, but he was already well-known.  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  19:24, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * IT is what he is by far most notable for, I don't think it's seriously unbalanced. DuncanHill (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The article goes into detail about all the things he was notable for, such as prompting Thatcher to take action over the Falklands, speaking against joining the EEC (now EU) and pushing reforms in health and defence, none of which are mentioned in the lead. The whole thing would have died down in a week (which as we know is a long time in politics) had Heath not sacked him (against Thatcher's better judgement). Yes, he was outspoken and could be divisive, but I remember him for much more than that speech. So does the article. That's why I believe the lead is unbalanced.  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  19:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * So the lead mentions the thing he is most known for, and the article goes on to cover not just that but the rest of his career. That's more or less what is meant to happen. DuncanHill (talk) 19:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Another point on the unbalanced lead: it talks about how Powell "pointedly criticised mass immigration into the UK". IMO, the use of the term 'pointedly' here seems POV language, but more importantly the term "mass immigration" is used to define modern immigration to Britain. This may be common in the media but it seems POV to use this term with reference to modern immigration to the UK (not mentioned on the mass migration article); a more neutral descriptor would be to say that he was a critic of modern immigration to the United Kingdom, which does have its own article. Bangalamania (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Should it really be included?
"While Powell did not consider himself a racist, his rhetoric had a "lasting and malign effect...on the way in which race and migration are discussed, or not discussed."

Why is this even necessary to have in the article? The source used does not accuse Powell of being a racist and the words racist and racism are not used at all. The last part is just someone's opinion which could arguably go against WP:NPOW. I don't really see any reason why any of this needs to be included in the article. Perhaps could explain since he is the user that has reverted my edits and seems to want the inclusion of it in the article?--92.18.69.191 (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC) Banned editor English Patriot Man Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:20, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The Economist is a reliable source -Snowded TALK 21:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Anyone asking why the Wikipedia article on Enoch Powell should mention his possible relationship with racism is coming from a profoundly ahistorical place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The Economist may be considered a reliable source but the opinion of one of the editors does not have anymore credit than any other person’s opinion about the aftermath of Powell’s infamous speech. Beyond My Ken, you have misinterpreted what I meant. I am questioning the inclusion of the statement “While Powell did not consider himself a racist”, this could be read that only Powell did not consider himself a racist and the majority of other people thought or think he was a racist. This is simply not true, in 1998 the majority of a BBC audience voted that Powell was not a racist and biographers of Powell also dismiss the notion that he was a racist. The statement about the aftermath of his speech does not mention anything about Powell being a racist.--92.18.69.191 (talk) 19:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC) Banned editor English Patriot Man Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:20, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You are arguing a position rathe than referencing sources. Please check out WP:OR, WP:SYN and WP:RS -Snowded TALK 06:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I am questioning the sentence used before the quote is used. The quote from source is not about the allegation that Powell was a racist so I don't understand why "While Powell did not consider himself a racist" is even mentioned at all. "Powell's rhetoric" would be sufficient since that is what the quote is about when put into context.--92.18.69.191 (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC) '''Banned editor English Patriot Man. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:20, 6 July 2018 (UTC)'''
 * The IP is the banned editor English Patriot Man. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:20, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Too many quotes?
While Powell was undoubtedly an eloquent writer, I feel whoever put this article together was a little too fond of his voice. While pretty comprehensive, it seems to me to contain far too many direct quotes. A good biographical article should describe the subject's views with reference to the sources, rather than just quoting them at length extensively. To take one glaring example - ten paragraphs(!) of quotes from him about the Falklands War seems a bit much, when it couldn't be said that he played a major role in it or that it was a major part of his political career. This article needs to be seriously rewritten so it is less of an anthology of quotes (we have Wikiquote for that) and more of an encyclopaedic biography. I feel I have to add the Over-quotation template. Robofish (talk) 23:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Colour prejudice
Although Powell always claimed not to be a racist, especially concerning skin colour, there is an interesting item in a BBC webpage about Barbara Blake Hannah, who was a black reporter for ATV in the 60s (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-54623417):


 * 'One of the worst moments at ATV was when she was sent out filming on a bitterly cold day, only to be told later it was because Wolverhampton MP Enoch Powell - fresh from his anti-immigration Rivers of Blood speech - had agreed to do an interview at the studio on condition that "the black girl" was not there.'

PhilUK (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I came here to say the same thing. What's the best place to include it in the article? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Brigadier
My understanding is that brigadier at the time was an appointment and not a rank. It seems Powell was a (temporary) colonel by rank by the end of the war, with actual (substantive) rank of lieutenant-colonel, but given appointment of acting (later temporary) brigadier to serve on the Re-Organization Committee. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Birth control
There is no apparent mention of his birth control pill support allowed for married women on NHS. So important a step for women. 203.18.219.152 (talk) 02:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Dramatic portrayals
I'm going to remove the part about the Beatles song Get Back parodying Powell because it's not a dramatic portrayal of him (and anyway it's badly written and leaves out the fact that it was a tempororary version of the song). Hyuhanon (talk) 04:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

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)