|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article has an assessment summary page.|
||It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
I think the "assesment" section of this page should be removed, not because I agree or disagree with the assesment as such, but simply ANY assesment is bound to be the authors opinion about a certain subject, and therefor by its very nature not a neutral point of view. Jcuk
In the second biography it says at one stage to the effect that "at this point his drinking was under control" (quoting from memory, so possibly not exact). Further details?
"Like many great political thinkers, Joseph was a failure in office."
Are there #any# political thinkers who were effective in office? (Was it Karl Marx or Lenin who said that the point of political philosophy is not to describe the situation but to change it?) - It was Marx. This was the last of his "Theses on Feuerbach." NRPanikker 13:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Regarding description as right wing
This is a vague term in the extreme, the changes in the Conservative Party in the 1970's very much were formed by the growth of Neo-Liberalism which was as Mrs Thatcher put it a project to "Roll back the Frontiers of the State", it is not an NPOV nor indeed is Neo-Liberal considered a negative term, Keith Joseph was from the early 1970's on in the vanguard of Neo-Liberalism - deregulation, ending big government and minimising government involvement in the economy - these are all parts of Neo-Liberal theory. On social policy Neo-Liberals could vary a lot from being very libertarian to being very strongly socially conservative.
In fact the term right lumps him together with people who favoured extensive state involvement in the economy but who had a very strong emphasis on a more authoritarian social conservatism.
- Our job is to produce an encyclopaedia which is useful to people. Any article on Keith Joseph which does not describe him as being on the political right is being extremely unuseful. The Conservative Party are on the right of British politics, and Keith Joseph was on the right of the Conservative Party - not the authoritarian right, but the economic right. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 13:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- He didn't use the term himself and preferred more specific technical terminology when categorising people and ideas.--Lord of the Isles 19:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
As "sir-keith" his name has an entry (based on its sound) in the Online Dictionary of Playground Slang, to be found at www.odps.org NRPanikker 00:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Is the spelling 'Sinjohn' really correct? It is my own middle name and as far as I'm aware is always spelt 'St. John' since the pronunciation 'sinjun' is merely a verbal smoothing of the sound.Erwfaethlon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC).
Why is so much of this article unsourced?
I am referring in particular to the elements of the article which seem to contain a pro-Thatcherite slant (coupled with, as usual, a subcurrent of anti-Heath sentiment). Pro-Thatcher and anti-Heath seems, sadly, to be the norm with so many Wikipedia articles. Still, at least this one doesn't (yet) include a quote from the odious Enoch Powell. Multiculturalist (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's basically a Keith Joseph fan page. Right wing Tory wonks are very active on WP with varying degrees of discretion and subtlety. Every WP article about British Conservative politicians active in the 80s displays this bias and I can't see that much can be done about it given the determination of the editors involved. --Ef80 (talk) 14:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Edgbaston 1974 speech
According to the article, the speech was supposed to have been written by Alfred Sherman. But at the end of the paragraph it is credited to Joseph's assistant, Jonathan Sumption. Both are sourced but it is not clear from these. As it stands, the article contains contradictory claims.
- Joseph inserted the controversial phrase into the speech which was written by Sherman.--Britannicus (talk) 11:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- I wouldn't call it "Sumption's claim" because he has been indirectly quoted by an unknown person, he hasn't gone on record to take responsibility for it. However Joseph's biographers say this: "Ironically, although Joseph's close allies have treated responsibility for the phrase as if they were playing pass-the-parcel with a hand grenade, it seems that this section was almost the only contribution which Joseph made to his own speech. In recent months Sherman had taken care to remove additions to the texts which he provided, but on this occasion Joseph was so attracted by a phrase that he re-inserted it. [Note: ...So anxious was Joseph that the responsibility should lie with the true culprit that as late as 1989 he personally telephoned to correct a Times diarist who had attributed the phrase to Sherman; see The Times, 10 February 1989; interview with Alfred Sherman.]"--Britannicus (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for looking that up, Britannicus. Quite an long-running mess, ay? I expect the party was still reeling from the Rivers of Blood fallout. I wonder if Joseph's keenness to exonerate him was because of Sherman's closeness to his free-market protegee Thatcher and he didn't want to make her look bad like she enjoyed and employed the wisdom of someone who would consider this a reasonable proposition for a politician's speech. It occurred to me that presumably Joseph had read it through first and yet didn't see fit to put a line through it - but he now claims he wrote it? Wouldn't be the first time he took the fall for her, would it? BTW, Alfred Sherman page here looks like a fan has had at it. *sighs (have spent most of the night cleaning up this sort of thing and can't face another one...)