Talk:Matthew Goodwin

Alleged conflict of interest

The creator of this article, Vanished user sojweiorj34i4f (talk · contribs), was accused in June 2015 of having a conflict of interest. He denied being Matthew Goodwin on 3 August.

I have therefore removed the {{autobiography}} banner from the article, and suggest to Urquhartnite (talk · contribs) that the COI notices should be removed from this talk page, unless other evidence of his suspicion can be added here.

The anon editor 81.157.69.233 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) may well have a conflict, see [1], but I see no connection between that group of edits and the article's creator. – Fayenatic London 19:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

"Is Rising Diversity A Threat To The West?"

I'm afraid I'm not seeing how the line "In October 2018, Matthew received criticism for attending a debate with the original title “Is Rising Ethnic Diversity a Threat to the West?” is unclear or disproportionate. It's one line and concerns a story that was covered by a major national newspaper (one that is considered a reliable and perennial source) as well as numerous smaller outlets. 80.47.148.59 (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The Guardian article just notes that he attended a conference, which is hardly unusual or notable for an academic, even if the author of the article didn't like the original title. The actual criticism is sourced to a blog. There would be grounds for a properly sourced discussion of the wide range of opinions, positive and negative, that have been expressed about Goodwin and his writings, but singling out that one story is WP:UNDUE. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

So the Guardian article does note he was criticised for it, along with the other sources discussing it. I've looked at the Undue page and this does not fit the criteria of Undue as there also an open letter signed by academics regarding it, so to say only one blog criticised it is inaccurate. See https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/framing-ethnic-diversity-debate-as-about-threat-legitimises-hat-0/. I would say that attending a controversial event that had 232 academics sign an open letter against it, and it being covered in a major national newspaper certainly makes this event notable. 80.47.148.59 (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The Guardian article notes nothing of the kind, and an open letter to a blog is stll just an open letter to a blog. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Please acknowledge the existence of the open letter signed by 232 academics, and the coverage in national newspapers and other smaller sources, then give your reasons with regards to the agreed upon criteria for why you believe this is WP:UNDUE.

Here's a list of sources covering the event:

• The Guardian - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/26/dont-normalise-far-right-sometimes-we-must-take-it-on
• The Independent - https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/is-rising-ethnic-diversity-threat-west-debate-reaction-239406
• openDemocracy - https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/framing-ethnic-diversity-debate-as-about-threat-legitimises-hat-0/
• Quillette - https://quillette.com/2018/12/08/what-happened-when-we-tried-to-debate-immigration/
• Unherd - https://unherd.com/2018/12/why-we-cant-ignore-the-challenges-of-immigration/
• The New Statesman - https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/11/do-academics-need-pseudonyms-protect-their-freedom
• No Platform A History of Anti-Fascism, Universities and the Limits of Free Speech By Evan Smith - https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=LuDaDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT20&lpg=PT20#v=onepage

That's more than enough to make this fit the criteria for Notability, see WP:N. 80.47.148.59 (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Well for a start you seem to have entirely misunderstood WP:N which states quite clearly that "The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists (with the exception of lists which restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." So that one falls. Secondly most of your sources are either not reliable secondary sources or do not directly support the claim you are trying to make. The interesting exception is the final book, which has not yet been published, but does appear broadly suitable. So now you finally have a half-decent source we have something to actually talk about. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

"Secondly most of your sources are either not reliable secondary sources or do not directly support the claim you are trying to make." My claim is that Matthew Goodwin attended a controversial debate, which of the sources are not reliable or do not directly support that statement? Please list them specifically and say which are unreliable, and which do not support that statement. 80.47.148.59 (talk) 22:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

A useful resource is WP:RSPSOURCES, which is a list of "perennial sources" used in Wikipedia articles explaining which are reliable and which ought to be avoided. Moreover, opinion articles may or may not be reliable. Nerd271 (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The Guardian is on WP:RSPSOURCES as reliable, and none of them are on there as unreliable. Regarding opinion pieces, please see WP:RSOPINION. If there are numerous differing opinion pieces about a subject, as there are in this case, then using them as examples of opinions on the subject is acceptable. I have yet to receive any clarification on which of the criteria listed in WP:UNDUE this addition would not meet. 80.47.148.59 (talk) 22:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. The Guardian and the Independent are OK, but don't really say what the IP suggests they do. Quillette is problematic, but should be fine for Goodwin's own take as I have used it in the article. The book, however, looks genuinely useful, though I am relying on the Google copy. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Exceptions can be made if we are talking about his own opinions. Nerd271 (talk) 22:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Just so. Also to note that I'm happy with your links to Eric Kaufmann now that we are covering this incident, but I have added David Goodhart to give a wider context. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Matthew Goodwin's book and undue weight

Does anyone else think that fact that half of this article is about a book the subject wrote is giving it undue weight? If it's such an important book that it takes up most of the article surely it should have it's own page. 80.47.137.128 (talk) 01:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

(Typo corrected) As a general rule, Wikipedia articles on living persons are necessarily incomplete. In the case of Goodwin, one can add further information about his academic works, including his books. Just because this page needs for more information does not mean we should delete what already exists. Nerd271 (talk) 03:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

What he is best known for is the book and things that follow from it. The section needs rewriting and reformatting not deletion. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 06:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

If you think that's the case you need to provide some reliable sources showing that's the case, and also give the reasons why it taking up half the page isn't a case of Undue Weight. That's the way wikipedia works 80.47.137.128 (talk) 15:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

No, like Jonathan A Jones said, this page needs more information and reformatting not deletion. Just because it remains incomplete does not mean large chunks should be removed. Nerd271 (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Anything without reliable sources should not be on the page 80.47.137.128 (talk) 00:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

The paragraph you are complaining about is supported by two sources, so I'm struggling to see your point here. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

The two sources do not say it's the thing he's best known for and are not sufficient for the weight it currently has. Please see WP:UNDUE 80.47.137.128 (talk) 17:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

It's one of the things he has (co-)written. Just because you think it is not what he is best known for at the moment does not mean we should not include it. It is relevant and is supported by sources. Nerd271 (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I have added his three other well known books and his forthcoming book, and trimmed "National Populism" somewhat. See what you think. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:13, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

The new revision works in my opinion. Nerd271 (talk) 15:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing sufficient evidence for the weight this has on the page. I don't believe it's standard protocol for a minor academic to have the majority of their page dedicated to their books when the sources don't support that level of weight. 80.47.137.128 (talk) 01:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The weight is perfectly due for these books and is well supported by sourcing. If you think there are other aspects of his career that should be covered more fully then feel free to identify these. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

IP called this guy a minor academic, eh? Minor or not, he is someone with multiple peer-reviewed articles and published books. I do not see why we should not include information about those in our Wikipedia page. Like Jones said, if you want to include further information, you are free to do so, as long as your provide reliable sources. Nerd271 (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Since we are at an impasse and no consensus has been reached I suggest we request an independent third party opinion. However I believe that first we should set out our positions clearly in order to make it easier for the editor giving their opinion.

My position is that one or two reviews are not sufficient for a book to have it's own subsection on a page and a standard bibliography section should be used instead. The basis for my opinion is this is how it works on every other similar page and so there is no precedent for every book by a subject of a page to have its own section just because it has at some point received a review. If you disagree with this can you set out your position, and then I will request the independent third party opinion. Thank you 80.47.137.128 (talk) 10:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I doubt this is what one could reasonably call an impasse. Anyway, I support the status quo as of now. Academics write books and those should be mentioned and described in some detail. Just because this page needs more information does not mean we should be cutting things out, which would make the page even more impoverished. Just because some other pages are written a certain way does not mean this page should conform. Different pages have different contributors. Nerd271 (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I've noted your position and will request an independent third party opinion. 80.47.137.128 (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I have reviewed the page briefly. I suggest that there is enough reliable material to justify the existence of the page, and that the amount of space devoted to his books (the main subject of the reliable coverage) is reasonable. I also feel that it is reasonable to present each book in a separate section as is presently done. I hope this third opinion helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Can I just check that this means if a book has a single review, as UKIP (2015) does for example, this is sufficient for it to have a separate section on a page and this applies to all pages? 80.47.137.128 (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm commenting on this page only. I do consider that the weight given to each book, in the specific context of this page, is within the acceptable range. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Richard Keatinge. The approach adopted here is not unusual for semi-popular academic books: see for example Judith Rich Harris or Daniel Everett. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Removal of reliable sourced content

146.241.198.75/78.146.211.178, could you please stop removing content that is referenced to reliable sources? OpenDemocracy, the Evening Standard and Evan Smith's book No Platform: A History of Anti-Fascism, Universities and the Limits of Free Speech are reliable sources and you shouldn't remove them because you don't like their criticism of Goodwin. 147.188.240.134 (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to piggyback on this topic, though the above sources are not the ones I address. I agree with some recent removal of content based on other sources. These are both [2], [3] supported by statements on Twitter and self-published newsletters on Substack, neither of which is acceptable, or a secondary source subject to editorial oversight. One source is Leftfoot Forward, which does publish a description of the editorial oversight function there (in the "About" section). They are not on the WP:RSPS page, so I assume they have not been discussed yet by the community. _signed, Willondon (talk) 15:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Surely David Aaronovitch's Substack is a reliable source for what Aaronovitch writes though? It's not as if the article was stating that he's correct, just reporting what he wrote. And he's one of the UK'sost prominent political commentators. 148.252.128.48 (talk) 16:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

'Goodwin's early work was well received but his most recent book, Values, Voice and Virtue, has attracted criticism that he has transformed from being an analyst of populism into a right-wing populist himself.' has also been removed, but if you look at the quotes from the reviews, several make this criticism and so I don't see why it's a problem to say that. Again, the article wasn't agreeing with the criticism but just reporting that it exists.148.252.128.48 (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Relevant quotes: "The book also follows and repeats the same contradictions inherent within the ideologies of right-wing populist movements" (Worth), "part of the right-populist movement he once sought to explain" (Eagleton), "Goodwin has gone from an observer to a participant" (Hassan), "One reviewer of Goodwin’s book noted that Goodwin had become “part of the right-populist movement he once sought to explain.”" (PMP). 148.252.128.48 (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Also from Aaronovitch in Prospect: "Goodwin is a clever man whose study of the far right seems to have induced a form of Stockholm syndrome, one in which the hostage and the kidnapper both expect to profit." 148.252.128.48 (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

The Reception section as of 19 August still reads like WP:PROMO and WP:NOTWEBHOST. Books are typically reviewed in their own articles.

I'm concerned that, with at least three past COI editors on this article, whether IP148 should be declaring a WP:COI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure how reviews that are highly critical of Goodwin and suggest that he's become a right-wing populist are seen as promotional. This all seems upside-down and the article now reads like an advert for him. I don't have a conflict of interest unless having studied his work and read what people have written about it counts as one. It's alright you saying that the reviews belong in the book's own articles but there aren't articles about the books.84.66.89.167 (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Then write them ... this is his bio, not a host for all of his work. If there is an overall review of him as a writer-- an overview-- add that here, as at J. K. Rowling. Notice at Rowling that you don't find every work reviewed-- that is at individual articles, this is a bio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I might give that a go. Thanks. 84.66.89.167 (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

My page about the National Populism book was accepted! Thank you for suggesting me that! POLSone0one (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

You're doing better now ... it's about how to structure articles, and I hope you can see the difference now relative to JKR ... and all the different IPs were confusing matters, so I'm glad you registered an account. Happy editing, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! POLSone0one (talk) 20:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

"Early life and education"?

This section contains information about the university stage of his education, but nothing earlier (schools, etc).

It also contains nothing about his early life, in spite of the section title. Presumably he was born and grew up somewhere, had parents and, possibly, siblings. He lived somewhere. All of this would be expected in an encyclopaedic biographical article.

There is also nothing about his personal life: spouse(s) / partner(s), children; nothing about his life outside his former academic role.

The whole article reads as a cv and not as an encyclopaedic article: Wikipedia as a free promotional platform. 2A00:23EE:2320:78EA:3E44:B25F:4004:56D3 (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)