This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Matthew Goodwin 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 |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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 L ondon 19:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Matthew Goodwin 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 |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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 L ondon 19:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)