Talk:Matt Goodwin

"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)

Why are the Guardian and Independent "OK" - they are fanatically biased against anyone they consider "right wing". ~2026-56337-4 (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2026 (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)

He is not right wing

Matt is not right wing. You need to stop listening to that paid for group Hope not Hate who are agitators. Matt is a patriotic english man, he is right, not right wing! 2A01:CB05:8FC2:1300:DE5F:9C7B:5193:9841 (talk) 16:22, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

"Reform UK have unveiled GB News presenter and academic turned activist Matt Goodwin as their candidate to stand in the Gorton and Denton by-election."

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gr06y3n9zo Selbstporträt (talk) 18:22, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Where is he on the political spectrum then? ~2026-26646-07 (talk) 13:46, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Matt Goodwin contributed to Hope not Hate magazine, twice.

Goodwin, M. J. (2013). The danger of lone‑wolf terrorism. In HOPE not hate (Issue 11, November–December 2013), page 11. HOPE not hate, London. Available at: https://shepwayvox.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/hope_not_hate_11_text.pdf

Goodwin, M. (2012, March–April). Understanding radicalisation. HOPE not hate, page 18. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-21893-13 (talk) 10:51, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

First in family to go to university

Under "Early life and education", the article claims that Matt Goodwin was "the first in his family to attend university", citing . However, a prior citation in the article, , describes his father as having an MBA and a PhD. These do not appear to be consistent with each other. It seems unlikely that the latter is wrong. ~2026-59442-7 (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

It looks like the HSJ link isn't cited in the article anymore but this is a very valid point. Quick LinkedIn check says NG gained MBA in 1986, when MG would have been 5 years old. There's probably room for polemics about whether a 'business school' is the same as a 'university' etc etc but to avoid confusion let's cut it altogether. Good spot. Howtomedia72 (talk) 03:14, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

This line of thought fails WP:OR. We would need a reliable source to confirm that that individual is his father, and that that individual had been to university before him. We could then add that to the article, Currently, we have got no valid reason to challenge content that is sourced to The Times. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:00, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

The exact quote from The Times is "the first person in his direct family to go to university". As far as I can piece things together it seems likely that his father's University education was as a mature student and happened after the family split, so that his father was no longer a member of his direct family. So "direct" is apparently doing a lot of work here, but not worse than that. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:36, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Could be, but that's unsupported speculation. It's right to follow the source though, and qualify it as "direct family", as it does. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:06, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I don’t see any real dispute that Dr Neil Goodwin is Matt’s dad and is the person in the citation you removed, DeFacto. Doesn’t The Times article name him? says his “father ran the Greater Manchester Health Authority”, which identifies him. Something, therefore, doesn’t add up. Maybe Jonathan A Jones is right that Matt Goodwin is using “direct family” to exclude his dad. Maybe it’s something else. ~2026-53323-5 (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-53323-5, we cannot just assume that if we can find a primary source about an NHS person with the correct name it must be his father, and add personal information about him to the article. See WP:BLPNAME, WP:BLPPRIVATE and WP:OR. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:57, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

There was previously a link to Matt Goodwin’s substack in which he confirmed his father was the same Neil Goodwin who was CEO of Manchester Health Authority & later of Greater Manchester Strategic Health Authority. His Linkedin confirms he went to university in 1984 when Goodwin was 3 years old i.e. before he split from Goodwin’s mother

https://www.mattgoodwin.org/p/out-of-office-out-of-sight Clonewormblademr (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

@Clonewormblademr, I don't seem to be able to access the source you linked to there. Can you copy the appropriate content from it here please. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:15, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

In short, it’s a guest post from his father, Neil Goodwin (introduced by Goodwin as such), about his “As Long As I Keep Busy” photography project. Clonewormblademr (talk) 11:00, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I restored some details about Goodwin's father to the article at , but DeFacto removed at, citing WP:BLPNAME. Naming someone's father, when they are named in sources as given by Clonewormblademr, is common on Wikipedia articles. The removal feels like overkill. What do others think? Bondegezou (talk) 10:46, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

It should not have been removed. It makes no sense at all. The same thing happened with the article on Angeliki Stogia for the same reason.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:56, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Appalling article

This is the most slanted, biased and unfair screed I've ever read on this site. It's clearly been structured and written by persons with a pathological loathing of Goodwin and an agenda to present him in the worst possible light. It needs to be re-done in a far more balanced way. Many of the "sources" for criticism of him are left wing opinion pieces and of course they would. This should be balanced by alternating praise from right wing OpEds. Alternatively, have neither and just report the FACTS rather than opinions? Aetheling1125 (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree. It reads like a hit-piece on him. Some more balance is needed. His new book has been "panned", yet has good reviews on Amazon and was apparently a Sunday Times bestseller. TrottieTrue (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

@Aetheling1125, @TrottieTrue, perhaps you could update the article to reflect some of your concerns. Remember that everything needs to be supported by a reliable source (check in the big table at the bottom of WP:RSP), which does not exclude biased ones (per WP:BIASED). -- DeFacto (talk). 09:45, 19 June 2026 (UTC)