Talk:John Witherow

Expansion
I find it UNBELIEVABLE that there isn't a page on this man. He is surely one of the most influential people in Britain! As you can see from my meagre efforts, it's very difficult to track down info on him. Can we put this on a category for fast expansion or something? Megawattbulbman 17:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Time in Namibia
What there is in the article is remarkably hazy on dates, for a biography, and is generally vague.

I can add something, but the only source is my own diary (if it is the same John Witherow).

On 24 Oct 1971 he arrived in Namibia, to teach at St Mary's Anglican School at Odibo, Ovamboland. He stayed in Windhoek in a house with other church workers while waiting gor a permit, and was informed on 2 December 1971 was informed that the permit had been refused by the South African government. This was a time when the Anglican Church, under Bishop Colin Winter, was being persecuted in Namibia.

He remained in Windhoek to help set up a library with study facilities for correspondence students and helped with tutoring them. He wrote to various publishers asking for donations to the library. He remained in Namibia until about 1973.

SteveH (talk) 10:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Witherow or Witheroe?
I've read articles to do with the Falklands War of '82 which spells his name "Witheroe" and not "Witherow" which this article only mentions. Can we please get some clarification on which is the correct spelling?Tommiisonfire (talk) 15:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The removal of maintenance banners
Judging by the citations and the reliable information given on this page, there is no need for these warnings/maintenance banners on this page. This page is full of citations and references, and therefore these banners are compromising the great work of many editors past and present on this site for this particular page. I have no personal connection to the page, and therefore I believe it is right to rid the page of the banners and add any necessary information too for the benefit of the man and those who take an interest in his work. MTL2632 (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It might help other editors if you declared your interest/involvement in the subject. This appears to be the only article that you have edited. Can you enlighten us please why this topic particularly interests you ?  Velella  Velella Talk 21:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Certainly: I am interested in journalism and always have been. I recently come across John Witherow's page a couple of days ago after googling him. I then discovered these banners. After reading the article, consulting the references, I could not see any justification in these banners - and why I made the account here to make a wrong, a right. To clarify - I am not a journalist, I do not work for the man cited or have any association whatsoever with him. I am incredibly passionate about journalism and its many forms - i really would not want to spoil people's research or interest into this man if they so wish. Kind regards MTL2632 (talk) 21:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You seem to have a misunderstanding about the purpose of those maintenance tags. They are not there to stop anyone from "enjoying" the article; they are there to let editors know that there is work that needs to be done. Given that there are various unsourced claims in this article which are not marked with sources (such as about his birth and his schooling), tags are reasonable. And given that this article was heavily edited by someone who had declared that he had been told by the company to work on this article, there was indeed a conflict of interest and it was showing up in the contents, in the emphasis given on certain matters which was not given in the sources used. I am restoring the tag saying that more sourcing is needed. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Citation tags removed
This content is NOT supported by the reference given "After reporting on the air war and surviving Exocet attacks that destroyed HMS Sheffield, he was put ashore with 5 Infantry Brigade, consisting of the Welsh and Scots Guards and the Gurkhas. Witherow came under bomb attack while on an ammunition ship and was close by when Argentine aircraft struck RFA Galahad" Theroadislong (talk) 22:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I may have mis-read information. Citations need to be added or we will have to remove aspects of content. Thanks for pointing out. MTL2632 (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Is this related to the Talk:John_Witherow section above?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

COI tag
A new editing account has reinserted material from an earlier conflicted editor, trying to tie the paper's profitability to Witherow's editorship. While it is true that the year that the source article says it occurred was during Witherow's editorship, it does not attempt to link those facts (if anything, it suggests that it was the result of charging for online access which was instituted before Witherow.) We should not be making these connections if reliable sources are not. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet confirmed
I express very little surprise at the sock puppet investigation finding that MTL2632 is a sockpuppet of TheoDaviesLewis, who had claimed that he was a person who wrote bios for the Times and that his work on this article was at News UK's request (in contrast to repeated claims of having no conflict of interest). Given that we've now seen such dishonesty here, we may wish to pay a little extra attention to any new edits coming in. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Extra Sourcing
Hello - I work at The Times so I have a COI but I saw the maintenance tag on this page, and the regretful sockpuppet episode at the end of last year. I think I can help with some of the additional sourcing that the tag says is missing. Megawattbulbman, at the top of this Talk page, is right to say that the Editor of The Times is one of the most influential people in Britain. There are some links here for the Wiki community to consider, both positive and negative, which aren't already in the references list and that may allow for a more detailed wiki entry and/or the removal of the maintenance template tag:

Video of John Witherow discussing Namibia for The News Academy (young journalists' training programme): https://vimeo.com/99064551

Said Business School biography – Oxford University: http://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/community/people/john-witherow

Interview as editor of The Sunday Times (2008): http://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/830187/sunday-times-opts-modern-lively#

Some pieces on JW’s editorship of The Times:

Interview with trade magazine Press Gazette: http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/times-editor-john-witherow-snowden-murdoch-and-why-you-shoot-yourself-foot-cutting-back-journalism/

The News Business column – from the media columnist of The Drum: http://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2016/07/28/times-editor-john-witherow-how-its-paywall-paying-and-why-he-thinks-guardian-will

London Press Club award for Weekend newspaper of the Year: http://londonpressclub.co.uk/coverage-of-the-london-press-club-awards/

Controversy – The Times’s coverage of Hillsborough: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/apr/27/times-hillsborough-protest-front-page-twitter

Typewriter sounds:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/the-times-newsroom-set-to-ring-with-the-sounds-of-typewriters-once-more-9692335.html

http://www.npr.org/2014/08/27/343758250/london-times-goes-retro-with-stereo-typing

HelpfulPersonAtTimesofLondon (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm taking a quick look at some of these sources. The Oxford University source is useful in partial confirmation of birth location and moves thereafter (although it doesn't have the detail that we have in the article, it's only partial confirmation.) The Typewriter Sounds links are not of use to this page, because they literally tell us nothing about Witherow; he's not even mentioned. Even if we were to show that adding typewriter sounds to the newsroom happened during Witherow's tenure, that would not indicate that the event was significant to him nor that he was significant to the event. I'll try to get to more of these sources soon, but life is full! --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)