Talk:Tim Westwood

Beyond criticism?

Why has the section on criticisms been removed? I think most people would agree Timmy is a slightly controversial figure and a criticisms section only serves to acknowledge this.

I agree that some of the more ascerbic comments could go but in general I feel the article is better with a criticisms section than without.

R

I've partially restored the Criticisms section, minus some of the more lurid and subjective opinions. Having looked through the history, it was removed (by accident or design) along with some vandalism. What remains still needs properly sourcing and any future additions should be properly sourced. I've also reinstated the shooting, with a BBC news link. It was a bit ridiculous to delete that, it was very newsworthy at the time and I'm sure Tim remembers it. --Archstanton 12:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no mention of him being shot at all, Is this an urban legend or did it actually happen? If it did it should be on this page surely?

He was indeed shot, it was widely reported at the time (see for example BBC news link), he spent several days in hospital and obviously will carry the scars for the rest of his life. It was certainly mentioned in earlier versions of the article, along with some entirely legitimate mentions of some of the criticisms that are levelled at Mr Westwood. I think they should be reinstated. --Tyler 08:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Around the time he was shot, another Radio 1 DJ, the world music specialist Andy Kershaw heavily criticised Westwood for playing so many apparently pro-gun pro-violence records. Has this been discussed in the Criticism section? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.146.47.250 (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Is he really 47? (as of 2005) pomegranate 22:25, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

I must admit I was surprised by that too. --Psyk0 22:41, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

He is but he's incredibly bare faced about fudging it. If you believe his last claims to be 15 years younger than he is then he was DJing at age 8 and on legal stations at 13...which seems somewhat unlikely Duds 2k 10:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

hes one of a few white hip-hop djs? who wrote this nonsense!!

I think it might be worthwhile someone sourcing KRS1 criticising Westwood during a live Radio 1 broadcast - as I remember he really did lay in to the lad, and there was a fair bit of music press coverage at the time. Beerathon 22:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't find any press coverage, but the recordings on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMnuvPifSaM&feature=related 87.194.34.108 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Discography

The Discography seems rather sparse; a quick glance at Amazon shows me that there are at least seven albums by Westwood. I'll add these in with links to Amazon.com. --Psyk0 22:31, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Side-note: Volumes 4 and 5 of his compilations are either out of print or are not named by their volume number. I assume that 'The Jump Off' and 'The Platinum Edition' are volumes 4 and 5. If anyone can confirm or correct this information, it'd be cool. --Psyk0 22:40, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Criticisms

I removed this line from Criicisms: "The new British series of the American MTV import 'Pimp My Ride' is fronted by Westwood." For one thing, it's not very critical, and for another thing, it's actually mentioned in a preceding paragraph. It would probably fair, however, to add a bit to the criticisms section saying that people think his version of the show is a bit of a joke compared to the original. Probably just a cash-in show, hence why it's not very good. --Dandelions 21:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I've removed this slightly bizarre sentence:

His name is "Big Dog", despite the fact that he is a very tall, thin male.

Should I conclude from this that to be called a "big dog", a person has to be a very short, fat woman? Palefire 20:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I think you should conclude that they have to be a big dog... Talltim (talk) 21:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC) (Sorry!)

Vandalism, including libellous accusations of anal sodomy

"He also (briefly) attended Norwich School, Norwich, a private cathedral grammar school for homosexual and sexually confused boys."

This is patently rediculous. Whether or not it is true, it is an obvious bias to place it in the criticisms section. Please submit evidence.--CaptainSurrey talk

Revert if you must, but I've removed part of this "He also (briefly) attended Norwich School, Norwich, a private cathedral grammar school for boys".

It isn't necessary to state that he went to an all boys school. One can look up Norwich School to find the necessary information.CaptainSurrey

Doesn't that defeat the object of wikipedia if people are then supposed to look up such details. It's actually called Norwich School for Boys (though they allow girls into the sixth form) so I think it's necessary to state that. It's like saying that Mussolini shouldn't be identified as a fascist in a wikipedia article.

Yes, it's called Norwich School for Boys, but it also can be shortened to "Norwich School" for brevity. There is no constructive, sensible reason why you would need to inform readers that he went to an all boys school, unless you are covertly trying to include underlying humour, very much in the same manner as the vandals, when they speak of, "school for homosexual boys". Since there ARE such schools in the UK (albeit quite rare and low key, if you take my meaning), it would be awkward to include even the line "school for boys".

Lastly, there is no corelation between the two examples you used in an attempt at an analogy. How does fascism relate to boyhood (even metaphorically)? Thus, "Mussolini the fascist" reduced to plain "Mussolini", does not corelate to "Norwich school for boys" reduced to plain "Norwich school". Another way to look at it is that, it is important and necessary to inform that Mussolini was a fascist, because that piece of information has profound implications to the reader; fascism is a controversial issue. But since all boys schools are less of a political issue, there is no reason to inform the reader of such information: it is not critical info. Your analogy is useless. - CaptainSurrey

---

I find this page to be somewhat incomplete and poorly sourced:

"In interviews, Westwood has said he has strong moral convictions, does not drink or take drugs and does not play gigs during exam times." Where is the proof of this?

Also, there is no mention of why he "briefly" attended Norwich School. It is known that Westwood has dyslexia and that this may have attributed to both his admission and subsequent exit from the grammar school.

Finally, although the article mentions his history as a DJ, it fails to mention the fact that he has hip-hop DJ for nearly 20 years - a somewhat significant achievement.

10:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC) JPH

Yes, he may have briefly attended Norwich Boys School. But spent most of his education at the Hewitt School in Norwich.

"Finally, although the article mentions his history as a DJ, it fails to mention the fact that he has hip-hop DJ for nearly 20 years - a somewhat significant achievement." Is it also a significant achievement then that I have been proclaiming myself Emperor of the Known Universe for the last 15 years? I'm hoping you can spot the criticism there. 82.34.144.139

"I'm hoping you can spot the criticism there" nah, i don't get it.

Ali G Inspiration

Such suggestions are far older than the 2005 Guardian article, so I've altered the text accordingly. Damian Corrigan 12:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. If you can find any earlier sourced examples, by all means add them. --Archstanton 00:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Misconceptions in Article

This page seems to have been targeted by some inaccurate changes under the criticisms and introduction. It's highly unlikely that Tim Westwood is "popular with the gay community" or the inspiration for a gay character in Little Britain.

The online Guardian article cited as a source makes no reference to Little Britain, so why would anyone think Daffyd's character was based on Westwood? --Escaper7 14:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Good spot. Vandalism now removed. --Archstanton 14:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• I strongly feel that if he hasn't come out the article should make no reference to his sexuality. RomanSpa (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

It has been observed...erm, hang on, observed by whom exactly?

It has been observed that Westwood is hated by both traditional conservatives and the far-Right (who might call him a race traitor or even a nigger lover) and by hard-Leftists (who feel that he is denying exposure to black DJs) and black extremists such as the Nation of Islam (who feel that white people have "no place" in hip-hop). Some claim that this is paradoxical; others that it confirms the decline of left-right politics.

Really? Who exactly has made these observations? I can't find any evidence to suggest that Westwood is 'hated' by anyone. And what on earth is a 'black extremist'...and what has any of this got to do with the Nation of Islam? In fact, at what point did anyone from any side of the politcal spectrum start discussing Tim Westwood.

I'm sorry, but this entire paragraph is patently nonsense. This isn't the place to discuss sociological contexts. Please provide some firm evidence to back-up these claims.

Categories

I removed this article from direct membership of Category:Radio DJs in the UK on the grounds that, as a member of a subcategory (Category:BBC Radio 1 DJs), it is in Category:Radio DJs in the UK anyway. If it is directly in Category:Radio DJs in the UK, as well as indirectly, then it is in Category:Radio DJs in the UK twice and its direct listing in Category:Radio DJs in the UK is not informative. For the same reason, I'd like to remove the article from Category:British radio personalities. Tim Ivorson 07:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

I'm getting tired of continually having to reverse vandalism to this article. If you want to take the piss out of Westwood, do it on your own webspace, not in an encyclopaedia which is supposed to be impartial.

And I would add that, with vandalism to this page as endemic as it is, it might be worth disabling this page from being edited by non-registered users.

I'm beginning to think it might be worth removing the section on catchphrases, while Westwood is known for his eccentric language it's hard to tell whether the latest entry is legitimate, although I don't think it is. A few could be written into the section that discusses the use of sound effects.--Escaper7 18:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean "Strap it up before you slap it up"? I don't know whether it's a catchphrase of his, but I've heard him use it as a slogan advocating condom use. You might be right about removing the section, or perhaps it should be reduced to his core catchphrase(s) (whatever they are), rather than all inane babbling. Tim Ivorson 2006-06-08

I do mean "Strap it up..." In any case, I can't imagine too many people would consult an encyclopedia for catchphrases. For someone with such a long career, this article is quite brief, I know that biog info is sparse, but I'll try and add some lines from newspaper cuttings.--Escaper7 04:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Djed

I'm not sure about this expression, even though I contribute to a number of dj related articles. I don't want to keep changing it but have a look at Djed (or DJed) and it's apparent why it's a bit troublesome. Also, since Djed (in the music sense) is not a proper noun it shouldn't really be used, however Dj does link to the Dj article. Maybe we should say "has been a dj/DJ at xyz". Any thoughts?--Escaper7 10:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Catchphrases/Pimp my ride

I think the catchphrases section should be removed. If you follow the wikilink to catchphrase, Westwood's, strictly speaking aren't because they don't filter into mainstream use. Compare him with someone like Bruce Forsyth, then it's pretty obvious what I mean because everyone's heard him say "good game" or whatever he says these days. I haven't seen the UK Pimp my ride, but this is worthy of a sub-section surely? Also the catchphrases get regularly vandalised, and they are so variable. Yes it's part of Westwood's patter, but to keep adding to a seemingly pointless list is a a bit of a waste of everyone's time.--Escaper7 09:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Westwood's bizarre style of speech deserves coverage, but the catchphrases section doesn't really help. He clearly can't constantly use all of the listed "catchphrases", so I fear that readers will get the impression that he talks like a normal person, when he's not spouting one of the listed sayings. I wonder whether we should remove the catchphrases section, but expand "Critics such as Toby Young have also derided Westwood's apparent emulation of African-American pronunciation and dialect". Tim Ivorson 2006-07-07

I totally agree - as it stands it's getting regular vandalism, yet things like PMR are completely absent - I know he shys away from publicity but there's more to be said. I'll start on it in the next few days, but would welcome any other contributions.--Escaper7 11:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

(PMR section updated, quotes added to body)--Escaper7 17:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

Most of the above list of so-called catchphrases have now been removed, with quite a few being worked into a new sub-section on vocal style for the following reasons:

• Strictly speaking they're not catchphrases, see def of catchphrase
• There are so many variables and in any case would they really constitute an entire list in an encyclopedia?
• A long list, that was growing weekly leads to more scrolling for users
• Some background and context has now been provided for the catchphrases that have been left in
• Only a few contributors have entered the discussion about how useful a list was, and that discussion went back weeks, plus there's more to say about PMR and INMWT on R1

Let me know what you think of the new sections--Escaper7 10:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The consensus is that to keep adding to a list of unexplained so called catchphraes is not helping this page or in keeping with an encyclopedic article - that's why the list has been removed - please read through the above comments before reinstating the list, or at least read the section on criticisms that deals with this. Thanks. --Escaper7 13:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Locking the page

I've decided to lock this article. Having spent a considerable amount of time editing this page, expanding it, adding new pix and new sections; and backing up my points with attributed sources I'm sick of the petty vandalism. Please feel free to add to the discussion; but the page is being repeatedly vandalised by unregistered users, so this seems a logical step to take. Regards Escaper7 11:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

More quotes/catchphrases

Please see the above section and the 're-write' section on the use of quotes/catchphrases. The consensus in the past has tended towards the idea that a 'quotes' section was not really encyclopaedic. Westwood's eccentric nature, and use of language is however a big part of his act hence the subsection: vocal style. I don't think it's necessary to introduce a list of random quotes. Escaper7 17:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Me neither. What a crock of shit. None of them are even sourced. Anyway, quotes are usually included when they're FROM the subject of the article in question, but I guess this guy IS a fuckwad with absolutely nothing of value to say, so you can be forgiven for having to use 'quotes' ABOUT him. 85.210.62.67 04:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

What's happened to this article?

As well as being regularly vandalised, it's now been completely butchered with whole sections of text (and pictures) removed, and in some cases text that just doesn't work being added. It now needs a serious re-write. Please discuss major edits here. And Westwood was shot in Kennington NOT Kensington. Escaper7 14:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this article reads like an advert....what's gone wrong here? 62.31.209.94 19:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Date of birth

For the time being I have removed the date of birth from the article. This is because the correct date seems to be rather disputed and I have received an email from Tim Westwood's production company stating that it is incorrect. They claim that the date on his passport is 1967, although I cannot find many sources that will back this up. The date on the article that prior to me removing it was 1957 which is supported by a number of sources. However, most of these sources appear to actually have sourced their information from Wikipedia (eg. Wikipedia mirrors and the IMDB entry). Furthermore, another site states different date altogether. Until we can obtain a better set of sources for this date (and reference them in the article) I felt it was safest to remove the date, given the request made to me via email. If you disagree, please comment here but you are perfectly entitled to revert my change. Will (aka Wimt) 18:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I've had a very close look at this. Another editor had claimed to be Westwood's agent in an edit to the date of birth, I can't imagine Wikipeida would be a big deal to Westwood. But in any case the year of birth is disputed. I've done a seach using a professional newspaper cuttings database (not Google!) and it's very clear he's always been guarded about his age.

• The truth is I haven't found cast iron concrete proof but why would an individual want to be so guarded?
• It gets more interesting: The obituary to Westwood's father in The Independent Newspaper (17/09/99) says Westwood Snr was Rector of st Margaret's, Lowestoft from 1957 to 1965: Westwood Jnr's birthplace
• Between 1965 to 1975 Westwood Snr was Vicar, St Peter Mancroft, Norwich 1965-75 (different county to Lowestoft)
• So we know two things: Westwood is very secretive about his age, but it's only ever the year of birth that gets changed not the place. Hmmm.. interesting
• The article cited above "Radio Rewind" can't even get the name of London Weekend Radio right so I wouldn't trust what it says about the year of birth
• My theory is backed up by this quote from The Sunday Times 25 Jul 1999: "Westwood grew up in a series of draughty rectories in Suffolk and Norfolk. He was born in Lowestoft in 1957, where his father Bill was rector. When he was eight, his father became vicar of St Peter Mancroft, a busy city-centre parish in Norwich."
• And this... The Independent, 13 Feb 2004 "He was born in 1957 in the Suffolk fishing port of Lowestoft, a town with few musical references... When Westwood's clergyman father, Bill, transferred to a parish in Norfolk, Westwood junior was enrolled at the private Norwich School before switching to a comprehensive. But it was his father's move to a London parish - when Westwood was still in his late teens - that was to transform his life... "
• Then... if he was born in 1967 that would have meant he was 15 when he was working for LWR in 1982 - and he's also been a roadie (or box boy) for other DJs. Then he went to Capital and was a shareholder in Kiss 100 - not impossible but???
• Cross reference all that with another quote from the Sunday Times: "It was 1975 and the fashion was for long hair and flared trousers. But Tim Westwood, then 18, knew his filial duty as his father, Bill, underwent the ceremony... Though now 42, he is a high priest of hip-hop, a strand of modern culture..."

So that's what I know and could fully reference regarding the year of birth, but I won't change it until other editors have added their thoughts. BTW, while I'm here, I've contributed a lot to this article so am probably just as guilty... but it's a real shame there is only a couple of paragraphs about his DJ career - but five sub headings on criticism. We could really clean this up. Regards Escaper7 12:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a very impressive set of research there. I tend to agree with everything you've said - many of the newspaper reports seem to agree on the year as 1957, although some recent ones acknowledge there is an element of doubt. The email I received was very interesting because I am quite convinced that it was indeed from his production company (the email had a sender address from his official website, though admitedly it could have been spoofed). When I put it to them directly in my replying email that I thought that they may be wishing this change for publicity reasons, they politely replied that they could see why I would suspect this, but it wasn't the case. They also said that they didn't have any problems with any of the other content of the article except the date of birth, and they wouldn't mind if there was no date of birth given altogether as long as it didn't say 1957. I agree that it seems strange that Tim Westwood or his agents would find Wikipedia a big deal, but then I suppose it is the fourth result for his name on a google search so that could give them some incentive to act. Basically though, if it's carefully referenced I do agree that we can probably put the 1957 date back in. I think we should certainly acknowledge that it is the subject of some debate though. I agree with you that the DJ career section could do with a bit of a cleanup - I'll try and contribute more to this article when I get time. Will (aka Wimt) 13:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

At the end of the day whether he's nearly 40 or 50 many would see that as old for a cutting-edge DJ in any music genre, but I think it matters less these days. I've worked with Justice Ents in the past but I think Wikipedia/contributors/contributions should be anonymous. No harm in saying he's guarded about his age but Obit writers on National Newspapers (referring to the death of Westwood Snr) are likely to have given us a big clue by accident and some very comprehensive sourcing of their facts. Maybe to resolve this, the year should not be included (although it's a real shame) but an "early life" section could be put in as it's interesting that the UK's leading rap figure (my opinion) is the son of a former Bishop. The dates could be set out and expanded from there. Also it's unclear whether his career was LWR> Pirate Kiss> Capital> R1. I'm not sure he ever djed on legal Kiss 100 (st Sep? 1990), but I might be wrong. He's never listed as an owner, but a shareholder. And I'm old enough to remember him on Capital in 1985 but I can't stand that fact up. Escaper7 14:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd certainly agree that the safest resolution would be to not include the date at the beginning of the article and to discuss it in an early life section. It would be a shame not to have it at the beginning, but it could be better discussed later in the article. An early life section would be a good idea because, as you say, he does certainly have an unusual background, and this section would be a perfect opportunity to discuss the somewhat disputed fact of his date of birth. Will (aka Wimt) 14:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for an encylopedia to pander to his vanity. There's no reliable source saying anything but 1957 so let's leave it in Duds 2k 09:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

OK as I replied on your talk page, I am not entirely adverse to adding the date of birth back in as 1957 as I agree that seems the most likely date. However, if we do this we should carefully reference it and add a discussion about the controversy surrounding it, not just add it in. Will (aka Wimt) 10:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no "controversy". It's his birthday, we already have several perfectly valid references for it. We don't need a "Discussion" for a simple statement on someone's birthday. I can't see there's any rational room for doubt given the evidence.Duds 2k 13:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid we do need a discussion. As stated above I have worked with Justice Ents, and have some knowledge of 'himself'. Personally, I believe his year of birth is 1957, but as you can see from quotes I provided from a search using a professional database of newspaper archive (above), I can't say it for fact. I spent about an hour looking all this up, and provoking the discussion here; and I've been watching this page for over a year, so I find it a bit undermining of my efforts for you to breeze in and say there's no controversy. If you've got a concrete source - great let's see it - discuss it and come to a consensus. Wikipedia's credibility as an encyclopaedia depends on accuracy and detail. Regards. Escaper7 15:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have checked the Birth Marriage Death index and there is a Timothy J. Westwood with mothers maiden name of Jennings who was registered in Oct-Nov-Dec 1957 in Lothingland. Index is 4b 1249 if anyone would like to pull the record from the GRO. 87.194.201.249 23:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick one, Westwood was born in 1957, he celebrated his 50th birthday in 2007. He is very cagey about his date of birth because 50 in the 'hip hop world' is ancient. (86.21.90.165 (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC))

I think it is disgusting that Wikipedia is turning a blind eye to verifiable facts such as this individuals date of birth. Acts such as this bring into question the whole point of Wikipedia’s existence, if a fact is verifiable from an official source(such as looking it up in the official birth, death & marriages), then it should be allowed into an article and if needs be protected. Shame on whoever removed it. Go on look it up :Timothy J. Westwood with mother’s maiden name of Jennings who was registered in Oct-Nov-Dec 1957 in Lothingland. Index is 4b 1249. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.246.132.177 (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed re-write

See the discussion above about year of birth which has led to some editors suggesting a re-write to balance the number of words devoted to Westwood's career as opposed to the long section on criticisms.

I propose changing "DJ career" to "Biography" (distinct from criticisms which stays as is) then sub headings: Home life: When and where born, son of vicar then bishop, move to London. Early career: contributing to Meridian, working at LWR and involvement in pirate Kiss (if he was we need to check this). Move to network radio: Capital and Radio 1 followed by Channel U and PMR. Please discuss here. Escaper7 11:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

That sounds a good way of doing it. I also think that we could condense the criticism section somewhat because it does seem excessively long at the moment, given the length of the whole article. Will (aka Wimt) 13:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Shadyville Entertainment

It's unclear what Westwood's exact involvement is with this, that's why I've removed it but I do know this:

• Westwood releases compilations on Def Jam, part of Mercury and in-turn part of Universal Music - that's why the Def Jam logo appears on the bottom of his website - strangely no mention of Shadyville.
• The Shadyville website cites Westwood as a 'coalition dj' - without giving any precise detail. Of course I could set up a website and claim Westwood is my best mate - would that make it worthy of mention in an encyclopaedia?
• As for Shadyville, you can't buy one of its mixes on Amazon (UK or US) and there's no mention of it on search I made on a professional newspaper database so its notability is questionable, but that's another issue.

Therefore, if you add detail to this article that can't be stood-up or referenced... it will be removed as per Wiki policy. Escaper7 14:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The Shadyville Entertainment website is an official records/entertainment company website. It is a reliable source. Unless you have a better one? --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 18:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This: [1] Shows the last album on Mercury. Previous albums have been on Def Jam. Both Mercury and Def Jam labels are part of Universal Music, so I'm not sure why there's any confusion?? Escaper27 23:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You tube link removal

1 link removed - concert footage - No indication from clip information or uploader profile to indicate it was obtained with the consent of the performers or concert organisers. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Constant vandalism

Can't we have this article semi-protected? It would hopefully reduce the level of vandalism here. RobinCarmody 23:26, 2 February 2008 (GMT)

The streets are on fire! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielhudsonlol (talk • contribs) 10:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

NIGHT FILMS

WESTWOOD JOINED ATL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.144.51 (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

In popular culture section?

This could be added. I'm specifically thinking of the song Westwood is a Twat by Jeep Beat Collective, but I'm sure there are many others that could be included. Malick78 (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Big claim

"In 1988, he co-produced the first ever live Hip Hop album (entitled 'Hustler's Convention', released on Simon Harris' Music of Life label) and deejayed on the set - providing beats for the likes of DJ Mark the 45 King, MC Duke and Demon Boyz. "

I removed this paragraph, it's unclear, unlikely, and most importantly unsourced. What do we mean by 'live'?

Do we mean live in the sense of using real instruments rather than synthesizers and samplers etc? In this case, the earlier hip hop of the late 70s/early 80s used live bands/real instruments quite a lot, samplers weren't so cheap and widely available at that time. Sure, plenty was just mixing breaks from existing records with turntables, tape loops etc, but that wasn't all that was going on by any means. Fatback band are just one example of many that were a 'real band'.

From the phrase "deejayed on the set", I could take this to mean the first concert album. This seems a slightly less grand claim, I couldn't immediately name contradictions to this, but still, that is an argument from ignorance. Searching on the web I can't find citations crediting "Hustler's Convention" as the first. I can however find details of a "Run DMC live at the Apollo " album, with the date given as 1985, 86, or 87. This are low quality blog posts, so can't be used as sources, however it gives an indication that there were concert albums of hip hop before "Hustler's Convention".

Othellowasaprettycoolguy (talk) 10:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

He is often referred to by other DJs and artists appearing on his shows simply as 'Tim Westwood'

Is he, by God? That being his name, it is an unremarkable fact, so why remark upon it? Should this not read "He is often referred to by other DJs and artists appearing on his shows simply as 'Westwood'"? Moletrouser (talk) 07:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Request to edit Tim Westwood

Hi, I'm a Producer for Tim Westwood and would like to rquest access to be able to edit his Wikipedia page. Also can we please change the current image to this one which I uploaded to the Wikipedia commons - Westwoodalbum1.jpg

It is a cover of one of our albums and we own the image and are happy for it to be published on the site.

Please feel free to contact me on - <email redacted>

Thanks

HassanM84 (talk) 13:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. This template is for requesting specific edits to the page, and please see our conflict of interest page--Jac16888 ^Talk 13:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Early life?

There seems to be nothing on here about Mr Westwood's early life. Most other articles on individuals list details about the persons background, what school they went to, qualifications etc. Why not this one? Unless, like the lord Jesus H. Christ, he did nothing at all in between being born and becoming an adult... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.3.221 (talk) 22:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Content blanking

As User:Hassanjustice has repeatedly blanked content, insinuating that it is false, I'm beginning a discussion section here where they can discuss their proposed changes. Continued blanking of content can lead to a block, so it's important that the concerns are raised here on a point by point basis so that the potential changes can be reviewed and a consensus reached. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Age

I would like to re-open the age discussion. There is still no confirmation of this anywhere. The articles in newspapers such as the Guardian are all guess work. No one has ever confirmed this. We cannot have it on the page due to guess work. This is supposed to be a place for facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Officialmm82 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The cited sources, notably The Guardian, are generally accepted as reliable sources. What is your basis for claiming they are engaging in "guess work" in this case? --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

There has never been any proof of his age. Never been confirmed by his employers or in interviews. I think its safe to say the Guardian and other newspapers have just guessed the age. I can;t see anywhere where it has been confirmed. So i feel it should be removed, we should only go by actual facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Officialmm82 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• 1957 is verified in multiple reliable sources that report his birth year as 1957. In addition to those referenced in the earlier discussion on this talk page, 1957 is also reported in The New Statesman [2] and even in "My Weekend: Tim Westwood", which appears to be an interview piece, in the Glasgow Evening Times (paywalled, excerpt at [3]). To dismiss all of this as "guess work" sounds like, well, guess work. No reasonable ground has been raised to question these multiple reliable sources. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Tim Westwood's claim that he was 27 in the year 2000 (mentioned in the article) is false, since that would mean that he was born in 1973, and would have made him 12 in 1985. But at that time he was running a hip hop club on Oxford Street. How do I know? Because I used to go to that club. Sadly, I don't have any documentary evidence to prove this. Possibly there would be something in a Time Out from that year... RomanSpa (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• You also state you work for Tim Westwoods production company which raises a conflict of interest with your continual editing of the page. Mr Jolly (talk) 01:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest + recent edits

I have reverted edits made by an editor who is

- a single purpose account, focusing on westwood

- has resisted edits such as those on westwood's age, a controversial topic that westwood & associates have tried to cover up

- has openly confessed to being part of westwood's production team on here, and has been made aware of wiki's policy which has been ignored

- has seemingly breached COI.

because of this, I have reverted their recent edits in full so that the community may make objective additions and edits to this article in accordance with wiki guidelines

some of the additions also felt more like marketing spiel rather than written in a neutral tone

Rayman60 (talk) 00:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Early Life

Westwood's paternal grandmother was one of 16 children whilst his paternal grandfather was one of 17. As a child he was dyslexic and recalls "for nearly six years [he] was always second from bottom" on weekly spelling tests, frequently gaining "one out of 20." His father, the Rvd William Westwood suggested he become a butcher.

From an interview with the Guardian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkrgshw (talk • contribs) 08:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Post-BBC career section

This page has no information regarding what he is up to now after radio one. The criticism section is also missing a controversy in which he encouraged fans to "take some motherfucking drugs". I will add this section. In his recent YouTube videos he is clearly not 'straight edge' any more and appears to be drunk / coked up in almost every non-radio video. Here is an example. Can anyone enlighten?

Doesn't tell us anything stylistic

It's ironic that Ali G tells us more about Westwood's performance and shtick than Westwood's own article.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Age difference

It was Tim's birthday yesterday, so Tim is 58 rather than 57. OnesRodriguez (talk) 13:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC) {{Done]] - automatically, by the bot - Arjayay (talk) 14:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tim Westwood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/sacha_baron_cohen_the_real_borat_finally_speaks/page/5

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Tim Westwood/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

* A popular article that has had many positive edits, has now been expanded with more references/citations and has been re-written in a more neutral way. The sometimes controversial nature of the subject leads to some vandalism, but there are several editors watching this article and they are promptly dealt with. Escaper7 11:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 11:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 08:49, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2022

Change intro 'described by the guardian' as part, isn't really the spirit of the article. It is an article accusing him of sexual misconduct 81.100.218.139 (talk) 19:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. The article isn't accusing him of sexual misconduct, it's reporting on what reliable sources say about the subject. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)