Talk:Phillip Schofield/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Fan site

I'm not the only person to remove the link in the past (see here, although the section was cunningly removed by User:Webkin earlier today, and here for another user's issue with another Webkin fan site addition). The arguments that the subject "e-mails the site regularly" and "the Wikipedia article is based on the site" are old hat and quite predictable. - Dudesleeper / Talk 11:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It has been his official site in the past!!! The only reason it is no longer the official site is because the agents are making official sites for all THEIR people. Phillip will however still be involved in this site totally so therefore, keep removing it and I will keep readding it! If you are so concerned why don't you actually email Phillip via his agents and find out? By removing the link you are actually stopping people from finding out up to date information about Phillip! -

Why aren't you looking on other pages and deleting them, for example the Holly Willoughby article where it clearly states UNOFFICIAL SITE? no one is removing that? I kindly emailed you on this issue but you did not reply! Have you looked at the official site? If Phillip Schofield Online was just another fansite that Phillip had nothing to do with do you think they would be linking to us? - Webkin

I can understand your being defensive about it, since obstacles are being put in the way of your blatant advertising, but the facts remain the same. I'll happily ask that the page be protected if you feel the need to keep re-adding the link. Your choice. - Dudesleeper / Talk 15:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It isn't about advertisement!!!! It's the fact that the link has been there for over two years and now you (someone who doesn't care about Phillip) seem to think it shouldn't be there. Why all of a sudden? Go look at the official site, is there actually anything on there at the moment that people are going to be able to use when researching Phillip? NO! I am offended by the way you have spoken to me on this matter, claiming I am making this all up etc! Webkin

So what was the reason for your blanking your talk page earlier today? - Dudesleeper / Talk 15:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a clear out, I haven't logged in for ages so thought I would look at my page and decided to delete it all. I have nothing to hide but it just isn't really relevant anymore. The Phillip Schofield bit was old the website had changed a lot and the person had no problems with it remaining. Those comments was from when the site was just being built up and at the time I was only just starting to have contact with Phillip. As for the Louise Lytton stuff yeah I admit that one wasn't really necessary, I was helping out a friend. I have no connections with that site whatsoever and at the time I was new to wikipedia so did not really know much about it. As for clearing the rest of the stuff, well there wasn't much there, I can't be bothered really to have a page about myself on here :) You know what I give up, delete it if it makes you feel better, it's like someone was saying on This Morning this week they couldn't add anything to wikipedia without it being deleted by someone even though it was about them! I don't need the advertisement but I just thought it was off that it had been deleted after so long and that the site would be useful to people looking on here for information on Phillip as the site has been approved and even contains Phillip's personal photographs that he has sent us to share with people. Take care, Ellen - Webkin

Even if Prince Charles added something to Wikipedia himself, it would likely be removed if it wasn't referenced. That's how the site attempts to be a reliable source. Thanks for finally seeing sense. Good luck with the fan site. - Dudesleeper / Talk 19:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It isn't about seeing sense or agreeing with you because I don't. As far as I am concerned people like you are with holding the correct information about Phillip. Some of the stuff on this page is incorrect anyway! But that's just why wikipedia doesn't work! Too many people on here who haven't got a life but whatever! The site doesn't need luck (certainly from someone who doesn't give two hoots about giving correct information about Phillip Schofield) it's already a success and number one on google and will only move out of that place for the official site which is fine because it is working alongside our site! It was just the principle of things that got me the fact it was fine to be there for 2 years, now it isn't...and the fact that if you actually bothered to look at our site you would see that Phillip is involved in it, that there is exclusive information about Phillip on there and you are stopping people who search on wikipedia from viewing that! - Webkin

Correct that which you say is incorrect, without adding your fan site link back in. There's a challenge for you. - Dudesleeper / Talk 21:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Nah I will just remove what is TAKEN from my site, like the school information! I am not going to do you any favours!

Doesn't bother me. It was unsourced anyway. - Dudesleeper / Talk 16:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair use

The picture I added is copyright. Will users who understand fair use better than I do decide if it can stay. Proxima Centauri 2 (talk) 10:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Phillip Schofield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110524030923/http://www.kidscape.org.uk/info/staffpatronlist.asp to http://www.kidscape.org.uk/info/staffpatronlist.asp/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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} 10:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Phillip Schofield. 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.chartstats.com/release.php?release=20180
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130725150330/http://www.jamesgrant.com/media/news/phillip-schofield-teams-up-with-waitrose/1085?cc-check=1& to http://www.jamesgrant.com/media/news/phillip-schofield-teams-up-with-waitrose/1085?cc-check=1&

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Phillip Schofield. 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.westbriton.co.uk/TV-presenter-old-school/story-11386514-detail/story.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160131012453/http://www.bluelamp-foundation.org/about-blue-lamp/ to http://www.bluelamp-foundation.org/about-blue-lamp/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

First name

Is his name spelt with one or two 'l's? The BBC seems to think 1 (bottom of [1]), no, 2, ([2]), no, 1 ([3])... There are 7 thousand Google hits for two-'l's ([4]) vs. 5 thousand hits for one ([5]), though some/many of those many be noise... James F. (talk) 02:04, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's definitely two L's - Ellen

He spells his first name with two LL's as his mother was unaware of the etymology. My first name is Philip, just like Prince Philip, which is the correct spelling. There is some justification for having two LLs in the surname Phillips. The electrical company Philips spells it with just one L. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.118.108.104 (talk) 11:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with spelling Philip with two Ls. There are lots of Phillips. I don't know what etymology has to do with it. People can spell their names however they want. 2600:1700:BC01:9B0:544F:E012:2320:EFE4 (talk) 00:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

"Coming Out"

Didn't he come out as gay decades ago? DavidFarmbrough (talk) 14:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Not to the public (albeit several references suggest many folks in TV already knew). It is largely speculated that he came out to control the media narrative about himself. 31.48.173.50 (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

"Media narrative"? Try b'lackmail by a former boyfriend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:BA13:4801:9C52:46C:182D:D4D1 (talk) 02:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

That's what I was inferring to, as well as the superinjunction, but I didn't want it to get deleted haha. Loving the headlines at the moment though! 51.6.169.86 (talk) 14:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Tim Schofield

It would be good to have his brother down in siblings because they are still siblings and there is no reference of him . 51.191.194.89 (talk) 07:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree. He has made brief public comment about his brother's 2021 confession to him and his subsequent conviction. Very prominent news story. Here are reports in The Times and Hello of exchanges between the two: [6] [7] 205.239.40.3 (talk) 09:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Citation needed

There’s a citation needed regarding the age of the man Philip had an a affair with, at the end of the personal life section. I believe the ages quoted are rumours, and indeed the Sky News article use as a reference makes no mention of the age. Dangerscott (talk) 06:39, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi there is currently a link to a gossip site which has spam links on it, also not sure the info is correct for example the location of the theater company is d

URGENT;

URGENT: there is currently a link to a gossip site claiming to name the person he had an affair with. This gossip site may be outing this person, has included childhood photos and this person isn't a public figure btw. The page also has spam links on it, also not sure the info is correct for example, the location of the theater company is given as dukinfield but googling suggests it's in holmfirth, not especially nearby place. Suggest waiting till the mainstream media report the info if

URGENT: there is currently a link to a gossip site claiming to name the person he had an affair with. This gossip site may be outing this person, has included childhood photos and this person isn't a public figure btw. The page also has spam links on it, also not sure the info is correct for example, the location of the theater company is given as dukinfield but googling suggests it's in holmfirth, not especially nearby place. Suggest waiting till the mainstream media report the info, if they do. 212.159.171.239 (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I removed this site before seeing the talk page. It was attached as a footnote to "Schofield confirmed a 2020 report" as if this was the report he was confirming, but none of the sources mention it specifically. Obviously inappropriate to say that he has confirmed this specific blog allegation in full, on current sources. --Belbury (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes I've removed it too, I think this gossip site is putting the link in themselves and it may have been in an remkvi several times now, I'm not really familiar enough with Wikipedia to know but the edit you made a few hours ago seems different to the one I made just before that to remove it again. Annafjmorris (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Deprecated details

Details of the legal discussions prior to publication of Katie Hind's article here, apologies, IPSO, Mishcon etc. [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-12132035/He-declared-love-Phil-glitzy-awards-ceremony-got-shunted-show.html] No Swan So Fine (talk) 23:52, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Not many references to Philip's controversies here.

Find it slightly odd that there's barely any reference to Schofield's controversies, such as the purported affair he had with the This Morning runner, the queue jumping at the Queen's lying in state, Fern Britton saying he was bullying in the workplace and Ruth Langsford submitting a complaint about him before he requested she be dismissed from the show. Why is the majority of this not even briefly mentioned? And "this is just rumours" isn't really a justification given it is an issue of public image, and many other Wikipedia articles feature such controversies. 31.51.2.234 (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Comparing to other Wikipedia articles never holds water, thankfully. All of the things you mention aren’t all that notable and/or are unlikely to have a reliable source. Seasider53 (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The first two things you mentioned are now briefly mentioned in the article. --79.66.89.36 (talk) 14:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 May 2023

Change Scofield to Schofield in various places where it is spelt incorrectly 91.125.48.58 (talk) 06:49, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Change Philip to Phillip in various places where it is incorrect 91.125.48.58 (talk) 06:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I think I've fixed all the instances of incorrect spelling, except where it is part of typos in the cited sources. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:17, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 May 2023

Please add the above split proposal to the top of the main article.

 Done ARandomName123 (talk) 16:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Sentence that needs updating

"Since 2006, he has presented The British Soap Awards. Between 2006 and 2008, he hosted the programme with Britton, but has presented alone since 2009."

This should be changed to "From 2006 to 2022, he presented The British Soap Awards. Between 2006 and 2008, he hosted the programme with Britton, but presented alone from 2009 to 2022. He planned on hosting in 2023, but later chose not to after resigning from ITV." 79.66.89.36 (talk) 14:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

He "resigned" with a P45 freshly printed! 51.6.169.98 (talk) 15:19, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

This sentence still hasn't been updated. Schofield has already confirmed that he won't be hosting it this year. --79.66.89.36 (talk) 06:43, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Mention of Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat should be in the lead

Phillip Schofield took over the lead role in Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat from Jason Donovan. This is a notable thing to include in the lead, as it is in the leads for the other people who have played Joseph (e.g. Donovan). 79.66.89.36 (talk) 22:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

It has since been added to the lead. Thank you to whoever added it! --79.66.89.36 (talk) 14:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Add entertainment scandals category

Seems like a fitting one to include here. 79.66.89.36 (talk) 14:13, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

If the teenage boy affair gets split off as a separate article, then maybe, although I haven't seen any use of the s-word by the press yet. But Schofield himself is hardly an "entertainment scandal"? I assume you are not arguing that his whole career has been as "entertainment scandal"... 205.239.40.3 (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Very good point, I think you're right in saying it should be left as is. As the boy was 18 and therefore not underage it's far too early to tell whether the affair will have a long lasting impact on Schofield's career. But you're absolutely right in saying it shouldn't be added unless a separate article is created. --79.66.89.36 (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

"after it emerged he had lied about an affair with a teenage colleague"

This sentence in the lead needs correcting as it's been confirmed that the runner was 18 when the affair started, legally making him an adult at the time of the affair, not a teenager. 79.66.89.36 (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

18 is a teenager, hence eightTEEN 148.252.133.220 (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Very much true, but 18 is the first year you are legally classified as an adult in the UK, therefore he was not underage at the time of the affair. It's important viewers don't automatically assume he was underage at the time the affair began when it has been confirmed he was not. By no means am I condoning what happened and I would not have had an affair with a young man if I were Phillip, but it's important to clarify he wasn't underage. --79.66.89.36 (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree. “Teenage” goes against WP:UPFRONT. 148.252.133.220 (talk) 19:31, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Think it should be changed to "younger male colleague", or something along those lines, as it clarifies that he was not underage and therefore doesn't leave the reader thinking Phillip did something illegal. --79.66.89.36 (talk) 19:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

The BBC are now using the phrase "much younger colleague". But they have yet to use the word grooming. 86.187.175.10 (talk) 10:35, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Our readers know the difference between "teenager" and "underage teenager", and would pretty much expect that it would be mentioned if the young man was underage. Moons of Io (talk) 12:49, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Just noting here for context that the age of consent in the UK is 16. I can think of no valid reason for us to use the word 'teenager' here - it might be true, but it is not relevant, and it is inviting some sort of moral judgment which is not how we should write. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Very good point, and fully agree it is not relevant and am glad it has since been removed from the article. --79.66.89.36 (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Ah yeah, right. The fact that they first met when the boy was 15 and then he waited for three years before he "found a job" on the programme, and then he became Schofield's secret bf... that's all just coincidence.... 205.239.40.3 (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

The lead currently says "In 2023, he admitted to having had an affair with a young male ITV employee while he was still married, and to having lied about the relationship to ITV's management, his work colleagues, and others." That's a pretty good summary, trying to add all the details of the affair would just clog up the lead. After all, this is an article about Schofield rather than the affair itself.

I don't see where the "all just coincidence" comment came from, at no point in this talk page will you find anyone trying to suggest that. Anyone looking at this will know it's fishy and, while technically legal as nothing sexual happened until he was 18 and therefore classified as an adult, is still definitely morally questionable due to the age difference and the fact Schofield cheated on his wife and lied about it. But no Wikipedia article should invite moral judgement, as one of the users said above, it is not how we should write. --79.66.89.36 (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree the lead wording is perfectly ok. If Saint Philip is to be believed, this shows admirable restraint on his part. They could have been merrily rumping away once the lad turned 16. 86.187.226.198 (talk) 19:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Typo

"Schofield co-hosted ITV's coverage of the Prince William and Catherine Middleton's wedding" should be changed to "Schofield co-hosted ITV's coverage of Prince William and Catherine Middleton's wedding". 79.66.89.36 (talk) 21:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

The article now reads as follows:

In April 2011 and June 2012, Schofield co-hosted ITV's coverage of Prince William and Catherine Middleton's wedding and the Queen's Diamond Jubilee with Julie Etchingham.

So some questions:

1. Was it Julie Etchingham on both occasions?
2. Are there any sources for these claims?
3. Would it be better to write it like this:

Schofield co-hosted, with Julie Etchingham, ITV's coverage of Prince William and Catherine Middleton's wedding and the Queen's Diamond Jubilee, in April 2011 and June 2012 respectively.

If it wasn't Etchingham both times, maybe we'd need two separate sentences. Thanks. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 08:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Born in Oldham

Schofield himself, here on Twitter, says that he was born in Oldham: [8]. Also Liverpool Echo here: [9] and MEN here: [10]. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 11:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't doubt the information, which is why I didn't remove it, but what we need is (preferably) a reliable secondary source. Although not ideal, the Liverpool Echo would do unless there was a dispute (which seems unlikely) so we could use that or, indeed, MEN. Bear in mind that the journalist might well have just pulled the information off Wikipedia, so a biography or similar would be better. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Found a better ref. It is in "Life's What You Make It", chapter 1. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. But why on earth would Schofield make that up on Twitter? He ought to know better than anyone else? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 12:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes. And indeed, using his autobiography is not that different, but Wikipedia prefers secondary sources. His autobiography has been checked and edited and published, so it is better than a primary source (which is what Twitter is), but in this case, Twitter would have verified. I found a touch more in the autobiography to add (he moved aged 18 months, and later he says how lucky he was to grow up where people came on holiday but he is proud of his Lancashire roots) so I added that in too. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Fine, although the ref links to https://www.worldcat.org/title/1281614218. Can the content be viewed there? Is there any visible edition on GoogleBooks? Is a visible source preferred? Thanks. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 12:17, 31 May 2023 (UTC) p.s. Ref 1 is currently showing a red "cite error".

I did not find a viewable version, sorry. I referred to the Kindle edition - the mention of Oldham, at least, will be in the Kindle preview. The cite error was because the one I removed got re-used elsewhere. A bot quickly took care of that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:50, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Congratulations, bot. Are you assuming that readers subscribe to Kindle? I realise that a book source does not require any online visibility, but I assume it's preferable, if it's available. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 14:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Well there are libraries. In time, I expect this book will find its way into Open Library. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

No worries. But this GoogleBooks edition preview works for me "I was born in Oldham, but I lived in Newquay Cornwall from the age of eighteen months." It also says he was born in Heron Street. In fact it seems it was 264 Heron Street 205.239.40.3 (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Updated with that link now, thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:17, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Should years active now end with 2023?

several news sites have reported now that in an interview of Scofield himself that he says "his career is over"

So based on this, should years active be updated? Or is it a little early yet?

BlunanNation (talk) 09:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

yes. Change it to 2023 for now, as he himself has stated it’s over. And simply put it back to “present” if he returns 148.252.140.46 (talk) 10:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Change it to 2023 for the time being. Schofield himself said something along the lines of him talking about his career in TV in the past tense. He's obviously aware that a comeback is unlikely. --89.240.214.76 (talk) 12:26, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Quotes

Schofield gives the fullest account yet and and briliant quotes here. [11] No Swan So Fine (talk) 22:44, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Probably not a good idea to use The Sun. The original interview, with Amol Rajan, was for the BBC here. 86.187.160.29 (talk) 08:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Two different interviews. Looks like 'The Sun got in first. Probably a nice little earner for him. Can't imagine the content is very different. 86.187.164.131 (talk) 11:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

86.187.164.131, see, I'm broken and ashamed... but I'm NOT a groomer says Phillip Schofield in bombshell first interview | The Sun

"The Sun has not paid for the bombshell interview..." GnatByte (talk) 19:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we use The Sun? They did get in first, didn't they. Is the content of the interviews very different? 86.187.170.37 (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

"Schofield presenting This Morning in 2007"

Is this an accurate caption for the picture? The description for the picture on Wikicommons just says "Philip Schofield at an event in 2007". 79.66.89.36 (talk) 06:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

The Commons file says "This file has been extracted from another file: PM on set of 'This Morning' (9237728689).jpg". So technically just "on set of" not actually "presenting". But sounds a bit like splitting hairs? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 12:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I meant the photo shown later on in the article from 2007, not the one with David Cameron in 2013. --79.66.89.36 (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh yes, that's a bit cryptic, isn't it. Doesn't look like the This Morning set, so probably not. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 14:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, it looks more like Schofield is being interviewed outside. The caption should be just changed to "Schofield in 2007". --79.66.89.36 (talk) 14:29, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Still unchanged. Nobody seems to be too bothered it's wrong. 86.187.170.37 (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

can this page be more protected?

Hi I have been checking back to this page to see how it's going and it's not going great. For example these is currently a whole paragraph near the top with no references. Also people keep adding and removing info about the alleged colleague, their name and age etc from unreliable sources, including a gossip site adding their own articles.

I think this page could do with the protection against being vandalized while there is an active situation happening. This issue about the affair with young colleague has been in the press daily in the UK and I think this page is going to get increasingly messed up without some more protection. Annafjmorris (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

The article is currently extended confirmed protected, which is a lot, the same as an article such as Donald Trump or Israel. Paragraphs in the lead of an article do not always require references, as the content should be referenced in the body of the article. That seems to be the case here. I'm not going to say it's all been or going to be plain sailing, but there's eyes on the article, some principles have become established, and things have calmed down a bit. Also on this particular talk page, the anons have been mostly well-behaved. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks yes I only noticed the Extra protection after I commented. Really glad this is being looked After now I was quite upset at this person being named here, glad it's been sorted out now Annafjmorris (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Accuracy and balance—controversy

A few thoughts:

"Schofield stated that the affair began after the employee turned 18—at which point Schofield was in his early 50s—and admitted lying to ITV's management, his colleagues, his lawyers, his agent, and others about it."

1) Schofield stated that the affair began when the employee was 20 years old (see, for example, Phillip Schofield says he's 'lost everything' and apologises over affair - as he reveals where first romantic encounter took place | Ents & Arts News | Sky News). A sentence to this effect would be more accurate.

2) The statement "at which point Schofield was in his early 50s" is imprecise and unnecessary. It is already clear that the colleague was "young", and readers can do the calculation themselves if they wish. In any event, the source cited makes no direct mention of Schofield's age.

"Schofield had first met the young man when he was 15 years old, while giving a talk at a drama school,[39] and later arranged an interview for him at This Morning, where he was hired as a production assistant.[40][41]"

1) The source relied upon is now outdated. Schofield met the "young man" when he was 15 years old, and Schofield arranged work experience for the "young man" once he had turned 19 with little communication in the intervening period. The "young man" was later employed by ITV. (See, for example, Phillip Schofield's BBC interview in FULL - complete transcript of bombshell interview - Mirror Online and ‘I have brought myself down’: Phillip Schofield says his career is over | Television industry | The Guardian.)

GnatByte (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I’m not sure. Does WP:ABOUTSELF apply??

A man who has lost his entire career may have a motivation to lie. I won’t put a link, but in Schofields BBC interview, he said the runner visited the studio at 19, but there is a local newspaper that said he was 18 when he visited the studio. 86.31.83.194 (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Does "TikTok star Oli O'Toole" get a mention? He claims that "he had been having private conversations with Schofield for the last three years." 86.187.170.37 (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Schofe also says “Well I think by that stage at 20 he had come in for a visit. We went out for, because he was going to be picked up I was worried that he might be on his own, so I said well we'll wait let's have a bite to eat.”

I won’t link the video I believe he is referring to. But that he is clearly not sat with a 20 year old man. I believe Schofe is lying. 86.31.83.194 (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, he looks about 16 at most. 86.187.170.37 (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

In his interviews, I believe that Schofe is ever so slightly lying about the timeline etc, so make it seem ever so slightly better. By adding years to the age etc. so I believe that WP:ABOUTSELF applies, and all his claims now are questionable (because of sources we can’t put on Wikipedia for the runners safety). 86.31.83.194 (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I believe Schofe is also fail-safing himself in the interviews by saying “I think [claim]” “I think he was [age]” etc. this further makes his claims questionable in line with WP:ABOUTSELF 86.31.83.194 (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I’m not too sure how the specific laws work. But non-Schofe sources can NOT lie, or they could be sued for libel/defamation etc.

Schofe CAN lie, because he isn’t going to sue himself. PLUS he may have the motivation to lie (his career ending)

This further adds to WP:ABOUTSELF. The fact that Schofe hasn’t sued the newspapers may be an indication that they’re more factual. If that makes sense. 86.31.83.194 (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it’s also WP:BLPSELFPUB?? Either way, I believe Schofe is lying and the claims in his interviews are questionable. 86.31.83.194 (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Then why does the article purport quote Schofield? Either quote him accurately or don't quote him at all. GnatByte (talk) 21:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I think in the article, we should have balance. It should be like:

[Source] claimed the affair started when the runner was 18, but Schofield claimed it started when he was 20.

and do this for all the varying claims.(Obviously we should only use verifiable sources that do not name the runner) 86.31.83.194 (talk) 21:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't object to your suggestion. Ether way, the sentence is not, at present, satisfactory.

Also, just FYI, if you listen to the interview in full (rather than read the transcript), I think you will hear that Schofield is describing what had happened by the time the "young man" was 20, not what happened when he was 20 at the point you quoted, 86.31.83.194. That is not to say that86.187.170.37's input is at all close to the truth. GnatByte (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

In that case I think we should definitely do the claim breakdown: Source said, Schofe said (SsSs).

With the SsSs, it’s fair and balanced and accurate. Schofe has motivations to lie, and won’t sue himself. The other sources may also have motivations to lie (for clickbait etc), but they can’t lie for legal reasons.

I think SsSs is a good option. 86.31.83.194 (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Edit Request: Ambox regarding runner identity

In light of heated debate whether to publish the identity of the runner, I propose we include an Ambox to indicate to readers that his identity has been withheld on Wikipedia in line with all other credible publishers. This should be included in the "Departure from This Morning, affair controversy, and resignation from ITV" section.

Such an inclusion attempts to minimise readers' confusion, while unambiguously addressing Wikipedia's policy to avoid victimisation.

Lucafrost (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, seems sensible, at least in the short term. Done and Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Not sensible at all. It may cause a Streisand effect 86.31.83.194 (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Source said, Schofe said (SsSs)

The claims made by Schofield and other sources vary slightly. I believe we should remain balanced, fair and neutral. For each varying claim we should write it in the article like:

“[Source] claimed the affair started when the runner was 18, but Schofield claimed it started when he was 20.”

SsSs seems logical at the moment, because sources published by Schofe (The Sun and BBC interviews) should be scrutinised under WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:BLPSELFPUB. Schofe has lost his entire career, so may have motivations to lie- and will not sue himself for lying. Sources NOT published by Schofe may have motivations to lie (for clickbait etc.), but will not generally be able to lie due to defamation/libel laws. This makes SsSs a good solution for now.

If Schofe lies, he will not sue himself. If other sources lie, Schofe can sue. Schofe has not sued. In fact, I believe that Schofe put in a complaint to the Daily Mail for mentioning the runner a week before he admitted to it. SsSs is a good solution for now, until the ITV external review is published. 86.31.83.194 (talk) 08:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Please do not include the name of the runner.

Someone has put a name to the runner who Schofield admitted to having an affair with. The runner is not being named by any credible media source, they have chosen to protect his identity, and therefore it must be removed from this article.

Additionally, the citation given is to an article from 2014 and has an image of the purported runner. All images in credible media sources in the UK are blurring his face and this article should not be linking to unblurred pictures.

Please remove the name, and while you're at it, increase the protection on this page. The names and images are incredibly sensitive at the moment. 51.6.169.98 (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Whereabouts is his name in the article? Unfortunately if his name is published, WP:NOTCENSORED 148.252.133.220 (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Someone's removed it now, thankfully. 51.6.169.98 (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Strange situation we have here, the internet knows his name. We have to balance out WP:NOTCENSORED and Wikipedia:NOTRIGHT 148.252.133.220 (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Hang on a minute. I thought the only reason why Schofield fessed up was because his boyfriend "did not want to keep the affair secret" any more. If the affair is not secret, neither is his name. He's called (Redacted). There is a video about him here: (Redacted). Why can't Wikipedia name him? Will it get sued by Mishcon de Reya? 86.187.231.14 (talk) 15:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

The current reason he isn’t named is becuase there is no VERIFIED sources to say it’s his name. Look at WP:NOTRIGHT. Wikipedia’s info isn’t correct, it’s verifiable 148.252.133.220 (talk) 15:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

"Wikipedia's info isn’t correct." You said it mate. LMFAO. 86.187.231.14 (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikiepdia’s information isn’t correct, it’s verifiable. U missed the last part of my sentence. Find one verifiable source that says his name, then u can include it 148.252.133.220 (talk) 15:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Not everything is about being sued. None of the British press are naming him, not even the Daily Mail, in an effort to safeguard someone vulnerable. Don't forget he was very young when the affair started and there are real, vulnerable people involved in this. If he ever decides to be named in the press, that gives us a) a verifiable citation and b) a moral indication that he is okay with being named. 51.6.169.98 (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

We need to balance out WP:NOTRIGHT WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:ONEEVENT

We all know his name, but we have to wait for a credible source to name him, and should close it for now; readdress the issue if that happens. 148.252.133.220 (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12134665/More-photos-Phillip-Schofield-younger-ex-lover-emerge.html

(Redacted)

photos match and are both credible valid sources, and second source mentions runners name. Should we name as per WP:NOTCENSORED??? 148.252.133.220 (talk) 11:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH. Wikipedia doesn't do its own investigative journalism. --Belbury (talk) 12:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia does not link together multiple sources to reach a conclusion. 51.6.169.98 (talk) 12:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Dr Ranj Singh has named the runner

(Redacted)

Are we now going against WP:NOTCENSORED

? 148.252.133.220 (talk) 12:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Twitter, pff. WP:NOTCENSORED - you keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means. Here's how I read it: "Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia's policies (especially those on biographies of living persons...". -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Look, it's very likely that the runner will soon share his story with the newspapers, particularly if the rumoured NDA runs out in either June or July. We don't need to name him until then, in my opinion. 51.6.169.98 (talk) 12:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Just to point out but the welfare of the person in question is none of our concern. If we have a verifiable source the person will be named. The consequences of that for the named individual are not open for consideration in this question and we don't censor accordingly. If there is a court injunction or otherwise barring disclosure then clearly that becomes a different matter; however the vulnerability of the person in question is not a legitimate reason to consider non-disclosure. If it is noteworthy and verified it will be included irrespective of these concerns. They are just not ours to mither with, Mtaylor848 (talk) 20:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you 148.252.133.220 (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Just to point out but the welfare of the person in question is none of our concern. No, that's not how Wikipedia works. Please familiarize yourself with our WP:BLP policies. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 22:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure any of this is relevant in this instance. If it is credibility sourced and deemed to be notable there is no justification for censorship on these grounds. Though to be honest this is probably all rather moot when the name and photograph of the individual is all over Google/Yahoo/Youtube etc. Mtaylor848 (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

If the goal of the banner is to protect the individual, is there any risk of it backfiring and creating a Streisand effect? Popcornfud (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree, the name is splashed over the internet, but there still isn’t a verifiable source that has named him. So we should close it for now and reopen this issue if a credible, verifiable source is published. 86.31.83.194 (talk) 08:40, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I've had a look. I believe the name of the runner is protected under various Wikipedia policies and guidelines: WP:LOWPROFILE, WP:BLP1E, WP:LPNAME, WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, and most importantly WP:AVOIDVICTIM. 86.31.83.194 (talk) 11:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

I propose that the section about the runner, This Morning culture and ITV’s involvement be split into a separate page called This Morning Backstage Culture and Phillip Schofield Runner Controversies. The content of the section goes far beyond Schofield, and this section has been snowballing in the media in the past days. 148.252.133.220 (talk) 23:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support – It seems that only just this weekend the dam has burst on the story of his leaving This Morning. I suspect that this story will be much bigger in the coming weeks and linked together with the rift.

Should we prepare to create a new article if this is the case? 148.252.133.220 (talk) 11:14, 28 May 2023 (UTC) > 148.252.133.220 (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

As of now, the May 2023 controversies only take up three paragraphs. I don't think that is enough to split into a different article. There may be more to come but that leans into WP:CRYSTAL territory. Everything is contained nicely in this article for the time being.LM2000 (talk) 11:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Not yet clear how much nobility the May 2023 controversies will have in the future. Lots of people have had affairs, and there have been some examples where, like Schofield, it's involved someone younger (e.g. Cheryl Cole). All of them are covered in their respective articles without any need for a split one. I fully agree with the above comment, we should wait for the full conclusion of the controversies before splitting anything. --79.66.89.36 (talk) 13:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious that it is going to stretch far beyond simply "an affair with someone younger" so I would be prepared for a new article, particularly if it involves the structures and powers-at-be at ITV. 51.6.169.98 (talk) 15:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I’m hoping the media call it “Schofegate” for a cleaner title! 148.252.133.220 (talk) 16:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Prepare for ITV-Phillip Schofield Runner Controversy article in about a weeks time 148.252.133.220 (talk) 16:10, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

This is already getting bigger. [12]https://news.sky.com/story/amp/phillip-schofield-ex-this-morning-star-dr-ranj-singh-criticises-toxic-culture-at-itv-show-and-claims-he-was-managed-out-12892041.

Should we start preparing? 148.252.133.220 (talk) 17:41, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Might as well be prepared. Surely we can come up with a better title than "ITV-Phillip Schofield Runner Controversy" tho. --79.66.89.36 (talk) 19:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I tried to keep is condensed. How about:

This Morning Backstage Culture and Phillip Schofield Runner Controversies 148.252.133.220 (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

That one's better. I think we should start a draft article for it now and then submit it later on, once we get enough reliable sources and further information. --79.66.89.36 (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I think this article should be a somewhat of a timeline of This Morning contributors and the statements about the backstage culture of the show

also talk about Schofield’s coming out and how Eamonn Holmes said there was more to it.

etc etc etc 148.252.133.220 (talk) 19:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Very good ideas. As I said we could start the draft article and expand it from there. --79.66.89.36 (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

It’s now effecting the business side of ITV/This Morning. The sponsor of the show will not be renewing the sponsorship

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12134367/amp/This-Mornings-main-sponsor-Arnold-Clark-not-renewing-sponsorship-deal-ITV.html 148.252.133.220 (talk) 13:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

It just goes on and on lol. All the more reason to start that draft article, what we're witnessing is essentially an implosion of This Morning. --79.66.89.36 (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support – this interview from a former ITV/This Morning employee/presenter is more the reason to split the article. https://youtube.com/watch?v=SJZYrruKspU 148.252.133.220 (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  ITV will face the UK Parliament over this issue. Support split. Support support support.

  https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/30/phillip-schofield-itv-parliamentary-committee-this-morning/ 148.252.133.220 (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• I'm somewhat shocked that there is no ITV controversies article like we have for BBC controversies and CNN controversies. The past few months have given more than enough material for such an article, and most would involve Schofield and This Morning.LM2000 (talk) 22:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  Good point. Probably should make both. Talk about Piers Morgan’s run on GMB etc. However, the runner-affair and the coverup event should have its own article, and should be also mentioned in the ITV Controversies article, and liked by a “Main article” link 148.252.133.220 (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

There should definitely be an "ITV controversies" article. As for the May 2023 controversies involving This Morning, I think the article should be called "This Morning controversies". It's a lot simpler of a title than the others suggested, and would mean the article can discuss other controversies (e.g. Phil and Holly at The Queue) in addition to the main ones this month. --79.66.89.36 (talk) 06:43, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I do like the idea of a 2023 This Morning controversies article, in addition to the ITV controversies article.LM2000 (talk) 10:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I don’t think this should be “2023 This Morning Controversies” because I believe people have been complaining about this for years and the runner affair started in 2019.

there aren’t that many This Morning controversies (David Cameron list, Queuegate), so they can stay in the main This Morning article.

But I support the creation of two articles being made ITV Controversies and This Morning Backstage Culture and Phillip Schofield Runner Controversies 148.252.140.134 (talk) 12:50, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - Per WP:RECENT and because the page is only about 2,500 words long as it is, so a split is not merited on length. A split into that cumbersome title would actually make the information less visible as people will search on Schofield's name, and although an IP says above that it's "pretty obvious that it is going to stretch far beyond..." there is in fact nothing obvious about that. Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. We write articles when the subject is notable, not because we expect them to be so. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

This is what I was trying to say originally, and I only suggested making a draft article for this reason. The title of the split page is also slightly problematic as it could confuse some readers (e.g. I initially thought the runner referred to someone running, I'm sure other readers could be confused by that as well). The much better alternative is leaving things as they are and just adding them into this article, which as you said, isn't that long to begin with. --79.66.89.36 (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

• Somewhat Support Keep the This Morning controversies on the This Morning article. Create article called ITV Controversies. And create article called Phillip Schofield Runner Controversy

148.252.141.141 (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is WP:RECENTISM. Focus on expanding the current article first with high-quality sourced content. If the section gets too big we can consider splitting it later. Popcornfud (talk) 11:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
• Strong Support based on the link that I’m now happily providing (https://www.glamourmagazine.co.uk/article/i-quit-my-job-at-itvs-this-morning-over-sexism) written by the former Head of News at ITV's This Morning, Emily Maddick which states that working on the show was toxic.-SGCommand 09:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  • Strong Support This source is amazing. I think 3 articles should now be made:

  ITV Controversies

  This Morning Backstage Culture Controversy

  Phillip Schofield Runner Controversy 86.31.83.194 (talk) 09:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Any general controversy should be kept on the This Morning page; anything specific to Schofield should be covered here, but it's overkill to have one additional article, let alone three. - SchroCat (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support, I don’t support the This Morning article. I support ITV Controversies and Phillip-Runner article. This Morning backstage can stay on This Morning article because it isn’t that notable- compared to Phillip-Runner controversy. 148.252.141.187 (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Any other controversies should stay on the This Morning article. It is most definitely without a doubt overkill to have three separate articles. I believe we should wait a few weeks and have the Schofield drama stay as it is. I understand ITV are carrying out a review and are due to face MP questions, so maybe further details will arise later on. Edl-irishboy (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2023 (UTC)