Talk:Piers Morgan/Archive 1

Archive 1

To improve this article read some of the truth about Piers Morgan

and his friends http://piersmorgan.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/21/who-is-moammer-gadhafi-piers-morgan-explores-the-man-at-the-center-of-libya/#comment-10016  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.111.191.97 (talk) 16:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC) 

Overall quality

Good to keep this locked but better if someone actually proofread this "POS".

Yes, this article is very inaccurate. I have tagged it to be improved. Jrdewintheamp88 (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

But you need to explain where you think it's inaccurate, otherwise the tag will be removed. Three days is arguably long enough for this, so I'll remove it. Rodhullandemu 18:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Marriage

Needs editing to reflect marriage to Celia Walden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.12.252.18 (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism removed

"He is also the most arrogant man on the planet, with nothing to show for it." Hilarious, true but sadly not appropriate for a Wikipedia introduction. Kordos -Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.70.66 (talk) 23:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

There is of course another way you can put this to make it appropriate.

Balanced

This does not sound like a balanced, factual entry to me. Time for a rewrite maybe...

He's had quite a controversial career hasn't he. Which particular areas don't you think are balanced? --Oscarthecat 18:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

First look; unbiased view

I don't know what this article was like before but it seems pretty neutral to me, when I came to this page I was expecting it to be full of bile and vitriol. This is a good example of how efficient Wikipedia can be sometimes. Of course this only stands for todays date, god knows what changes could go on... TiHead 09:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

America's Got Talent

Why is he a judge on an American talent show? He's a disgraced tabloid paper editor... did they just need a generic "nasty male British judge" or something? TR_Wolf

I expect he was looking to expant his media interests, probably has a relationship with Fuller and fulfils the Cowell role nicely, allowing Cowell to pocket the cash without having to subject himself to the torture of watching that crap every week. Rockpocket 17:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. (I like the show by the way) I'm not familiar with American Idol but I think they needed a mean old British stereotype who everyone can disagree with. 156.34.216.82 20:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

American Inventor and American Idol have a british judge. FellowWikipedian 11:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I knew that, already. : ) 156.34.216.161 19:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Private Eye allegations

As per WP:BLP we must be extra careful with criticism of living people. I have a few problems with the PE content as it stood. Firstly PE is a satirical magazine and therefore hardly a good, reliable source for factual information. Therefore the should not be quoted as "illustrating" that Morgan was a spectator. This supposes this is the truth, rather than an opinion. Instead we must make it clear this is the opinion of PE, i.e. they suggest it. Moreover, the phrase "a badly-compiled "paste and scissors" job" is highly unencylopaedic and should not be in any article unless the whole thing is in quotes and sourced. Remember this topic of this article is Morgan, all we have to do is report that he is criticised by PE and why, we don't use his page to further those criticisms. Rockpocket 17:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

File:Privateeye0001.jpg

A cutting from Private Eye Number 1163 dated 21 July 2006 which is typical of their treatment of Piers Morgan. Copyright: Private Eye 2006

This is not good enough. The guidelines say that content must be fair and impartial, not bland and inoffensive. "Paste and scissors" has no value attached to it, pejorative or otherwise: Wikipedia itself is a "paste and scissors" job. Private Eye is not a journal of record, but that does not mean that items it publishes are any more or less likely to be true or untrue than items published in The Sun or The Guardian. Private Eye does have the reputation that it publishes some items which are factual. You do not prove that on this occasion Private Eye is an unreliable source. The subject of the article is indeed Piers Morgan, and his book The Insider, published when he was in disgrace, throws serious light upon his character and motivations and it is valid to discuss the book in an encyclopædia article. The original Private Eye article lists a number of entries in what was described as a diary, and illustrates that they are factually inaccurate. Morgan's previous books have been write-ups of pop groups, written for an uncritical audience. Some of the content of these no doubt derived from first-hand experience during his time as a pop music journalist, but it is fair to assume that some originated in articles written and published by others. This is no disgrace. It is probable that he employed editorial assistance, again this is no disgrace as long as he had the final say and takes responsibility for the final product. The same applies to The Insider: if he had an assistant who compiled press cuttings on his behalf, again, this is not necessarily a demerit on Morgan's part. However, this book seeks to be taken more seriously than a pop bio, and this does put Morgan under greater pressure to be accurate. Private Eye has shown him to be inaccurate significantly often. It published the Morgan claims alongside accounts which are widely accepted as reliable. The raison d'être of The Insider was to portray Morgan as an insider, the confidant of movers and shakers. The material inaccuracies show that this was not true. If he was not an insider, then he was an outsider, a spectator. This is not "opinion", it is a proper conclusion derived from the evidence.

These are extracts from the professional reviews on Amazon

And also these are the Amazon reviews written by readers

On the other hand, the Piers Morgan article as a whole is not well written and there is just cause to be uneasy about it. Part of the problem is that readers unfamiliar with Private Eye, who will look to the Private Eye article for enlightenment, will find what really is a badly-written paste and scissors job. The Private Eye article needs to be cut up in pieces and re-written as a series of coherent wholes, one of which should explain more fully the nature of Private Eye's angle on journalists and media people in general and Piers Morgan in particular. Also, Piers Morgan has had a colourful career to date and much (most?) of what has been written about him has been unsympathetic. Even his mother would have to admit that Piers Morgan is a chancer, with the morals of an alley-cat, who sails close to the wind. There is no shortage of persons around who would put it in stronger terms than that. However, it is possible to use the paste and scissors to a more objective degree than is so far evident, which I will attempt to do.

Guy 23:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

If you can source the phrase "paste and scissors job" to Private Eye then by all means replace it with the citation. Rockpocket 01:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I have just done a complete re-write of the article which should have taken care of the queries, albeit it might have raised further objections but, get this, I went out to make a coffee and came back to find that the cat had trodden on the keyboard and sent the whole lot into a void in cyberspace. I will have to do proper backups as I go in future. I do not know when I will find time fo do it all again, not for several days. Guy 05:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. I look forward to see what you have come up with. Rockpocket 07:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The image above in this discussion has been deleted per I3, sorry. -- Samir धर्म 10:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Unreferenced section

In response to the editor who removed the {{unreferenced}} tag: this is an encyclopedia, not a page for those wishing to make a point about Morgan. Per Wikipedia's verifiability standards, "[t]he threshold for inclusion ... is verifiability, not truth (emphasis from the policy page)." Unsourced data may be challenged or removed at any time; it is incumbent on the editor including the data to cite a reliable source for any data, not on the reader to "watch the television or read the magazine", having been forced to do his or her own research. Please also read the biographies of living persons guideline for tips on presenting data, positive or negative, in a manner that is as neutral as possible. The section I have tagged gives no hint that any rebuttal even exists to the overtly negative presentation. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 12:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Obviously you have not come across any material giving an alternative or opposing view or you would have edited the article to take it on board. What you should be saying is "I have not personally checked out the references" not "unreferenced".

I made the major points in the section above. It is a badly written article. Most of what is written about Morgan is hostile, much of it more so than what Private Eye has written (check out what Alastair Campbell has written about him, for example). I am doing a radical re-write, but one problem is that this necessitates links to articles not themselves well written (not least Private Eye}. For example, this article does not mention the Naomi Campbell episode, or at least not in the sort of detail which would paint Morgan in a good light. There are two opposing views about Morgan's departure from the News of the World, both need to be explored and conclusions drawn. It is going to be pov whatever, saying he is a jolly decent chap is just as pov as saying he is a bounder, and neither would be very useful at all, but either might be better than just setting out to be bland and inoffensive. What Private Eye has written is verifiable, the back-numbers are there to prove it. Likewise recordings of the television programme are easily available. There are positive things about Morgan and possible explanations of things he has done, both of which need to be included to be fair to Morgan. The alternative is to wait and let Tom Bower do the job.

Morgan instructed his reporters to contact the priest/vicar at Hislop's church. This they did and they attempted to get tthe clergyman to reveal what hislop had talked about in confidence to the clergyman. He (the clergyman) reported this attempt to Hislop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phukwit (talk • contribs) 04:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Guy 10:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Image moved

Per Wikipedia's fair-use criteria, only free-use images can identify living, public people; the current image has been moved to accompany the relevant text. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Segway

The section about Morgan falling off a Segway is far too long. It's got three separate citations, for god's sake - that's at least two more than is necessary.

It seems to me that this is an extremely minor episode in Piers Morgan's life, and of interest only to POV-pushers because of the George W Bush connection. 80.254.147.52 13:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact that this is a 'minor' episode in Piers's life is unimportant - it serves to highlight his incredible hypocrisy and discredits his satirisation of George Bush. Surely through asserting that only a moron can fall off a Sedgway, he is categorising himself as this. How can anyone take him seriously!? Richard Price —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.242.221.2 (talk) 14:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably one mention of the Segway incident is sufficient. Any less would arguably violate NPOV, since it would be intentionally omitting something negative about him. Any more is overkill, and thus also arguably a violation of NPOV. 66.234.220.195 (talk) 05:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

User Piers Morgan (talk · contribs) deleted this and I reinstated it, but then changed my mind; the reports are not actually negative; they express amusement at the irony. Morgan himself essentially admitted that falling off made him an idiot too. If there were a rant about it by a notable paper somewhere then it would be difference, but as it stands it reads as far too anecdotal. BigBlueFish (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal of the Reuters story regarding America's Got Talent

There was this line in the entry and I removed it:

"Piers Morgan, according to Reuters news, has been replaced as a judge on the popular American television show, America's Got Talent. Although no offical reason was given, it is rumored that Piers impregnated a former contestant on Season 2 of America's Got Talent."

There weren't any citations, and I did a search on both Google News and the Reuters site and couldn't find any mention of him being replaced. I went to the NBC Website and he is still listed as a judge. He himself just wrote a newspaper entry where he is in the southern U.S. doing auditions. The part about the "rumor" just seemed too wrong to leave it on the page and wait for discussion.

Oh, and I started a new section for this because the other section regarding "America's Got Talent" was just getting ugly.--Vingold (talk) 07:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Omarosa

I noticed that the section Omarosa in the Feud part of the article keeps being deleted by a certain same user. However, there has been more than a few attempts to add this to the feud section, and I believe that this issue needs to be resolved. 1. One user should not be deleting the section that so many people feel needs to be added. 2. This user gave reason that "feud" is a long-lasting quarrel. But another definition of feud is a "bitter quarrel", which definitely qualifies Omarosa to be included in the feud. 3. Perhaps it is not right to include Omarosa, for argument's sake. But personally, I feel that this needs to be brought up anyways, in order to prevent this user from dominating the neutrality of this article. If you check the history log, this user hasn't been very neutral with the whole topic. Unrandomperson (talk) 20:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The material referring to Omarosa Manigault-Stallworth is already covered in sufficient detail earlier on in the article, under "Career in television". It is clear that this refers to a "reality" programme (though this link should be in the article). As everybody knows, the principal reason for "reality" programmes is to put a set of mis-matched individuals together so they cannot escape, in the expectation that the feathers will fly. Nobody wants to watch night after night of people sitting around interacting with the kind of civility one sees at a Vicarage tea party. Therefore, on Big Brother, The Apprentice, I'm a Celebrity... Get Me Out of Here!, you are going to get conflict, possibly violent conflict - it goes with the territory, it does not merit any further comment. The Oxford English Dictionary defines "feud" as - active hatred or enmity, hostility, ill-will; a state of bitter and lasting mutual hostility; a state of perpetual hostility between two families, tribes, or individuals, marked by murderous assaults in revenge for some previous insult or injury. "Active hatred" implies going on for a period of time (else the definition would just be "hatred"), rather longer than the duration of a television programme or series, especially when conflict is "built in" to the format. The normal accepted English usage is the third definition, which is equivalent to a "vendetta" in a gangster film. Chambers (which is a more "popular" English dictionary) defines it thus: "1- a long-drawn-out bitter quarrel between families, individuals or clans; 2- a persistent state of private enmity". It is difficult to describe the relationship between Piers Morgan and Omarosa Manigault-Stallworth as a "feud" under any of these definitions, any more than one would describe the business between Shilpa Shetty and Jade Goody as a "feud". That is not to say that the sections describing the relationships between Morgan and Ian Hislop and with Jeremy Clarkson are not over-long and in need of pruning, however, that was the subject of a similar editorial dispute about a year ago. Wikipedia guidelines require articles about living persons to be neutral (see the box at the top of this page). This is difficult when the person concerned is not regarded neutrally by the public, saint or sinner. Morgan is a person the British public love to hate, but he is still entitled to a neutral article. Much material casting him in a poor light has been excluded, despite good references to support it. On the other hand, there are certain aspects of Morgan's handling of celebrities which are regarded favourably by the public, in particular the Daily Mirror pictures and reports about Naomi Campbell and her alleged problems with artificial stimulants over which she launched an ultimately successful lawsuit. Morgan did not go to university - reference to this was excised - despite it giving him a chip on his shoulder towards those who did (not uncommon in media circles), especially the likes of Hislop and Clarkson who have made fun of him. Mentions of his authorships have also been cut - he started out writing puff biographies of boy bands and his supposed memoir "The Insider" was allegedly made up and assembled from newspaper cuttings - but mentions of these have been pared down. Much of the problem with this article historically has come about through another editor (not me) for whom "neutral" is synonymous with "bland and inoffensive". Guy (talk) 00:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this. No need to mention Omarosa in the feud section. The likelihood that her and Piers would ever cross paths again outside of a reality show are slim to none. She's been covered earlier in the entry.Vingold (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Can someone add this please?

He said in his Mail on Sunday column that he is of Irish descent.

I believe this is mentioned in one of the articles cited as a reference in the biographical section. It also mentions that his mother detached from his father Mr. Pughe and remarried Mr. Morgan, whose name Piers adopted. Guy (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Piers contested Sharon Osborne on a recent America's Got Talent episode that he is not English, but Irish. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qV13B68aH8&feature=channel (starts at 4:07). His ethnicity should be changed to Irish on his wiki page. I don't know how to sign this post so I'll leave it at that. WS. 19:12, 27 Jul 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.212.171 (talk)

Autobiographical edits

This article was recently edited several times by user Piers Morgan (talk · contribs). Obviously, this may or may not actually be Piers Morgan. I haven't added it yet because it hasn't actually been confirmed that the user really claims to be Piers himself, but if so then the {{Notable Wikipedian}} template is due here. BigBlueFish (talk) 19:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

"Headhunted"

"Headhunted" suggests personal involvement by MacKenzie - Morgan has claimed as much in memoirs and articles, but it is not corroborated, hence the qualified statement.

Hence, is it important? He says lots of different things about himself, and if he says he was particularly sought after, fine. I don't see how it matters though; the circumstances of one's recruitment are very rarely discussed or given note. BigBlueFish (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It is relevant in the context of his departure from the News of the World and his arrival at and departure from the Daily Mirror. It gives a small illustration of the man and his character allowable under Wikipedia guidelines, wheras a simple statement describing him as an egotist with a gift for self-aggrandisement and self-publicity would be quickly removed, no matter how accurate. Guy (talk) 03:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Feuds

The feuds section needs a really good look at. Its full of various statements and quotes, but only contains one reference. I have added a references tag to the overall article, and fact tags through the feuds section on the key issues. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 01:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It all pans out. HIGNFY and Room 101 episode details and transmission dates added.82.44.82.115 (talk) 09:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The Apprentice World-wide WikiProject

Please contribute to the relevant discussion here, as this discussion relates to this article. Thanks, Dalejenkins | 15:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Arsenal

There is nothing to suggest in here that he is an Arsenal FC Season Ticket holder, and by and large a very fairweather fan whose pitiful knowledge on the club is rather evident in more than one newspaper articles in which he's penned.

Hey that's great English. You're still studying? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.5.143.32 (talk) 04:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey! Naaah, 'fraid not - I'm assuming you're referring to my typo which pluralises 'article'? If there's something else in there, please let me know. Pauloluisimo (talk) 13:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Twitter account

Piers stated in his 'Live!' magazine column that he has not signed up for Twitter, so I have removed the account from the page. Let me know if there are any issues with this. --Scottcampb (talk) 20:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Morgan's name at birth

Morgan was not "born" as Piers Stefan Pughe-Morgan as he was born to Michael and Gabrielle O'Meara and did not have a stepfather until he was at least four years old. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Birthplace?

According to this video: http://www.nbc.com/americas-got-talent/video/clips/piers-two-truths-and-a-lie/1126829/ Morgan states that he was born in Guildford, Surrey, England, as do some other sources. However, multiple sources also sight the place that is used in this article. Anyone know which one is correct? 64.222.221.77 (talk) 03:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

And if anyone can find out what time of day he was born, that'd be good too. Wombat140 (talk) 19:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Catholicism

Piers Morgan is Catholic and identifies as such, why is this not represented in the article? I've noticed that Christianity is rarely represented in bio articles, but foreign faiths like Judaism/Islam are frequently cited - is there a Wikipedia policy behind this? I wondered!

Anyway, whoever tinkers away here should include the relevant info - Piers Morgan is a Roman Catholic. 193.188.47.23 (talk) 12:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Staging the photos of mistreatment of Iraqis by the British military

This seems to have dropped conveniently off Piers' CV 62.8.105.90 (talk) 10:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Married again

Did he just get married to Celia Walden today? Lmcgregoruk (talk) 11:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Piers Morgan set to take over Larry King's CNN slot

Piers Morgan, the "Simon Cowell" of NBC's "America's Got Talent," is reportedly on the brink of announcing he will be taking over Larry King's interview chair on CNN.

NBC and CNN are in the final stages of negotiating a major deal which would allow Morgan to appear on both programs, reports The New York Times Media Decoder blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.143.197 (talk) 13:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone here caought on to this, but CNN showed a short promo a few days ago mentioning the show's name as Piers Morgan Tonight--Florez411 (talk) 02:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I would submit that when it comes to his move to CNN, spelling should be in American English. The audience of such a program is presumably American and the spellings should follow accordingly. Any discussion? 96.27.38.63 (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Controversy

What Piers did on AGT should be noted that he blatantly attempted to sway the votes towards Jackie . He did it first by buzzing in Prince Poppycock's performance. He followed that up by making references to Prince Poppycock's performance during the second performance. He was nothing but glowing praise for Jackie's performance though she changed key multiple times and ended flat. And finally he dissed the final performance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duchessofnc (talk • contribs) 07:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Early/personal life subject header

we hae now the awkward phrasing of similar subject matter as heading. to say "life" and "life" confuses the issue, especialyl when not sub-section. Can we accomodate to a bette title?(Lihaas (talk) 10:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)).

As long as we avoid "Biography" as a heading, which is specifically deprecated by WP:MOSBIO, I have no strong view on this. Rodhullandemu 18:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Poor ratings for Morgan's CNN chatshow

This article fails to mention the poor ratings for Morgan's US chatshow on CNN. You will update, soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.83.194 (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

"an Irish journalist"

Wait, what? Is this a recent addition? I ask, because it's weird, and also because someone above asked if he was of Irish descent, which makes me think the first sentence of this article hasn't always described Morgan as an "Irish journalist." Morgan was born in England, and he has an English accent. He made his professional career in Britain. How, then, is he an Irish journalist full stop? Moreover, I see no evidence he has ever actually lived in Ireland. And, finally, the categories of this article don't match up to him being Irish: he is, according to the article's categories, (accurately, in my opinion) an English journalist, and English person of Irish descent, and so on. Surely, that's right: he's a British journalist of Irish descent. No? What am I missing here? 71.63.238.103 (talk) 01:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

expansion on "an irish journalist"

I have to agree with the above comment - "an Irish journalist"? Really? Does Morgan hold an Irish passport? My "ancestors" were from Scotland, but that does not make me Scottish.

It seems Morgan is using the "Irish" card for his benefit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.44.192 (talk) 08:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Twitter

Can we link to his Twitter page in the external links? - linked from his website so it's official. It's allowed under WP rules and he often posts comments on his work etc, not just inane chit chat like some celebs. 86.136.24.112 (talk) 10:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

He uses Twitter to post really vital stuff, like he's banned yet another celebrity from his CNN show..FOREVER...and posted that on twitter....ha ha ha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.68.48 (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Phone hacking allegation

The source cited for him writing "Stories soon emerged that the marriage was in trouble - at one stage I was played a tape of a message Paul had left for Heather on her mobile phone. It was heartbreaking. The couple had clearly had a tiff, Heather had fled to India, and Paul was pleading with her to come back. He sounded lonely, miserable and desperate, and even sang "We Can Work It Out" into the answerphone." (74. ^ "I'm sorry, Macca, for introducing you to this monster". Daily Mail. 27 July 2011.) seems to link to a daily mail article which contains the said quote, but i cant see it being attributed to Piers Morgan anywhere. 109.149.144.102 (talk) 21:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC) 22:22 28/7/2011

Very biased/negative/unfair

I think the whole article is unfair and should be rewritten. In this article, his achievements as a brilliant newspaper man, with a nose for what sells, are overshadowed by highlighted negative aspects of his career. Also, there is no mention of the accolades and numerous awards he won in his years as a writer of the Bizarre column for the Sun newspaper or in his time as an Editor, or the fact that he was integral in creating the Pride of Britain award. Not to mention the many scoops he splashed, only for the stories to be picked up the media worldwide.

A resumé of Morgan's career is likely to be negative, in any case circulation of the Mirror declined during his editorship. You seem to know him rather well, perhaps you could add more details, even if your comments as largely POVs would not be within WP policy. A detached observer would note how many of the claims in Private Eye have not yet found their way in to the article, and it is worth pointing out that Morgan has never sued, despite years of such "defamation". Philip Cross 17:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, this is not a resumé, it is an encyclopaedic entry. Secondly, by using the word 'negative' you are conceding POV. Thirdly, surely 'claims' - by Private Eye (revealingly refered to as 'the eye' in the article text) or anyone else - are by definition unsubstantiated and thus unsuitable for such an encyclopedia entry. And how the hell could mention of awards, scoopes and circulation figures (such as achieved with News of the World) be 'POV'?? Coil00 23:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Why don't people who are unhappy with the state of an article ever sign their names? --^pirate 18:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Because they think Wikipaedia is shit and not worth the bother but still and all the low IQ of the writers here pisses them off and forces them to react in spite of all? That's my guess. Not that this could of course ever happen to me but people talk and you hear things. All over the place. Thing is that most people today think Wikipaedia is a sick joke for drooling retards. So why should they sign their names? They'd have to create an account for that and who wants to bother with that? Besides - isn't this a 'WIKI'?? Well it is, innit? Except it's not anymore, is it? And that's because Wikipaedia is an utter abject failure. So stop asking stupid questions. People will start thinking you work for WikipAedia.

Is that you Piers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.68.56 (talk) 02:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree that this is a very biased article, but I think it could do with some revision. The general section, while tending toward the negative aspects of Morgan's career, does not carry any particular tone that I can sense. However, for the sake of balance, it would likely be worthwhile putting in facts regarding his awards and accolades. I cannot see how this would not be neutral - it's simply stating as fact his recognised achievements. --User:Blaise Joshua

I found the tone of this entry biased against. Morgan, whatever one thinks of his editorial decisions, is a public figure whose opinions are often sought by the likes of BBC1's Question Time and Radio 4's Any Questions?, and whose well articulated opinions tend to engage with many people in the country. - The Missing Hour

As an encyclopaedia, we are not in a position to say whether someone's opinions are well articulated or not. We have to report the facts, which has been done in the article. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I take your point, but the section on him and Ian Hislop seems by its last paragraph to have descended into little more than gossip and hearsay. Is this really justified in an encyclopaedic entry for a journalist and broadcaster? - The Missing Hour

Apart from the Hislop section, this has been wiped of POV, and nicely. It's not that I like the guy,but it's better to damn wuth damning facts than without. The POV header can go I think. Coil00 01:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Rather too generous to Piers Morgan on the fake pictures of British soldiers abusing Iraqis

"Morgan was fired from the Mirror on 14 May 2004 after authorising the newspaper's publication of photographs allegedly showing Iraqi prisoners being abused by British Army soldiers from the Queen's Lancashire Regiment.[10] Within days the photographs were shown to be crude fakes. Under the headline "SORRY.. WE WERE HOAXED", the Mirror responded that it had fallen victim to a "calculated and malicious hoax" and apologised for the publication of the photographs"

This suggests that Morgan was fired merely for authorising the photographs publication. There were in fact several reports of him refusing to apologise for their publication at the time, even when it became clear they were fake. The description of the newspapers apology is of course correct, but it should be made clear that this apology (which he has since been quoted as describing as "gut-wrenching")was not made until after his dismissal. The Mirror did not concede that the photographs were fake until after Piers Morgan had gone. To my knowledge he remains unrepentent to this day.217.43.159.10 (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Surely this was the most pivotal transition point in his career so merits its own more detailed section between 'In Newspapers' and 'In Television'. James — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.197.253 (talk) 14:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

"A Journalist of Irish descent"?

the opening line is unacceptable. Piers Morgan was born and raised a british citizen and built his career in the United Kingdom, in the British media. It should at least say 'British journalist of irish descent'. Just because he claims to be a plastic paddy, doesn't mean you can hide the fact that he came from britain —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voucherman (talk • contribs) 19:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I can find absolutely no reference to him self-describing himself as Irish in the Article. Having "Of Irish Decent..." is against Manuel of style, the lead should reflect the general contents of the article's main points, why he is notable. He is not notable because of his Irish decent. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 01:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Further more, it is listed in the Infobox, no need to have it in the lead. Just sounded like a sad POV statement. "HE'S IRISH! HE'S IRISH!" I see someone like the edge is described as Irish when he was born in England with no mention of "English" anywhere? Again, Ethnicity and place of birth have no bearing on Nationality. But I can't find anything in the article to suggest he self-identifies as Irish --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 01:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

He told Sharon Osbourne on America's Got Talent/X Factor USA that he 'was Irish', I think I've also heard him state it on CNN. Not much seems to be known about his father but his full name was Eamon Vincent O'Meara & was a doctor & dentist- my guess is middling to upper middle class similar to his mother's family who are quite well documented colonial Catholics residing in Britain for most of the 20th century, but previously globe trotting around various Empire outposts in China & India, of diverse Irish (Oliver, Keily), possibly Italian (Cantopher-Cantafaro), and Portuguese descent (De Caville-da Cavilha). Interestingly he's also descended from a Guevar(r)a, not sure he'd approve of that link! Jarrowsky (talk) 02:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Somebody has even gone so far as to use a self-made family tree as a source for his various "ethnicities." Utter nonsense. 24.229.98.148 (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

That was added by me, it is not self made, but made by experienced genealogists with full sources listed. Jarrowsky (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

If it's reliably sourced that he's of Irish decent then there's no issue. However, it has no bearing on his nationality, just like place of birth does not always determine someone's nationality too. (People always put to much on Ethnicity) --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 23:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

No doubt he's a British citizen, but he may also be Irish if his father was an Irish passport holder, but we don't know whether that was the case or not. Jarrowsky (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

He just referred to himself as British on Piers Morgan Tonight on CNN. No, I don't have a link, but I'm sure many links exist in which he refers to himself as British. At any rate, I'm glad the article has been changed from "Irish journalist" to "British journalist." 71.63.151.74 (talk) 02:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 February 2012

Under Early Life, please change

Named Piers Stefan Pughe-Morgan by his stepfather, Morgan attended an independent school from the ages of seven to thirteen.

To

Named Piers Stefan Pughe-Morgan by his stepfather, Morgan attended the private Cumnor House School in Haywards Heath, Sussex, from the ages of seven to 13.

Ray3zor (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The source for this information is http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/from-city-boy-to-world-leader-1387335.html

Adding this explains the precise school Morgan attended, giving fuller detail than you have at the moment.

Partly done:Because prep school is the same as an independent school in UK.--Ankit Maity ^TalkContribs 11:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Removal of the The Apprentice UK template

Regarding the removal of {{The Apprentice UK}} from this article - I have started a discussion at Template talk:The Apprentice UK proposing the removal of this template from each of the celebrity articles to which it links. Please contribute your opinions to a discussion there.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by UkPaolo (talk • contribs) 01:58, 10 March 2007‎

Omarosa Manigault-Stallworth section needs to be changed

The paragraph is written from a perspective that paints Manigault-Stallworth as the aggressor. The implications in the paragraph cannot be verified outside of interpreting the episode of television that aired only hours before the entry appeared (the episode only first aired about 6 hours ago).

The paragraph is not neutral, it does not recount facts, and it contributes nothing to anyone reading an entry to learn about Piers Morgan (except maybe to get the feeling he'd been abused by Manigault-Stallworth on a reality TV game show...)

please change it.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.209.227.120 (talk) 00:18, 15 February 2008‎

Edit request on 5 March 2012

from 1999 to 2005 Piers was sports editor for the daily mail.

Salamiarmy12 (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Celestra (talk) 06:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 April 2012

After the defeat of Manchester City by Morgan's Arsenal, Piers had a series of Twit Feuds with former Arsenal Samir Nasri who is now playing in Manchester City. Piers twitted "It's not any #Arsenal fan's fault you took the oil cash and blew it @SamNasri19 - it's purely YOUR selfishness & greed." Then Nasri responded, " Then Nasri responded with a Twit " An English Guy who moved to US." Then, Piers responded with " "Vous ne savez pas la loyauté, si cela vous tape sur le cul." In the end, Piers responded by saying, " I am an Irish!"

Finescribe (talk) 00:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

This really isn't important. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I also have to agree with Gareth that this info doesn't appear to be all that important for the article. Reliable sources would help establish notability, however. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Morgan is leaving AGT

America's Got Talent won't be the same. According to this source, [1], along with several others: [2], Piers will be leaving the show, and could be replaced by Howard Stern, according to this: [3]. Thoughts? Tinton5 (talk) 18:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

"Morgan is best known in the United States as a judge on the show America's Got Talent". Not anymore? Best known as CNN host surely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.24.99 (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

He appears to hate American liberties and wants to help Obama transform the U.S. into a place with far less liberty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.77.31 (talk) 18:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 August 2012

The Sun, the Mirror, and News of the World are all tabloids, and non-UK readers don't necessarily know that. Should add "tabloid" to the "worked for several newspapers" sentence in the summary.

I could be persuaded, but I don't initially agree. They are newspapers first and foremost, and I don't think there is a consistent use of the the terms "tabloid" and "broadsheet" with other British journalists articles. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Done The Wikipedia articles about those three papers clearly describe them as tabloids. This is a no-brainer. Veriss (talk) 04:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 December 2012

Please add the following to the "Feuds Section" with the person "Alex Jones" as the person he is feuding with:

Alex Jones

After the Sandy Hook tragedy critics of Piers Morgan such as Alex Jones claimed that he took an aggressive stance against the rights granted in the 2nd amendment in the United States' Constitution. As a result Alex Jones promoted a petition dubbed "The Infowars Petition" to deport Piers Morgan for his attacks. This was started by one of his employees Kurt Nimmo on December 20th 2012 at the White House website. As of December 23rd 2012, the petition has reached its goal of over 25,000 signatures to get a response from the president and as of December 24th 2012 it has 30,795 signatures. Piers Morgan in response has attacked Alex Jones for his petition on Twitter. Applecrusher (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done for now: Doesn't say actually what to change in the article, and the white house website would be a primary source. I don't see any reliable sources. Any non-primary sources? This might not be a non-controversial change either. Vacation^nine 05:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done for now: I'm looking into making this edit for you, or something based on your suggestion, but I am unsure of which Alex Jones you are referring to. There are several with articles here and I couldn't find a reference to the specific Alex Jones within the several sources you listed. Veriss (talk) 04:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 December 2012

Please add section under Petition for deportation from US.

Counter Petition to keep Piers in the USA

Following the petition to deport Piers Morgan from the USA, another petition appeared on the White House website on Christmas Day 2012 by a Janusz J asking to keep Piers in the States. The creator of the petition added two reasons for this: ″There are two very good reasons for this. Firstly, the first amendment. Second and the more important point. No one in the UK wants him back.″

In what seems to be a humorous remark, the creator also added a third reason for keeping him in the States: "Actually there is a third. It will be hilarious to see how loads of angry Americans react." 82.33.227.210 (talk) 09:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)M

 Working Thank you for researching sources for this properly, and adding this well written suggestion. Sorry for the slowness in dealing with it. I'm going to put together a slightly shorter version using the Guardian and NYDailyNews sources you provided. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 December 2012

Deportation. Because yanks dont like told the truth about guns from british people, who tell it like it it. On this occasion Morgan was right... Doxodeal (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted; but the above is not encyclopedic material suitable for adding to the article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

wikiproject - the rest of us

I just signed a petition at us.gov from Canada. Does that mean they take signatures from anywhere in the world? Someone from a non-usa project should ask local media to try this, post it on the web, then we can cite it in the article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I think one of the sources said something about the Janus (sp?) fellow being "presumably from the UK" or something along those lines, so one could in theory work a very brief mention of that source's opinion into the section if careful with it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I would rather wait for the BBC to report that their staff created a petition and then signed it 12,000 times each. We just signed it a second time.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request

Under the Gun Control Comments Petition section, the following sentence needs to be corrected: "As of the eighth of January (one year after the Tucson massacre), ...". Unless I'm reading this wrong, this refers to today, January 8, 2013, which is two years after the shooting in Tucson (January 8, 2011). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting — Preceding unsigned comment added by YEDemon (talk • contribs) 21:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Citation Required removal

I'll just tack this on, you can remove the "citation required" for the 25,000 signatures needed for President Obama to deport Mr.Morgan. When viewing the petition it shows every signature, and also shows the number remaining needed for the President to act on the petition. 25,000 is the number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.67.149.14 (talk) 04:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I would like a citation for why 25k is a magic number. Does it force Mr. Obama to step down and call an election, or just a bullshit number that means nothing? Recall election has far more teeth.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

We are not under the Westminster system. There is no "vote of no confidence". If the President were to choose to leave office, the Vice President would become the President. That petition thing on the White House web site has no legal authority. It is just a means for the people to exercise their 1st Amendment rights to freedom of expression and freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The White House is certainly not legally obligated to respond to any of it, regardless of how many signatures. It's just a made up number.24.23.199.225 (talk) 06:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 January 2013

Under "In television", China is referred to as a "communist country" - while the dominant party in China is called the "Communist Party", China itself is clearly no longer classifiable as communist by any modern definition of the term. Isabelle.miller (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. An arguable point, perhaps, but the descriptor seems unnecessary and I have removed it. Rivertorch (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• The descriptor was unneeded, though as you stated, the point raised is arguable. There is only one approved party in China. There should be no confusion that the country is far from being a free and democratic place to live. As quoted from the Wikipedia article about China, "The People's Republic of China, along with Vietnam, Laos, and Cuba, is one of the world's four remaining official socialist states espousing communism. However, in practice, China's political structure cannot be characterized so simply. The Chinese government has been variously described as communist and socialist, but also as authoritarian, with heavy restrictions remaining in many areas, most notably on the Internet, the press,freedom of assembly, reproductive rights, and freedom of religion. Its current political/economic system has been termed by its leaders as "socialism with Chinese characteristics". Cheers, Veriss (talk) 07:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Political Party in the UK?

Does anybody know what Morgan's political affiliation is in Britain? Labour? Conservative/Tory? I am a moderate liberal American who supports his views on gun control am just curious, seems like something relevant to put in the wikipedia article if anyone knows the answer.24.23.199.225 (talk) 06:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request 3/9/2013

In the gun control section the comment "(and powerful guns)" in the sentence "Pratt claimed the best way to combat violent crimes is to have more guns (and powerful guns)" doesn't strike me as a neutral point of view and seems to read more like a comment than fact. It is not cited and the use of "powerful" is ambiguous. It should in place have a specific gun listed as said "powerful" gun in question.--Morphis568 (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Gun control section

The section dealing with the well-publicized interview with Pratt over gun control makes it seem that Morgan was the one who behaved unreasonably - not an interpretation I would have thought was held by most who saw the interview. I'm not saying we should imply, for instance, that Pratt acted like a crazy person, but we certainly shouldn't be implying that it was Morgan who was aggressive and unreasonable either. - 124.191.144.183 (talk) 10:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 April 2013

In 3.4 "Gun control," "than" should be changed to "then" in the very first sentence. Thanks! 200.106.71.182 (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Done Minor edit only. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 April 2013

Additionally, the sentence "Pratt thanked for the 'high-level argument'." in the same section needs an object. I'd suggest "Morgan." 200.106.71.182 (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Done Not quite a minor edit but it was needed for clarity. Thanks for helping to improve Wikipedia. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Dubious content

"On May 2, 2013, Piers Morgan publicly mocked children, parenthood, the Bible, Mormonism and Mitt Romney.[49] The media ignored it, and a Wikipedian deleted this reference as poorly sourced original research POV content, thereby upholding Wikipedia's official aversion to preprocessed truth." should this be fixed? 58.7.88.248 (talk) 05:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Rivertorch (talk) 05:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Gun Control

There was a huge section removed on April 20th, ostensibly because it didnt' fit with other sections. This was a big deal at the time, and now is just completely missing. It should have been moved to another section, I'd say 2001:630:12:10D0:AD83:5F89:6395:3429 (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm the editor who removed it. The story may have been a "big deal" in that news cycle, but the section became a general discussion on Morgan's views on gun control. It was incorrectly included under feuds, wereas the 'feud' seemed to amount to one heated discussion. It seemed an over detailed section for one particular position that Morgan holds. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 19:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

That's true, but now we don't mention his position on that at all. Isn't a view that he holds (strongly), that has been reported upon widely, in the context of significant national debate in one country and mentioned widely in the media in other countries, just as relevant as his falling off a Segway and being mocked for it, which we do mention?

I'm biased 'cos I spent a little time fixing/improving the gun control spat part, though :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Bogus Official Website

It doesnt seem that the official website link is legit. Please check and remove if you agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.12.198 (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Official Piers Morgan Website

The link to the "official Piers Morgan website" is a total fake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.14.196.125 (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done Gaijin42 (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

"Fued" with Alan Sugar - Suggested deletion

Hi. I just wanted to point out that the paragraph regarding his "fued" with Alan Sugar:

"In December 2010 Morgan had an ongoing Twitter argument with Alan Sugar....for more than eighteen months."

is slightly misleading and over-dramatic. It is obvious to those that follow the pair of them that the argument was in jest, and if we include this in the article, then we have to include all the other "fueds" Morgan has with Rio Ferdinand, Micheal Owen, Gary Linekar etc etc etc. My point is that the argument doesnt really warrant a mention on wikipedia, and the citations provided arent really helpful either. I suggest we remove this part as it is misleading to those who dont realise that the pair of them regularly share banter across twitter. I didnt want to delete it in case I am mistaken. Just my thoughts  :-) GiggsIsLegend (talk) 13:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Addition needed

Under list of books need to add Morgan, Piers (2013) Shooting Straight: Guns, Gays, God, and George Clooney Gallery Books ISBN-13: 978-1476745053 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.110.242.32 (talk) 14:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2013

Under the Books heading add: Morgan, Piers (2013) Shooting Straight: Guns, Gays, God, and George Clooney Gallery Books ISBN-13: 978-1476745053 129.110.242.32 (talk) 21:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Done, thanks! --ElHef (Meep?) 21:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2014

Newick is in East Sussex, not Surrey 176.250.217.208 (talk) 00:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing that out - someone had changed the PoB from Guilford - which is in Surrey - Arjayay (talk) 10:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2013

• I am copy-editing this Wiki article and notice that footnote #68 is a dead link. It backs up a quotation at the end of the section on his television career. I would say it is important to check it, since several quotations so far have been inaccurate. I do not know how to do this myself. --P123cat1 (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I've fixed footnotes #68 and #75. Resolved. .Gareth E Kegg (talk) 23:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

• Unresolved: Footnote #81 cites a Twitter account which cannot be entered without signing in, #85 is the correct link but does not back up the quotation, and #86 is another a dead link.

• There is also a quotation in the same section that needs a citation, which I have flagged up in the text.

Section on phone hacking

• Footnote #90 cites a Daily Mail article which does not say who the author is, yet the Wiki article attributes it to Morgan (the quote wording is accurate); it probably is by him, but surely assumption is not good enough in a citation.

• The article cited in footnote #93 was badly misquoted (I corrected it) and the words "not believe to the best of my recollection" in the Wiki article do not appear anywhere in that article. Resolved

Footnote #94 does not support any of the description or quoted words in the Wiki sentence it is appended to. Perhaps the wrong footnote has been put in for this. I have not altered anything there. Resolved .--P123cat1 (talk) 17:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The 2006 Daily Mail article is certainly by Morgan. It is directly referred to in this Guardian transcript of the Leveson inquiry from 9 February 2012 (at 12:01) [4] Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2014

This continues my comments on edits to the article on 11th May.

Section on phone hacking section (continued)

• I have made some final edits. The paragraph beginning "On 20th December, 2011 ..." was so riddled with misquotes, paraphrases of quotes made to look like quotes, and ascriptions of footnotes to the wrong passages, that I had to rewrite some sentences. I corrected the quotations and figured out which footnote should be appended to which sentence.

• I have expanded on Leveson's quote in the penultimate paragraph, using footnote #6, as the three short bits of quote originally in the article did not make sense strung together. I also thought Leveson's judgment should be covered more fully in this important paragraph.

I felt I should raise the queries I had and explain my edits as the subject matter in this Wiki article is fairly sensitive.

. --P123cat1 (talk) 23:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2014

The Begining of this page reads, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Piers Stefan Pughe-Morgan. The XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Is either a accident or vandalism. I was wondering if we could get rid of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahachman (talk • contribs) 18:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It was an accident! It happened while I was copy-editing the article, but have now rectified it. --P123cat1 (talk) 19:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14th May 2014

• I have finished copy-editing the article, except for correctly numbering the footnotes that belong to the fourth paragraph of "Phone hacking allegations".

• There are three sources for these footnotes: the BBC, the Daily Telegraph and Reuters. But in the list of footnotes at the end of the article, two sources (Reuters and the Daily Telegraph) are double-counted. (I noticed this before I started.) I don't know how to correct this mistake, but in this paragraph, this is where each footnote should go:-. .Resolved

Footnote #93 (BBC) should be appended to the sentence beginning "On 20 December 2011 ..."

Footnote #93 (BBC) ....... ...... "While he said he had no reason ... "

Footnote #94 (Daily Telegraph) & Footnote (Reuters) ...... ...... "Appearing as a witness ... "

Footnote #94 (Daily Telegraph)...... ...... "She said that she had never authorised ..."

Footnote (Reuters)...... ...... "Mills told the inquiry ..."

• I have put the right code for each footnote in the text already, so it is just a matter of taking out the redundant footnotes in the list, so that the right footnote numbers will show up properly in the text. . .Resolved. .--P123cat1 (talk) 02:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Mention on Top Gear

In Top Gear series 19, episode 4, Jeremy Clarkson and the other presenters use "Pierce Morgan" as a pejorative, designating the worst of the three cars tested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.210.46.118 (talk) 21:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Piers Morgan. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20100912212119/http://www.breitbart.tv:80/reporter-who-called-bush-idiot-for-segway-fall-cracks-ribs-in-fall-from-contraption/ to http://www.breitbart.tv/reporter-who-called-bush-idiot-for-segway-fall-cracks-ribs-in-fall-from-contraption/

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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} 12:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Feuds

The feud section should probably be removed. It reads like a gossip rag, not an encyclopedia. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Piers Morgan and CNN

Piers Morgan was fired from his talk show in CNN on September 26 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.227.48.98 (talk) 07:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2017

The "Known For" section needs to be cleaned up. Seems someone added an opinion there. Remove " and being an annoying opinionated cunt who basically shouts over everyone so they can't get their point across then claims victory before any chance of rebuttal" WattWizard (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Done Thank you very much, good catch. - Mlpearc (open channel) 21:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC) - Mlpearc (open channel) 21:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Piers Morgan. 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.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=%2Farchive%2F2000%2F02%2F02%2Fnmir02.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/13/iraq.abuse.statement/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140217203455/http://www.prideofbritain.com/contentPages/judges/default.aspx to http://www.prideofbritain.com/contentPages/judges/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100915063358/http://www.mediaspy.org/report/2010/09/09/us-piers-morgan-signs-on-as-larry-king-replacement/ to http://www.mediaspy.org/report/2010/09/09/us-piers-morgan-signs-on-as-larry-king-replacement
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140206203218/http://gawker.com/piers-morgan-demands-apology-from-disgraceful-trans-w-1516913568 to http://gawker.com/piers-morgan-demands-apology-from-disgraceful-trans-w-1516913568

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) 17:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2017

C27078 (talk) 11:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Qed237 (talk) 12:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Last para of Post Mirror Career section

There appears to be an abandon ref close tag in the text

predecessor Live.}</ref>

Not sure if a reference was removed, but as the page is locked I thought I'd highlight so someone with access can fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7d:da42:200:a9ae:930d:1e0f:a8bd (talk) 13:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

British or Irish?

Surely he's Irish? (2A00:23C4:638F:5000:114D:9B61:B11D:4379 (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC))

He's never lived in Ireland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:DA42:200:A9AE:930D:1E0F:A8BD (talk) 13:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Piers Morgan. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091003002526/http://www.journalism.co.uk/2/articles/51408.php to http://www.journalism.co.uk/2/articles/51408.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080621170129/http://www.itv.com/Sandbanks/default.html to http://www.itv.com/Sandbanks/default.html

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) 08:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2018

In the section Donald Trump, please replace both instances of "f***" with "fuck" per Wikipedia:Censorship. 192.41.131.250 (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

From my understanding that policy refers to Wikipedia/Wikipedians censoring of material and not third party censoring. So if a quote blocks out profanity in its source then it should not be changed simply because of the policy. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 18:35, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Per above. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Interviews with President Trump

I have reincorporated this material into the main passage on Piers Morgan's friendship with Donald Trump. As the responses to these interviews are largely not positive, the section seems unlikely to develop very much. Although the latest interview probably will not be the last, it is likely the passage will remain nothing more than a disguised bulleted list. Seems odd to type this, but the interviews are a minor part of Morgan's career, even if Morgan's connection with President Trump is a significant part of this biography. Philip Cross (talk) 11:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Morgan seems expert in forging powerful "relationships" which are one-sided and seemingly imaginary. The nature of this "friendship" with Trump would reward further scrutiny, since it apparently consists solely of a holograph with occasional access to media being tolerated by an egomaniac who likely as not can barely recall his name. Which is O' Meara. Mike Galvin (talk) 23:01, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Removal of "Editorial director of First News, a British national newspaper for children."

Piers Morgan hasn't been associated with First News since it's launch in 2006. As demonstrated by a tweet by the verified paper and it's editor on Twitter here:

Thanks for any help!

Aaronskh (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)aaronskh

References

 Done Removed from lead - there is a reference in the text to its formation, which can be retained. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Political Affilliation

Piers has stated in interviews he has voted for Labour, Conservatives as well as the Animal Welfare Party as a protest vote - so not sure if calling him a conservative is necessarily accurate. See interview with Ruth Davidson on LBC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:13B:B900:B89F:3FA2:FBF4:9F87 (talk) 01:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Covid restrictions and Antigua

The Irish News are reporting that Morgan has been accused of hypocrisy for making repeated calls for people to comply with Covid restrictions and then travelling to Antigua over Christmas 2020 in breach of the rules. See https://www.irishnews.com/news/northernirelandnews/2021/01/06/news/calls-for-piers-morgan-to-be-dismissed-from-gmb-amid-claims-he-broke-covid-rules-to-holiday-in-caribbean-2178423/. Greenshed (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Piers Morgan quits his job on ITV after storming off stage on GMB.

Yes Piers Morgan quit his job at ITV after storming off stage during Good Morning Britain. Here are some links: https://www.lotuseaters.com/the-podcast-of-the-lotus-eaters-85-10-03-21 https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/mar/10/itv-market-value-loses-200m-as-piers-morgan-leaves-good-morning-britain https://www.itv.com/news/2021-03-10/piers-morgan-says-woke-crowd-has-not-cancelled-him-and-he-will-re-emerge-from-temporary-hibernation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.1.122.40 (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• What is your point? Are you going to edit the article? Your theguardian and itv-dot-com sources seem noteworthy/trustable under wiki common policy.. Have at it! -From Peter {a.k.a. Vid2vid (talk | contribs)} 15:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• All fully sourced in the article now, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • • Hello and how are you @ @Martinevans123: ? Re your (or your BOT's?) edit of my personally, fully intended Talk page comment diff is shown here in which you or your BOT changed my text from, "have at it" to --> "have a look at it" -- Umm. No. (Not what I wrote or intended.) I meant what I wrote. Please get a handle on your BOT, or tendencies to edit Talk Pages, as it is definitely *POOR FORM* to edit peoples' TALK comments directly. You are putting words in their mouths that way. Your BOT (or you) could "comment" a new comment, after their comment, with a proposed edit or suggestion or correction or grammatical/typographical fix, but, don't edit what I, a human, drafted in my own words please. I hope you will take this lesson to heart and it'll serve as a lesson to others too as a better workaround. Thanks for listening. -From Peter {a.k.a. Vid2vid (talk | contribs)} 16:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Thanks for your note Peter. I do sincerely apologise. I don't have any bots, thanks. I certainly won't be editing your comments again. What does "have at it" mean? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Rearrangement by User:Philip Cross

I have restructured the article so that it now pivots on the change in Morgan's career in 2004. Despite his effective switch from primarily working in newspapers to television personality around that time, certain sections are split between the two. The passage on Meghan, Duchess of Sussex is the most obvious example. The controversies/feuds section being near the end of the article meant duplication was inevitable. The likely adjudication of Ofcom on his comments about the Duchess should mean their decision will not be repeated in three sections. Philip Cross (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The bigger problem, IMHO, is that more than half of the article is spent on detailing these controversies. Is it really that important of an aspect of this person's career; or is this just the usual WP:NOTNEWS type of coverage that is a fair bit UNDUE? I wouldn't be against keeping it, I just think it needs to be trimmed down... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2021

Please change "was a English broadcaster ..." to "is an English broadcaster ...". 182.48.131.97 (talk) 12:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Is he currently on a show? Please provide WP:Reliable sources of this, for the change to be made. Terasail^[✉] 14:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2022

Change "an British" to "a British" 2600:8801:28E:9D00:A91F:1669:4061:717B (talk) 05:13, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done Cullen328 (talk) 05:16, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Age

Why isn’t the age displayed in the table? Is it genuinely not known? 124.168.114.101 (talk) 04:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source to support his birth date? - FlightTime (open channel) 04:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Not my point - The first source in the article appears to assert that he was 29 in 1994. If that source is deemed appropriate for inclusion, then there appears to be sufficient information to at least include a date of birth range, like many other articles. Seems there is an omission in the table in the circumstances. 124.168.114.101 (talk) 09:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

[5] BunningGrade (talk) 05:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Ethnciity

Peirs is Welsh not Irish. This should be changed. Akmal94 (talk) 01:03, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Akmal94  Not done. He was born in Surrey. Where is your evidence that he is Welsh? Shantavira|^{feed me} 20:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The last name "Morgan" is literally Welsh. Being born somewhere doesn't mean anything. Akmal94 (talk) 01:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Of course where you're born counts for a lot, if it's ethnicity you're going on about and not race. It is only when you're talking about race that where you grew up doesn't count for anything. His actual birth name is Piers Stefan O'Meara, and O'Meara is practically the most quintessentially Irish surname out there. Ethnically, he's kind of a mixture of English, Irish and Welsh with a large slice of Hitler on all sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.221.20 (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh wow. So everyone with the surname Morgan is Welsh? Not sure I can find that anywhere at Morgan (surname). And British is a nationality not an ethnicity (assuming that's what you meant). British people can be all sorts of ethnicities. The same goes for Welsh and Irish. The article already says "Morgan was born in Surrey, the son of Vincent Eamonn O'Meara, an Irish dentist from County Offaly...", which kind of explains things fully. 86.187.160.128 (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Oprah Interview: Meghan and Harry

I never hear about the smack on top of Harry's head from Meghan prior to Meg insisting by stating, "it was racist", which ended when Oprah said, "wow I heard that way over here". Please follow up on that scene. 2601:603:1300:4A0:445A:F6B6:DA78:7500 (talk) 02:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)