Jump to content

Talk:Phillip Schofield

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 79.66.89.36 (talk) at 18:51, 31 May 2023. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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

"Coming Out"

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

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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: [1] [2] 205.239.40.3 (talk) 09:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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. Sheryl Crowe). 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I’m hoping the media call it “Schofegate” for a cleaner title! 148.252.133.220 (talk) 16:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Prepare for ITV-Phillip Schofield Runner Controversy article in about a weeks time 148.252.133.220 (talk) 16:10, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is already getting bigger. [3]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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Someone's removed it now, thankfully. 51.6.169.98 (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"Wikipedia's info isn’t correct." You said it mate. LMFAO. 86.187.231.14 (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
WP:SYNTH. Wikipedia doesn't do its own investigative journalism. --Belbury (talk) 12:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, Wikipedia does not link together multiple sources to reach a conclusion. 51.6.169.98 (talk) 12:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

"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)[reply]

18 is a teenager, hence eightTEEN 148.252.133.220 (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Agree. “Teenage” goes against WP:UPFRONT. 148.252.133.220 (talk) 19:31, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
It is very suspicious and at no point did I or anyone else try and suggest that it wasn't. --79.66.89.36 (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Born in Oldham

Schofield himself, here on Twitter, says that he was born in Oldham: [4]. Also Liverpool Echo here: [5] and MEN here: [6]. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 11:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Add entertainment scandals category

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Phillip_Schofield&oldid=1157908099"