Talk:Piers Morgan

Degree(s)
Has Piers Morgan received a college degree? 2600:1700:5EC2:8210:5D9C:83F6:55CB:5679 (talk) 10:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2023
update piers morgan picture to Piers.jpg its more up-to-date 2A00:23C5:F405:2001:9931:723D:AB6A:A9B (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Image is copyrighted.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  04:01, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Like now why are you sounding like a robot. My tv not broken 86.6.233.0 (talk) 22:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2023
82.27.54.68 (talk) 13:46, 25 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NotAGenious (talk) 13:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Ian Hislop section
Is this Piers Morgan section really notable? sounds like WP:NOTNEWS --FMSky (talk) 02:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2023
In an interview Piers Morgan stated "another day, another victory for the og, takin' down the swears; the imposters among us." During the first paragraph for his first newspaper in south London you need to add that so the people know what he said. Asdarewardscard (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2023 (UTC)


 * ❌ I don't understand how this is significant enough for inclusion. —Panamitsu (talk) 23:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Relevance of quote on Harry after MGN trial
Hi @Martinevans123, I hope you're having a nice day.

As I said in a previous edit, I think Morgan's comments about Prince Harry should be removed from his reaction to the MGN case's outcome. They are currently at the end of the Phone hacking allegations section.

As the outcome and findings of the case were determined by a judge and not Harry, any comment of Morgan's as to Harry's truthfulness (and Harry's truthfulness itself) has no relevance in information about the case. It is true that he did use those words and denounce Harry during his statement reacting to the case. However, his personal views on Harry have no impact on the case, which was judged impartially, evidentially, and according to the law.

Therefore, I don't think his comments, coming as part of an ongoing media-based campaign against the Sussexes, should be present with the same prominence as the factual findings of the trial, because doing so may imply the two have an equal amount of credibility. The objective findings of a legal case after through examination have more credibility than one commentator's subjective opinion on somebody else, especially somebody they don't even know personally. It is difficult to handle, however, as he did conflate his rejection of the case's ruling with his negative views of Harry.

This is why, in my most recent edit, I stated that Morgan rejected the finding that he knew of and was involved in the phone hacking, whilst not including his comments on Harry. This is because doing so provides balance in noting Morgan's disagreement with the ruling while not including his disparaging comments on Harry, which I don't think should be included. Maybe these comments should be included elsewhere in the article, or maybe other users will disagree with me and agree with you that his comments on Harry are relevant to the trial.

Please let me know what you think, and all the best. 13tez (talk) 23:27, 15 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I think that partial quote should be included, as it really shows the degree of animosity that Morgan has for Harry. It provides some vey valuable context. It has also been very widely reported, even though it appears to be defamatory. I quite agree that some balance is needed. Happy to hear the views of other editors. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Martinevans123, thanks for getting back to me.
 * I agree that the quote shows his degree of animosity towards Harry. And he did use those words, and it is well-sourced.
 * However, the subject being discussed was the MGN trial, not Morgan's views on Harry. I think it would be reasonable and relevant to include the quote in a section detailing his views on Harry, or various feuds, but his disdain for Harry is extraneous when the subject being discussed is the MGN trial in particular and his alleged phone hacking more generally, as it impacts neither.
 * You said "It provides some vey valuable context." Please could you explain why? I don't understand how his views on Harry are relevant in a section talking about his alleged phone hacking, with a focus in that particular point on the MGN trial? A like or dislike for Harry neither changes nor justifies any phone hacking of Harry or anyone else. His views on Harry don't change the outcomes of the trial, either.
 * Thanks again. 13tez (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's pretty obvious that Morgan wants to try and rubbish the outcome of the trial by effectively calling Harry a liar. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * p.s. as pointed out by Evan Harris on BBC Radio 4's PM programme yesterday, the fact that phone hacking at MGN was 'still going on while the Leveson Inquiry was proceeding, means that those MGN staff who gave evidence to the enquiry under oath may be open to the charge of perjury.


 * Hi again @Martinevans123
 * Subjectively, I agree. But Harry being a liar wouldn't change the trial, as neither the judge nor the High Court are Harry's mouthpiece. As I said before: "his personal views on Harry have no impact on the case, which was judged impartially, evidentially, and according to the law." I believe, therefore, "I don't think his comments... should be present with the same prominence as the factual findings of the trial, because doing so may imply the two have an equal amount of credibility." Morgan's comments on Harry are irrelevant to the case (outside of Wikipedia), so it doesn't make sense to include them in the case's coverage here.
 * Yes, I think a finding was that phone hacking continued to some extent during the Leveson Inquiry. Please could you tell me why you think that means Morgan's comments about Harry should be included?
 * Thanks. 13tez (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That was just an observation, not an argument for including Morgan's comment about Harry. Yes, this section is about Phone hacking allegations, but the entire article is about Morgan, so I think statements that he makes, about people involved in the trial, deserve more detailed coverage. The consensus that you and User:Jaymailsays have established is to remove the quote. I'm surprised no other editors have commented yet. But then it is still barely 24 hours since he delivered that statement. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Martinevans123,
 * It is an article about Morgan, I take that point, but yes it is a section on phone hacking and in particular the trial, and I don't think his dislike of Harry is really relevant to either.
 * I know you think he's trying to dismiss and discredit the trial via Harry, and I don't disagree. However, Harry's truthfulness and other attributes have no impact on the credibility of the case and its rulings, as I have said before, so what he's trying to imply doesn't make sense anyway. Therefore, his views on Harry are irrelevant to the case, even though he did try to conflate the two during his statement. Therefore, his comments on Harry shouldn't be included here as information about the case.
 * If you don't like the version I proposed in my other reply, I suppose we will have to wait to see what more people say in time.
 * All the best. 13tez (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Errrm, "Harry's truthfulness and other attributes have no impact on the credibility of the case". I'm not too sure about that. And I suspect that Morgan would also disagree. I actually think that was his main point. Never mind. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * From what I said before, Harry's truthfulness wouldn't impact the case's credibility. There was a lot of evidence in the trial, not all of it from Harry, and it was adjudicated impartially, in keeping with judicial independence. The reliability of the evidence used will have been determined and considered. You wouldn't assume everything given in evidence is the truth. The ruling came from the judge and court, not Harry. Therefore, Harry's truthfulness is immaterial to the case and its ruling. If Morgan disagrees, he's wrong. 13tez (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @13tez I agree totally with your analysis of Morgan's rant. It must be removed from the phone hacking section. Morgan himself played no part in the MGN trial and shied away from the witness list. There is perhaps a case to include a brief reference to the rant in another section. Jaymailsays (talk) 01:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Whether Morgan played any part in the trial is irrelevant to the fact that the judge concluded that he must have been aware of the hacking. In fact he did not deny that in his statement to the press - he just said he had never hacked any phone or asked anyone else to hack a phone. Also I'm not sure he "shied away from the witness list". He said he had never been asked to appear, or provide a written statement, by either side and would have happily done so if he had been asked to do so? There's an argument for adding more of Morgan's statement, not removing it altogether. I'm really not sure why it should be moved to another part of the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Martinevans123, I'm afraid that I agree with @Jaymailsays when they say that the quote should be included in another section, if at all.
 * For the reasons I've already outlined in other replies, his comments attacking Harry have no impact on the trial or alleged phone hacking more broadly. The judge's ruling, which included saying Morgan - among others - was aware of and involved in the phone hacking, is relevant as it is a key and widely reported outcome of the case. Including Morgan's denial is then also important, in order to provide balance. But again, I think his comments attacking Harry, even though in the same statement, are irrelevant to the subject of this case or the alleged phone hacking more generally. Perhaps it would be reasonable to say he attacked Harry during his response to the trial, without the need for any direct quote?
 * I would add that even though I agree that "He said he had never been asked to appear by either side and would have happily done so if he had been asked?" we shouldn't assume he is telling the truth here, or generally. He did say in his statement the ruling found only one article about Harry to be the result of hacking, despite the ruling finding 15 out of the 33 sample articles about Harry as being the product of phone hacking or other unlawful information gathering. 13tez (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * He said "just one article relating to the prince published in The Daily Mirror during my entire nine-year tenure as editor"? He also effectively called Omid Scobie and Alastair Campbell both liars. Perhaps the more relevant quote would be: "I also want to reiterate, as I've consistently said for many years now, I've never hacked a phone or told anybody else to hack a phone." As the editor, of course, it's very unlikely he would ever have done any of the asking. And he also doesn't deny that he knew it was going on. I still think the nasty jibe about the sun-tanned Prince, thrown in as a punchline, clearly frames the rest of that statement and shows it in its true light. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * All 15 were about Harry; see my above reference from the Guardian. Maybe only 1 of those 15 were during his time as editor? That's the only way both statements don't contradict one another. Regardless, he rejected the finding he was involved in phone hacking outright, so we shouldn't expect his statements and the case's findings not to contradict each other. 13tez (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't find his statement contradictory, just betraying his resentment and bile. It may also have contained lies, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, except that his statement was contradictory to the case: he outright denied some of the case's findings.
 * How about something like this?
 * In a statement made after the High Court's ruling, Morgan rejected the finding that he was involved in phone hacking and reviled Harry. His statement was met with criticism.  13tez (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No objections. That seems well-balanced and well-sourced. (He also reviled Scobie and Campbell, of course) Thanks. Your suggestion is quite dull and lacks the colour of the catty Morgan quip. But then this is an encyclopaedia, isn't it, not a British tabloid that's been thoroughly discredited. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC) p.s. one can't help but ponder about the timing of the Scobie brown-baby "Dutch misprint", can one?
 * I just made an edit applying these changes, with some tweaks that I think improved clarity. Please let me know if you have any objections.
 * He did condemn Scobie and Campbell too, yes. Sir Fancourt determined Scobie to be a reliable witness, however, and is certainly more qualified to do so than Morgan or I. Another reason not to take Morgan's statement seriously or give it too much prominence, besides unnecessarily covering minutiae. 13tez (talk) 18:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * One of the issues missed in all this is that MGN have admitted phone hacking during Morgan's editorship. A more important anomaly perhaps is that messages Harry left on other peoples phones (friends/family) were being hacked but were not taken into consideration by the judge as they were not party to the High Court claim.
 * This could be career ending for Morgan but Murdoch may stand by him (for now). The rant is a distraction, nothing more, a reference to it with a citation is a better compromise. Otherwise Harry's statement would deserve inclusion, something I am not advocating. Jaymailsays (talk) 18:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a very good point. Yes, I suspect for breakfast we'll soon see that Morgan is a bit burnt. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Jaymailsays, I think that if you can add the facts in your first paragraph in a manner that's concise and well-sourced, in accordance with WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOR, and WP:VER, you should go for it! 13tez (talk) 22:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for a level-headed and sensible discussion. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)