Jump to content

Talk:Shepard Smith/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

NPOV

This article seems quite negative of him compared to other news folks. It needs a bit of work to organise things in a manner that doesnt convey a point of view. Rangeley 16:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello. I am a very big fan of Shepard Smith and I have to disagree with you, Rangeley. Shepard Smith has made mistakes in the past and since he is employed by FOX News, it is only appropriate that we're showing all sides of Smith's career. It is a "Fair and Balanced" look at Smith, with both positive and negative comments included. Thanks. September 1, 2005 - 21:49. J.R.
I cleaned it up a bit. I didn't really add or take away any content, but I did put all of the controversial things in their own section to make it clear that his life and career consist of more than that. Seems to me the NPOV tag can be removed. I don't see anything that violates it. I think the controversial topics can all be there -- and I happen to be kind of a fan of his, too.
I was not saying remove them, I was saying present them in a better manner. Much of the article was filled sporatically with his errors, which generally isnt the norm. It is much better now that its been reorganised, this is what I was looking for. Thanks. Rangeley 01:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Sexual Orientation

(phil, it is relevant cause it's a fact. will you also hide the fact that he's white or a man? 206.248.104.4 04:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC))

The fact is-- it's irrelevant. It should not be interesting if he was gay (although it appears that he is not) and it should not be interesting if he was not gay.

Irrelevant. Period.

Phil

168.103.223.60 21:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


From the Washington Blade:

Link:

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2005/10-21/view/editorial/come-out.cfm

Cooper isn’t the only well-known TV personality hiding his sexual orientation. Shepard Smith, who hosts a popular program on Fox News and received widespread praise for his work covering Hurricane Katrina’s aftermath, also dodges questions about his sexual orientation.

Smith once chatted me up in a New York City gay piano bar, bought me drinks, and invited me back to his place. When I declined, he asked me to dinner the next night, another invitation I politely refused.

We sat at the bar chatting and drinking martinis until 3 a.m., our conversation interrupted only when he paused to belt out the lyrics to whatever showtune was being performed.

Please note new edit regarding his personal life, as it disputes the claim of his being 'gay,' especially since Mr. Smith himself referred to his girlfriend in this particular TV Guide article, of July 31st-August 6th, 2005, issue. GlobalTraveller, December 16th, 2005 P.S. And anyone whom is a 'fan' of Mr. Smith's knows that he is a beer drinker, not one to consume martinis, as this individual claims, erroneously.

This is all tabloid rumor junk. This is why nobody takes Wikipedia seriously. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.184.57.201 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

People were taking Wikipedia seriously? I hope not... Anyway, with regard to Shepard being gay: he could certainly be said to be a little camp. So he could be gay. Most of the camp people I know are gay. 90.205.92.29 (talk) 03:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps, but that is still original research without any credible sourcing behind it. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
This is also why it has mostly been removed, for just this reason. -- Huntster T • @ • C 02:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone is repeatedly vandalizing this Wikipedia site in an attempt to drive traffic to their WashingtonBlade website. Offending material removed and arrest and dismissal moved from first line of article to more relevant position in an attempt to maintain a more neutral point of view. This article is still quite openly disparaging. -Paradoxian, 6 March 2007

I'm not sure how the article is openly disparaging. Also, the Washington Blade link wasn't an attempt at advertising, just some misguided editor's notion that the events described there are notable, or even reliable or verifiable. I don't have any problem with that being removed, but the rest seems to be okay. It is just difficult to write an article about someone who doesn't like talking about himself! — Huntster (t • @ • c) 09:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Verbal Slip

Put all the Jay Leno verbal slip info into this section to avoid the confusion of having verbal slip stuff in two places. It seems like the paragraph on this appearance needs an edit for NPOV and importance. Would it suffice to say the video was shown and everyone had a good laugh including Smith? Please comment and if no one minds, I'll take a stab at it. Misstory 12:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Your edits look good to me. I see nothing amiss. -- Huntster T • @ • C 13:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Sexuality

I think that Wikipedia has no right to debate or attempt to verify one's sexuality. Wikipedia is meant to present the facts and report nothing else. So until further evidence is brought forth, he should be considered straight and left alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.52.142.5 (talk • contribs)

But it is a fact that there is a question (consisting of rumour and innuendo) regarding his sexuality. 90.205.92.29 (talk) 03:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
A question entirely based on an editorial opinion piece, which, again, has no reliable sourcing behind it. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Look, on the one hand we have a reporter who give a first hand (though brief) account of Smith trying to pick him up in a gay bar. On the other hand smith has made no comment on the story. Then we have his possible engagement, which I think needs to be verified. What should we do? Ace-o-aces 12:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


I don't mean to spam-- but I am re-posting this here--

The fact is-- it's irrelevant. It should not be interesting if he was gay (although it appears that he is not) and it should not be interesting if he was not gay.

Irrelevant. Period.

Phil

168.103.223.60 21:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no PROOF of any engagement. The user who calls herself beluved and some other names, needs to stop putting in information that has no proof. There are no articles in any publication, there are no video clips or sound bites. It is total hearsay. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for rumor. It is to be used for researchable fact.
Then shouldnt the whole thing be dropped? Rangeley 19:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Yup.
He is a gorgeous, gorgeous man. Truth9876 07:23, 24 May 2006

Some people are not gay. It is possible for a person to be straight only and not gay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.43.181 (talk) 14:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are people trying to lable the washington blade article as flase. the sextion on his sexulaity presents both sides of the issue in a neutral fashion, and should be kept in its current form. Ace-o-aces 17:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Think of it like this...to use the word False is improper, because it has not been proven one way or another (there is not even proof, really, that a girlfriend exists). Personally, I think the Blade article probably is incorrect, but that's the thing about NPOV...you can't use your feelings, only what can be proven. And in this case, there isn't much. Leave the article as it is, situated in a neutral fashion, until something more solid becomes available at a later date. -- Huntster T • @ • C 18:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Rather than get into an edit war over this sentence, a citation needed reference was put on this some time ago. There is no citable basis for the whole "Patricia", "keep her under wraps" sentence. Please provide a citation or it should be removed. Simply putting it back when someone takes it out is not the answer. What do others think? - Misstory -

I agree with you Misstory. This person claims that there is proof, that he's talked about this "Patricia" person on his show. That is totally false. I watch Studio B everyday and there have never been any comments on it. The closest thing that has ever been said was on the second day of the RNC in NYC at MSG, in 2004, that he had a date to a party, the previous evening. No details were ever given. In fact, I believe that he said "There's nothing to talk about." To me, it's just someone looking for attention. -Ruby-

Since when is someones sexuality considered a controvery? So what if he is engaged or had a date or is gay or not? Sexuality choice is not controvery and does not belong here.

You can tell there has been a lot of controversy among editors about this topic. You are right, it is not really a controversy, but it is information presented in a neutral way. And, it is cited information. No reason it can't stay somewhere. I will try creating a new section called Personal. Other biographies have it. 65.189.134.250 12:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The stuff about Smith's personal life is gossipy junk and shouldn't be here at all. What someone else thinks about it is irrelevant. If he has nothing to say about it, then there is nothing to say about it except that "he has nothing to say about it." This website is alleged to be an encyclopedia, not National Enquirer. Wahkeenah 14:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Waht's there now is fine. We don't know until there is something certain published. However, the history of this article has been that the gay rumor keeps getting put back. People were adding unsubstantiated info about girlfriends, engagements. The articles presented two sides. I would like to leave the quote from the Playboy article. It is NPOV, and right from Smith. Also, whether something is "gossipy junk" is purely subjective. By removing it are you not pushing your point of view. Misstory 14:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes, it looks good as it is. It contains just the known facts: he was married once, and he won't comment on any aspect of his private life. That one guy's column has no place here, for at least two reasons. One is that it messed with my PC, which makes it suspect. Also, it's by some columnist who specializes in "outing" people, who's saying "He won't say, but I think he is, or some guy I talked to thinks he is." Citing that column is a sneaky way of pushing a point of view, which could be either pro- or anti-homosexual. My point of view is that this website should be "encyclopedic", which I take to mean factual and readable, rather than being what it is too often, namely a weblog pretending to be an encyclopedia; and that it shouldn't cite opinions in the absence of facts. I think we both agree that the article covers Smith's private life sufficiently. If he someday makes another statement about his private life, or if someone proves something about his private life, as opposed to simply repeating gossip, that could be a different story. Wahkeenah 18:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I can't find any guidelines that dictate suitability of cited references. I think it may be by agreement of editors on an article. Read back through the history, the "Gay Rumor" discussion. Adding the cite was a compromise to acknowledge the rumor and seemed to limit the vandalism to the article. It was done in good faith, not as a sneaky way to get the gay rumor in. Also, the cites to references to a girlfriend or not were meant to stave off the vandalism about engagements and "significant others", that seemed to be put there just to balance the gay thing. What's there now is really much better. Nice work collaborating to make a better article! Misstory 19:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
      • POV-pushing is bad, vigorous debate is good. I understand about the "compromise" position. I've had to deal with that kind of thing in some other articles. Keep in mind that a camel is a "compromise" horse developed by a committee, to paraphrase the old saying. Basically, you want to keep the lumps to a minimum. In connection with rumors, I ought to check the Kevin Spacey page and see what's going on there, if anything. I recall a Playboy interview where he was asked, and he basically asserted that he's straight. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't, maybe verifiable information has surfaced since then. But until it comes from the horse's (or camel's) mouth, or from someone who actually knows something, it doesn't belong here, as I see it, because anyone can write anything about anybody, especially public figures. Was it Errol Flynn who said, "I don't care what they write about me, as long as it's not true"? I don't think we want to follow that approach here. :) Wahkeenah 19:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
      • In taking a quick look at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, the key point in this area seems to be citing a reputable source, rather than just any old source that happens to present a column that an editor here agrees with. If the columnist is speculating on someone's private life, it would probably be necessary to do some research on that guy and see how often he has been right (and wrong) about such speculation in the past. Just because he represents a viewpoint is insufficient. If it were in an article about the appropriateness of outing, I might argue that the columnist's opinion could merit some attention (provided he gets rid of the popups). Wahkeenah 19:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

There is a major need for someone with admin privs to block user "207.200.116.67" and remove his previous edits. This article is constantly having to be reverted due to this person's actions. Huntster 17:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand. Can somebody PLEASE protect this page! Ace-o-aces 19:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Can someone please lock this page? You have a person on here with the ip of "4.243.56.167" and in that similar range, who is vandalizing this bio. It's getting ridiculous. The claims that are being made have no authenticity and can not be verified. One mention of a S/O and this chick wacks out. She once told a friend of mine that she was in fact his S/O. That can be proven false. The spreading of false lies do not do justice. Please do something. Consider this a written complaint. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.161.153.135 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Since my comments for deletion won't show up on the edit history page, for some reason.... my above comment is not "rubbish". I've verified ip addys from wikipedia and from my own board, in which a certain person is making inferences to a girlfriend. She has nothing other than a non direct quote from TV Guide. This very same person claims to be his s/o. I have the message that she sent. It can be proven false, not true, someone just looking for attention. Signed ~ Ruby —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.161.153.135 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit comments

FactoidFinder, I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you were asking in your article edit comment. Can you please clarify here?   --   Huntster (Talk • Contribs • Email) 13:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Photo

I'm not sure why people are wanting to replace the image in the article. It really doesn't matter that it "doesn't show his personality"...this is an encyclopedia, not a glamour shoot. It is a high-quality official publicity photo, and that should be the higher consideration. ···Q Huntster (T) • @ • (C) 15:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverts (FOS)

FOS, I understand you are probably doing this out of good intention, but I don't think you understand the process. It doesn't matter, in this case, if the article was true or not. It presented a side of the arguement, and now other sides have been presented. By calling the article False or Slanderous is NPOV, even with an absolute fact to oppose it. An in this instance, there isn't such an absolute fact. A girlfriend has been mentioned, but a neither a full name or anything else has been produced, and it'd be quite easy to simply throw that info out there and it not be true. In this case, I fully expect that it *is* true, but that isn't for us to decide. Until such a time as it is otherwise refuted or disproven, leave the line about the Blade article alone, please. A revert war will not be tolerated. -- Huntster T • @ • C 22:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Bobby Sands

Well, I am convinced that FOS must work for FOX News. Legitimate entries being censored non-stop. It is an important fact and should be included in the bio.

While reporting for FOX News, Smith mused "On this date, Bobby Sands died after 66 days on a hunger strike in prison in Belfast N.I.. The moral of the story - eat more often!". This caused outrage among some disgusted Irish viewers who considered it to be an utterly insensitive comment, and led to the creation of an online petition [2] for a retraction of the comment and an apology.

Marthastewart 13:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be good to include it, just say what show it appeared one (Studio B or Fox Report) and what day for references, and make it NPOV (which is something others can do if necessary). -- Huntster T • @ • C 20:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Battery - "Payoff"

The word payoff is a quote from a cited article. Do quotes have to be NPOV? And who is to decide if a word from a quote is suitable? I looked up "Payoff" when I added the cite and its primary definition is a settlement. I don't think it implies "bribe", actually I think it's funny that someone can accuse someone of a crime and then say it wasn't a crime after all when a "settlement" is made. Really, what's the difference? Is the problem that people think it paints Smith in a bad light? If that is a criteria, then shouldn't all the other controversies just be removed? I think the quote should stay. Misstory 23:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

  • It doesn't matter what the "primary definition" of "payoff" is. It has several shades of meaning, all of them colloquial or "slangy". It could mean winning a bet at a racetrack. It could mean winning a prize of some kind, either monetary or psychological. In this context, it implies either a bribe, or perhaps the opposite, as you suggest: "extortion". Either way, it implies "hush money". Since the terms are secret, we don't know the circumstances, so we are no position to infer anything other than the basic fact that a settlement occurred. The fact that some news writer feels like calling it a "payoff" does not justify us doing it here. The neutral term "settlement" and a link to the detailed article are sufficient. Wahkeenah 23:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
You think the word implies something, doesn't mean the quote shouldn't stay. I'd really like to get a call on whether quotes need to be NPOV. Misstory 23:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I know what "payoff" means. I speak American English natively. Go ahead and find a moderator, by all means, and let's get this issue settled. My observations on how this site works are that when quotes are used merely to push a point of view, they are not allowed. They have to be backed by facts. If the writer of that piece has proof it was hush money, that's one thing. But since the settlement was secret, he's in no legal position to know that. He's using "payoff" as a smear, or at least as a sarcastic comment, possibly against both parties. He's pushing a point of view. Which he can do if he wants to, for whatever news agency he's working for... but not here. Wahkeenah 00:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
And I see you've reverted for the fourth time in far less than a day. That's another rules violation. Don't make me turn you in. I don't like being a wiki-nanny. Wahkeenah 00:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I have asked an admin to look at this page. Wahkeenah 00:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. It will be really good to get a call on this. I can find nothing that says a quote from a cited article needs to be NPOV. Also, please try to be friendly, there is no need to threaten me because you disagree. Misstory 00:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I have not threatened anything. I have advised you (as well as the admin) that you are in violation of the 3 revert rule. It's grounds for an administrative "slap", theoretically. So, in essence, I did "turn you in". But I did not ask for any punitive measures. 00:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, note that the Manual of Style states fairly clearly that quotes are to remain unchanged from the source, unless it cannot be avoided. Whether it is NPOV or not doesn't matter, because a quote simple reflects what was stated. Let's not get into a war over this trivial matter, just leave the quote (or now that I've modified it, quotes) alone. Payoff does *not* imply any negativity unless the reader wishes to attribute such a meaning, and there's nothing we can do about that. -- Huntster T • @ • C 01:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
It DOES matter; it CAN be avoided; and there IS something you can do about it: state that it was a "settlement", which is what it was, legally. The only reason for citing that exact wording is to push a point of view. And "payoff" IS a negative in this context, unless you think bribery, exortion and "hush money" are GOOD things. If the admin tells me I'm wrong, so be it. But for now, I stand by my story. Wahkeenah 02:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Complaint

Where is the factual information about Mr. Smith? All I see is rubbish about his supposed homosexuality. You jerks need to grow up-and this is coming from a Conservative Republican from Oklahoma. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.216.187.41 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The article itself is fine at this point; it is just a lot of people on this talk page feel that some mention of his sexuality should be mentioned. There just isn't anything but rumour and potential libel about it at this point, so it has no place. -- Huntster T • @ • C 04:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

i tend to agree: this artivcle is full of fluff: its is totally unimportant to discuss his katrina coverage at such length. also: if he does not comment on his personal life, and nothing is known from (credible) third party sources, then it should not be mentioned here. lastly: someone has inserted the recent vandalism of this article by a FNC-IP - I tend to think that this issue is being blown way out of proportion and doesn't belong in this article, as it does not pertain to the subject.--Nevrdull 19:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Good edits, removing that extraneous stuff. However, I've restored the section about his personal life, as this points toward his character of maintaining privacy. We don't want to exclude everything personal to the preference of his professional life...it makes the article much more imbalanced. Right now, as-is, I think it looks fairly decent given the material we have to work with. -- Huntster T • @ • C 23:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Fox News Editing

Is the FOX News IP editing really something noteworthy from an encyclopedic standpoint? Seems like it is a smear against a person (for whom I don't really have respect nor disrespect) without proof. I think it violates the "no original research" rule of Wikipedia. I also strongly believe that it is not, in fact, appropriate in the "controversies" section. If this wants to be noted, I propose that it be placed in a disclaimer that this article has been edited by someone in the organization with whom the subject is related. But I don't think it should be in the body of the article. 198.172.201.160 04:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops... I did not actually intend to continue an edit war when I deleted the "Fox News Editing" section. I am just proposing that the burden of citation should be on the people who want to keep it posted (as opposed to the people who do not feel it belongs). If this section stays, I think it is unfairly NPOV and does so by implication against Shepard Smith, rather than by solid facts. In fact, any wrongdoing may not have been done by him at all. Please feel free to discuss. I don't have an interest in protecting the man, but I'm more interested in the integrity of the NPOV rules and having a balanced article that contains only information of encyclopedic interest. 198.172.201.160 04:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Greetings and thanks for opening this discussion. I initially removed the section myself because no evidence of notability had been presented, along with no citations. However, the citation was provided, and the entire WikiScanner thing has gotten a significant amount of press coverage, from both left and right wing sources. Thus, I reversed and expanded/copyedited it myself. I would suggest that in light of this, it should definitely not be considered a POV type thing. Heck, I'm fairly right-wing, but facts are facts, and this edit and many other like it did come from IP addresses dedicated to Fox News/News Corp. While it cannot be determined if it was a rogue employee doing this or an authorised effort on behalf of Fox News, that is irrelevant to this particular section. It merely states that an IP from Fox made these edits, and that WikiScanner made it apparent. Nowhere does it make any sort of implication against Shepard Smith (I'd be the first to remove it if it did), and if you look at this history of the IP making the edits, it has edited far more than just Smith's article. -- Huntster T • @ • C 19:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I 2nd Hunter's statement. In the US, the coverage of the Fox News Wikipedia editing was very broad with numerous TV segments and newspaper articles over a period of 3-4 days. In particular, Shepard Smith's editing was highlighted a number of times, for example in one of the sources cited in the latest revision of the "Fox News Editing" section. Thus, "no original research" doesn't apply to the event. The idea about having a disclaimer about self-editing is fair, however to my knowledge no such standard disclaimer exists at the present time. 72.189.31.120 14:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Not necessary to a biography, period! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.119.107.74 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 30 August 2007

Care to support your statement with an argument? We are trying to identify pros and cons, not the loudest voices.72.189.31.120 15:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention, it is inappropriate to unilaterally remove sections when a debate is ongoing. I've provided citations, refuted statements again the section and gave reasons why it is notable and valid for inclusion. Please provide reasons and precedent for why it should not be. -- Huntster T • @ • C 15:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I already sent you an E-Mail on why it wasn't necessary.

This incident isn't about the subject, it's about Wikipedia and Fox News. There's no good reason to descibe who has been editing this article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

We can't dodge the fact that Smith's bio was edited by generalizing all the way up to the fact that Fox News was involved. By the same line of argument we shouldn't write about Shepard Smith and instead should stick to an article about Fox News anchors. Bottom line is that cleaning up of Smith's bio happened and it was done from the Fox News organization. Regardless of their intent in doing the cleanup, the result was a controversy, covered in the cited article and in the general media.72.189.31.120 23:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
How many biographies contain self-references about how they were edited? None, I hope. Wikipedia:Avoid self-reference. If Fox News engaged in editing Wikipedia articles then we might include that in the articles on Wikipedia or Fox News. I don't see how it's important to the life of Shepard Smith, which is the topic of this article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. Wikipedia:Avoid self-reference has a WP:WAWI provision which also calls out an example of a wikipedia biography article with a self reference: John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy. Shepard Smith's article played a major role as a prime example cited on TV and in press of FOX News cleaning up the Wikipedia articles on their employees.72.189.31.120 19:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
The only source listed metnions this article as an example, but it does not say that this is an important event in the life of the subject. We have zero evidence that the subject was involved, and even if we did it's not unual for a subject to edit their article. Until someone can find a source which ties this to the subject in a meaningful way, I'm deleting this. Feel free to add it to the Fox News article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous: you are making up policies as you go. "an important event in the life of the subject" is not the criteria for an autobiographic article on Wikipedia. If you look up WP:BLP, note that a bio article "should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject". You haven't argued anything against the cited source or against the POV manner of the presentation on the subject of the Fox News editing.72.189.31.120 16:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
This isn't about the subject. No one has said "Shepard Smith edited Wikipedia." ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
That's a strawman argument, the point has always been that editing Smith's wikipedia article is relevant to Smith's bio, just like controversial editing of John Seigenhaler's article is relevant to his bio. The fact that Smith didn't self-edit the article is irrelevant. Consider if Smith's biography article on the Fox News website was hacked to say something controversial about him, like that he is gay. If news channels picked up the story, regardless of who hacked the site, it is a notable, news worthy event with an impact on the reputation of the anchor. Ignoring superficialities, is this situation any different? 72.189.31.120 22:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Siegenthaler was a different circumstance - that raised a scandal in its own right, to which Siegenthaler himself was a contributor. This article is about Smith, not about the article on Smith. I don't see how any of this affects the subject's reputation, and I haven't seen any reliable source assert that it does. And I'd hardly call editing Wikipedia "hacking". We encourage people to edit here, so long as they can contribute in a neutral fashion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

If I may, I believe he was making a "what if" statement about his Fox News website profile being hacked, not Wikipedia. -- Huntster T • @ • C 23:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I understand, but my point was that hacking into a Fox News website and editing a Wikipedia article are not comparable activities. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see. However, I would counter that in a way they are, as in this situation both would be considered malicious to greater or lesser degrees. To me, at least, editing an article and vandalising an article are two very different tasks. -- Huntster T • @ • C 00:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
If we made a note in every article that is vandalized recording the IP adresses or usernames of the vandals then Wikipedia articles would all triple in size. I don't see editing, or vandalism, to be notable. To the extant that it is worth noting it concerns Fox News and Wikipedia not Shepard Smith. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
We are not asking to make a note in every article that was vandalized. We are highlighting a single article, which wasn't just vandalized, it was 1) cleaned up to remove controversial information about the subject by the subject's employer who has direct interest in preserving subject's reputation 2) the fact that subject's article was cleaned up was sufficiently notable to be publicized in news sources including print and TV. 72.189.31.120 02:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
It was not cleaned up by the subject's employer, it was edited by someone using a computer at Fox. If an IP from a university was found to have edited a professor's article it would not be notable. If an IP from Paramount Studios edited the article about an actor, that wouldn't be notable either. The articles that mention this were about Wikipedia, not about Smith. They just mention this article as an example. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the point about the article getting edited by just someone at Fox. I'm sure you know that Fox is responsible for what is done from their property (i.e. network/computers). I also don't need to get into details why in general an organization may be held responsible in a court of law based on how their property is used. In fact, this principle is so important that Australian DoD decided to pull access to Wikipedia editing from DoD employees after the WikiScanner scandal [[1]]. Otherwise you are right, if the article was edited by someone who has no interest in Smith's reputation, e.g. a random professor in a university, there wouldn't be story here. However, if in your scenario Paramount was cleaning up an article of its own actor to delete controversial information and if the story got traction in the news, I would argue just like I argued here, that actor's bio article should reflect this fact. Finally, you say that articles that mention editing were about Wikipedia. That is very much cherry picking of facts. I can also argue that the article was about WikiScanner not about Wikipedia. The bottom line is that the article highlights the facts that 1) Fox News' IP were used to clean up the article from controversies 2) Fox News has a stake in reputation of its anchors 3) the editing was newsworthy because of the perception that Fox News cleaned up the article of Smith to make his record look cleaner than it is.72.189.31.120 02:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Those are all reasons to mention this in the articles about Wikiscanner, Wikipedia, and/or Fox News. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The length and the content of your response just shows how indifferent you are to debating this topic, you prefer to keep pushing your agenda. The whole issue of editing of the Smith's bio is Smith's reputation. There is no better place to write about Smith's reputation than Smith's bio article.72.189.31.120 03:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
When someone writes that this has affected Smith's reputation, then it'll be relevant. If I were indifferent I wouldn't be participating in this discussion. What agenda are you asserting that I am pushing? What is your agenda? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If you read my comments it is obvious that my agenda is to produce clear and exhaustive arguments as to why the issue is important to Smith's bio. Huntster and I have provided numerous arguments that you haven't refuted: 1) The material we are debating is within the WP:BLP criteria that the bio "should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject" 2) The self-reference exclusion WP:BLP doesn't apply to this situation under WP:WAWI provision 3) The incident editing of Smith's bio was newsworthy because of the perceived attempt to keep Smith's reputation clean 4) There is a precedent for this type of information in John_Seigenthaler,_Sr.#Wikipedia_controversy article. I am going to add a reference to the WikiScanner controversy to the section on Fox News editing and put that information back in. If you continue your groundless reverts, I will push for an independent review of the bio.72.189.69.13 12:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The information on Fox News IPs editing Wikipedia is already in the Fox News article. Whoever put it there didn't even think it important to include Shepard Smith as one of the examples. The fact isn't included in any of the other articles that were edited. This information is trivial to the subject's life and we routinely remove trivia from biographies. , and is irrelevant to the biography. It is just your peception that it was an official attempt to keep the subject's reputation clean. The WAWI exemption applies to "articles where Wikipedia played a major role in the subject of the article," and that is clearly no the case here, unlike w/ Siegenthaler. he incident isn't newsworthy in connection to the suject, just to Fox News and Wikipedia. You accuse me of an agenda but you can't tell me what that agenda is. What I see is a single purpose account who is determined to insert a piece of information intended to be derogatory. My removal of this trivia is clearly not groundless, and if you want it in you'll need to get more input to form a consensus. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
You are wrong again, and this is an outrageous display of irresponsibility on part of an admin! If you even bothered to check the Fox News article you'd see that Smith is listed as one of the examples of the wiki editing! It seems like to you the word consensus means "as long as everyone agrees with me". Huntster and I have been dismantling your arguments point by point while you continue to ignore the fact that Smith was highlighted both in the cited news source and on TV as a prime example of someone involved in the editing controversy. How can you in good faith come back to us and argue that Smith's bio editing isn't newsworthy when we pointed you to the news source citing Smith as an example?! Finally, to answer your question, I do have an agenda and it is to make sure that deletionists like you don't go around and remove valuable information from articles. How can I believe in your good faith if you start labeling demonstrated facts about Smith as derogatory? Even if you think the Seigenthaler controversy is "non-trivial" while Smith's is "trivial", Wikipedia doesn't revolve around you. 72.189.69.13 18:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I see two editors who want to add this information, and two editors who don't. Hence there is no consensus to include it. I've asked for sources which describe this as affecting the subject's reputation and none have been provided. No one has asserted that the subject was involved in this editing controversy. Is there any proof that this "controvery" has "played a major role in the subject of the article"? If there is then I'd change my mind. If you'd like more input on this I suggest filing an RfC. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the consensus -- since start of the discuss there were 2 editors on both pro and con side. Despite of that you went ahead and removed the content. The cited source reads: "Wikipedia has long been the target of editing for the sake of image management, not to mention disparagement.. The source then proceeds to give examples of older editing controversies such as the one with US Senators and other companies. Then source highlights the latest situation: "Fox News (12.167.224.228) edited Fox News anchor Shepard Smith's Wikipedia entry to remove a paragraph about Smith's 2000 arrest "for aggravated battery with a motor vehicle." I hope I don't need to spell it out for you that image of Fox News depends on the image/reputation of its anchors. Finally were did you pull the "played a major role" clause from?72.189.69.13 22:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how inclusion of the material can be regarded as the "status quo" - it has been contested continuously. The burden is on those who wish to include information, and biographies of living peple have the highest threshold for inclusion. I've never disputed that the info belongs in the Fox News article, it was from one of their computers that the edits were made. It just doesn't belong here. WP:WAWI says:
When we have an article titled "Shepard Smith biography controversy" then there won't be any question about including the material here. Until then I don't see any evidence that this episode has any relevance to the life of Smith, much less playing a "major role" in it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

(←) On the particular issue of consensus, I will agree with Will. Given how truly contentious this particular bit is, and the fact that it stands at 2 for/2 against, we should err on the side of caution and the material should be left out of the article until something can be decided upon either way. Beyond that, I have nothing else to say on the matter, other than I still believe it to be notable enough for inclusion. -- Huntster T • @ • C 03:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Verbal slip section removed

I took this out because it was just about a mistake he made doing his job. Way too trivial to mention in an encyclopedia article. His employer said it was no big deal. If the reason it is included is because it is supposed to reveal something about his psyche then that would be original research. Thanks. Steve Dufour 00:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree and was going to bring it up too. It's a very minor incident that hardly merits attention in s short biography. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The primary reason it was included is because it was, as the time, something which garnered considerable attention from various media sources, both because of the humour involved and his general high profile. No big deal in its removal, in my mind. -- Huntster T • @ • C 01:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The removal of this information is unacceptable. The criteria of "trivial to mention in an encyclopedia" isn't a standard in any of the applicable policies. If you have a cited source indicating that Fox said it was a big deal, then add it to the section, but put the section back in. 72.189.69.13 13:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
As editors we have the right to judge if information is important or not. If everything known about someone was put into an article it would be unreadable. Steve Dufour 15:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:BLP alsogoverns our actions. Trivia about people is strongly discouraged. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal life section removed

This section was just a quote from an interview in which he said he didn't want to talk about his personal life. That doesn't seem worth mentioning in an encyclopedia article. As in the case of the other section, it would not be right to include the information so that readers can draw conclusions from it. Steve Dufour 00:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

While I do agree it is minor, I think it may be important for inclusion because it shows there is little available knowledge about his personal life, by his own word. It also serves to keep editors from adding speculation and other unsourced material, because it clearly states that there is very little to know. In this way it is a means to an end. Perhaps I simply am viewing it in a narrow light, but I don't see how conclusions can be drawn from it when it basically gives nothing to draw upon. By the way, I thank you for discussing the reasons here instead of simply removing as was done before. Cheers for that. -- Huntster T • @ • C 01:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The quote serves as evidence of his position about discussing his personal life. Furthermore the quote explains why there is so little information in that section in the 1st place. Put the section back in.72.189.69.13 13:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. You might be right about this one. If you decide to put it back I will not object. Still it does seem kind of odd to have a section saying that nothing is known about the topic of the section. Steve Dufour 02:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll leave it out for now, see what other arguments there are, but it provides some detail/explanation rather than none at all. -- Huntster T • @ • C 04:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
We don't need a whole section, or even verbatim quotes. Since so little is known I'd think a line like "Smith has declined to answer questions about his private life" would be sufficient. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me, so long as some kind of source remains provided (probably the same one from this section will suffice). I'll leave it to your experience to place it in the article. -- Huntster T • @ • C 22:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Done. While I was at it I shuffled the sentences to get things into chronological order. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Interesting...not quite the route I would have taken re: shuffling, but I like it. -- Huntster T • @ • C 00:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Diana blurb removed

Is the Diana reporting really something noteworthy from an encyclopedic standpoint? Seems like it is a fluff piece about a person (for whom I don't really have respect nor disrespect) without proof. I think it violates the "no original research" rule of Wikipedia. I also strongly believe that it is not, in fact, appropriate in the "Career" section. If this wants to be noted, I propose that it be placed in a See also but I don't think it should be in the body of the article. 72.189.69.13 22:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

What? How on earth can this be controversial? The section is simply highlighting some of the major news events that Smith has covered. It got a little disjointed with the battery incident tossed in the middle of career points, but its still the same thing. -- Huntster T • @ • C 23:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Eye Makeup or Special Effects?

There seems to be some weird effect applied to Smith's eyes on the broadcast that does not seem like makeup and I am wondering if Fox is using some kind of digital effect enhancement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.248.81 (talk) 07:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I didn't think of that one either. Some people think it is too much makeup, and they also think that it could be special effects... I just think its the way his eyes, eyebrows, and eyelids are shaped. But I do wonder how in some broadcasts and pictures that he looks like he is literally 20 years older than he actually is, and other times he looks like he is literally 20 years younger than he actually is...

Go SineBot!! =] In-Correct (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The scandalous interview with Amanda Kokoeva

I understand the user Huntster trying to make his point of view be the only significant, calling me a "POV pusher", but I believe he also must prove why the link to another article with an additional information about this person should not be mentioned.

The Russian internet news service Gazeta.ru reported that the Fox News channel cut off an American-Ossetian girl, Amanda Kokoeva, after stating that she was attacked by Georgian forces and saved by the Russians,[261] although this is not the case in the interview uploaded to FOXNews.com on August 13. The New York Times published an article about the interview discrediting the claims of biased treatment. Fox News was also accused of censorship by the television channel Russia Today TV which showed its own interview with Amanda and earlier by several internet blogs and forums.

This is all about that interview of Shepard Smith with an Ossetian girl and her aunt, which has made him famous in many countries. This is therefore an important part of his career history. You can find this text in the article about the South Ossetia war. Yes, the wiki article about her has been deleted and removed to a bigger one, but it doesn't deny its existence. --David.s.kats (talk) 00:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Use of the word "scandalous" to describe a 4 minute interview shows that you are pushing a point of view. It was a very short interview. The girl described her experience. The aunt gave her thoughts. Smith took a commercial break and came back to the aunt and let her speak until his show ended. The girl was not cut off. This is not an important part of Smith's biography or career history.Misstory (talk) 02:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I agree. --David.s.kats (talk) 10:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Some Changes

I came upon this article today when I wanted to look up the bio of Mr. Smith. The flow of the article seemed a little disjointed to me, so I attempted to fix it. I haven't removed any content, except for condensing his news anchor accomplishments slightly, but I did so without changing the overall point of what was there earlier (I hope anyway). Mostly I added a couple of section headings, namely one titled "Subject of the News", to which I moved the information about his arrest in Florida. I just didn't think it fit in the career section, just made it kind of an awkward section in my opinion. I think the article reads better now, but if you disagree, feel free to make further changes. I'll keep an eye on the talk page here if there's anything anyone wants to discuss. Thanks, Raven1977 (talk) 04:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Overall the changes look quite good. However, bear in mind that section headers should not be capitalised except for proper nouns. I also removed a redundant mention about Princess Diana and fixed some date formatting. See this diff to see the fixes I made (ignore the delinking of dates, that's another issue). — Huntster (t • @ • c) 06:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm still familiarizing myself with the manual of style for Wikipedia, and I guess I missed that part about titling section headers. I appreciate the info as well as the fixes. Thanks! Raven1977 (talk) 20:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

What Radio Show?!

Just wondering when his radio show "Fox Report" is... I listen to said radio station all the time and have never heard of it. I think that saying about when his radio show is, is inaccurate... because if he has one, then it needs to have the correct time, and I think it needs to be verified also. In-Correct (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Certainly odd...I tried to find some info on the foxnewsradio.com site, and there's no mention of Smith anywhere. No mention on the official bio on foxnews.com. Two news articles, [2] and [3], explicitly state he took over the 5pm broadcast in 2005, however, the Sirius website programming schedule makes no mention of a "Fox Report" airing. I'll continue to look into it, and remove the mention if I can find nothing else. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 19:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I found it. =] It is barely 5 minutes. The rest of the hour switches over (and is Scheduled for) to Tom Sullivan. In-Correct (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Huh, so it is just a new update segment, rather than an actual show. Ah well, guess we can leave it in. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 22:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

hair

What about his hair? There is no mention of his hair. He was blond years ago and now he is just plain brown. I want to know why he stopped bleaching his hair! He looked great blond. That is all I have to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.37.85.10 (talk) 00:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think we'll be covering his change of hair colour :/ — Huntster (t @ c) 00:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Mention car chase + suicide?

Should this article mention the car chase + suicide incident (cf. [4]) (and the subsequent on-air apology)? --MZMcBride (talk) 06:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Possibly. It's an interesting incident and it reveals his character. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't see it being relevant to this article. Interesting situation, yes, but nothing worth adding here. — Huntster (t @ c) 13:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

This was clearly not relevant and had nothing of substance to say about Smith -- until I read it. This particular article clearly discusses Smith, Worth a mention, IMO. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Has Shepard Smith of Fox news been sick? I really miss him! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.44.72.112 (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Controversy section

In this section, it states that a man replied by saying, "that's none of your fucking business". How exactly is this controversial for Smith? Is it Smith who said this line; or was it controversial for him to provoke the resident, and ask him those questions? I just don't see how this is controversial for Shepard Smith -- because he wasn't the one who said it.

Added some references to this section. Not sure how to reference the links, but here they are below. The Tallahassee Democrat article is now just a summary in an archive, but hope it suffices.

1. St Petersburg Times http://www.sptimes.com/News/111800/State/National_TV_anchor_is.shtml

2. Tallahassee Democrat, Archived Summary

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?s_site=tallahassee&p_multi=TD%7C&p_product=TD&p_theme=gannett&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&s_dispstring=shepard%20smith%20AND%20date()&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=("shepard%20smith")&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no

Sorry, this link doesn't seem to work right from here. Can also see the summary by going to http://tallahasseedemocrat.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage and search Archive for "Shepard Smith"

Sexual orientation again

The article covering Anderson Cooper states (and sources): "Independent news media have reported that Cooper is gay". If such independent reports exist for Smith, (does this count?, it may (?) be appropriate under a "Personal life" section to include. I have to think about it. No reason to out someone for no reason, and such information may be totally irrelevant. Then again, this is a public figure and one who works for a highly conservative news network that advocates for public policy including gay rights and so forth. So it may be notable after all. It's way too late for me to think clearly on this. --Replysixty (talk) 09:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's SO dishonest. Anderson Cooper states that Anderson Cooper has publicly stated that he's gay. Shep has not. Also, I think this whole section violates the BLP policy, which, it's been said, applies on talk pages too. Would someone please mop it up? User:Capitalismojo? [Update: See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#BLP_-_Koch_brothers_vs_Shepard_Smith - let's discuss in one place.]--Elvey(t•c) 19:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
As is commonly said on Wikipedia, just because it is present in one article, doesn't make it right. So far, the only sources I've seen are from a gay-oriented magazine editorial, and from Shankbone's blog, which you link above. Neither are appropriate sources, especially the blog, since they represent personal opinions and observations, and not objective reporting. Smith has, thus far, been almost completely mum on his own personal life, though we know he was once married. Dunno, there just isn't enough information one way or another. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
The standard for a living person shouldn't be anything less than that person declaring "I'm gay." I never read the Shankbone blog post before,but it is odd that he posted in 2009 something he says happened in 2002. He says Smith was with a woman, yet he claims Smith told him he was gay and just coming to terms with it. Doesn't really add up, certainly not for wiki purposes. In late 2005, Smith had a serious enough girlfriend his co-anchor Jane Skinner pressed him on the air to learn if he had received an "engagement watch". For all we know, he's bi. I don't understand the urge to out him when all we really know is he's 46 years old and single. Misstory (talk) 18:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
"The standard for a living person" includes whether the person's sexuality has become a notable subject in the media, irrespective of what the person says. Smith was discussed in the documentary Outrage as being a gay journalist who is hostile to gays. His homophobia was said to be so hypocritical that he was included even though the film was primarily about closeted gay politicians who vote against gay rights. No other closeted journalist was outed—just Smith—because the others are not so hypocritical. Being mentioned in the film makes Smith's sexuality more notable than otherwise. Certainly, we cannot put him in any gay categories, as that requires him to declare, but we can bring to the article the allegations in the film. Binksternet (talk) 13:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
It seems that care/BLP should be used when deciding how notable gossip is and if it rises to the level of inclusion worthyness. I don't think this gossip/coverage/whateveryoucallit is as notable/widley mentioned as a gerbil being removed from an actor's azz, and we don't include that in a bio. How widely/big a deal is this "really" and according to whom exactly? --Threeafterthree (talk) 15:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
It's only widely known in the gay media, but there it is widely known. Other media have shown the story but it did not get great coverage. Our best bet at this point is to examine sources and determine notability. Binksternet (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Again, until it is confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt, or sources don't consist solely of rumours and gossip, this remains a BLP violation. To be perfectly blunt, I halfway suspect he's being targeted for "outing" (whether true or false) like this because he works for Fox, and that Naff and Shankbone are pushing some kind of agenda. As for the sources below, you can immediately discount any blogs or editorials as unreliable and unproveably fact-checked. Everything else seems to be simple commentary about the Naff and Shankbone blogs anyway, besides the movie, which I understand (as I've not seen it and have no plans to do so) simply outs him without any proof. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Of course Shep is being targeted for outing, just like Woodward and Bernstein were targeting Nixon, to hang the Watergate scandal on him. Nobody thinks Woodward and Bernstein finding a check which incriminated Nixon is any less significant because they were looking very hard for something like it. You appear to be confusing these two concepts: "he is gay" and "some media sources say he is gay". I agree we cannot put the first in, but the second is true "beyond a shadow of a doubt". Though Kevin Naff may not have been telling the truth, other media sources such as the Houston Post thought he was and they elaborated on it. Blogs which are picked up in print news gain notability. Though the film Outrage may not have been telling the truth, it is still a documentary film seen at notable film festivals, and commented on widely by major news sources. Binksternet (talk) 14:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources, in chron order

Terribly sorry, guess I should have come here first before my internal link to the Outrage film. On reflection, I feel his inclusion in a movie is relevant, much more so than the actual truth about his personal life (which I hardly think is relevant), so I'll let the edit stand and fall on its own merits. Happy arguing and/or revert-warring.Pär Larsson (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry Parj, but I reverted your edit. Until and unless Smith outs himself, inclusion here is a potentially a big, giant WP:BLP violation. All the talk about this seems to revolve around the Naff and the Shankbone pieces, neither of which I would consider reliable...there seems to be a lot of self-serving in both of them. There's simply not enough reliable evidence that Smith is gay, just heresay. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry Hunster, but I've reverted your reversion. Parj's edit was non-biased and reported what a film reported. Considering Out magazine has now included him as one of the most powerful gay men in America, to not include something about his alleged sexual orientation seems irresponsible. He also has been accused by the right for being too soft on gay marriage, with commentators like Rush Limbaugh then referencing his sexual orientation. While it's important that we include the fact he has never stated he is in fact gay, the allegations are clearly an important part of his status as a cultural icon at this time.Cat spasms (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Controversial claim about a living person

Yes, a notable film makes a controversial claim about Smith. It is a controversial claim a living person. The film is not a reliable source. As such, it does not belong here.

By way of comparison, a notable individual claims that numerous world leaders are lizard-like aliens from outer space. We do not include that controversial claim in any of their bios. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed; good point. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
WP:WELLKNOWN gives the proper guidance here, telling us that it is right and proper to tell about widely reported and notable allegations about a well-known public figure, even if those allegations are not proven. Binksternet (talk) 22:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I absolutely give up. I cannot comprehend why some people are so damn intent on outing others, regardless of truth. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
How would you personally know the truth about this situation? Wikipedia does not try to determine the truth, so that is a dead end argument, anyway. Instead, we report the main themes related to the topic. One of those themes is that Smith has been said to be gay by various persons, in prominent media. It does not matter whether he is gay—we just report the media fuss about it. Binksternet (talk) 00:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Nope. It is a "contentious claim" which requires extremely strong sourcing for claims about a person's sexuality. And we do not report that someone thinks he is gay - this has been discussed many times at BLP/N etc. and is a matter of policy and not one of optional usage. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually, we do in fact report that someone (who is prominent) thinks he is gay (if widely reported.) The relevant part of BLP is WP:WELLKNOWN. You refer to contentious material but the BLP guideline WP:BLPREMOVE specifies the immediate removal not of merely contentious material but of "unsourced or poorly sourced" contentious material. The material under discussion is well sourced, so its removal is not automatic or immediate. Binksternet (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
This removal of yours was without basis in policy. Binksternet (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the BLP noticeboard, the only Shep Smith discussion is this old one which was not initiated because of allegations of homosexuality, nor did it resolve such an issue. Binksternet (talk) 17:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you missed the many discussions about speculation about sexuality over the years on MANY BLP's? Please remember that this is not optional. Collect (talk) 17:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
You are confusing WP:BLPCAT with WP:WELLKNOWN. The bar for BLPCAT is high because it involves an absolute categorization. The bar for WELLKNOWN is different because nuanced prose can be so much more informational, presenting contradictions to the reader. Binksternet (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
But are the allegations really that important to the content of the article? Smith's notability is as a reporter, not as a potential gay man. Ducknish (talk) 00:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
It was important to filmmaker Kirby Dick and all the reporters who published articles. We take our lead from the media coverage. Binksternet (talk) 04:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
But quite a few of these sources seem to intend to disparage Smith (you can usually tell when they start using the oh-so-clever term Faux News). Ducknish (talk) 11:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
There was no intent to disparage Smith in the Goldstein/Rainey column in the Los Angeles Times. They defend Smith as not so hypocritical. Binksternet (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Extensive search: No mainstream media make the allegation. Zero. Nada. Rien. When faced with that WEIGHT (zero per cent of mainstream sources), it is clear that the sources Binksternet is pushing are only seeking to promote rumour and innuendo, and thus run very afoul of WP:BLP. Cheers.

Patrick Goldstein is a notable mainstream professional reporter, the film critic for the major metro newspaper the Los Angeles Times. He and columnist James Rainey discuss the Outrage film in their regular film critic column "The Big Picture." They mention that Shepard Smith is outed in the film and even comment on how it is not fair to Smith as he is not very hypocritical compared to the majority of other allegedly closeted politicians depicted in the film. Binksternet (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
You are now severely beating a dead horse here - and I suggest that this will not impress anyone at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Funny how three hours ago you were eager to show that "zero" mainstream news media are covering this issue, but now that you are proved wrong it is dead horse time. Binksternet (talk) 14:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
No -- youhave showed a movie reviewer mentioning the allegation is in a movie. Amazingly enough, movie reviews do not qualify as sources for claims of fact about living people. Or do you think films are "fact" as far as Wikipedia is concerned? If so, I fear you have no concept of what a "reliable source" for a "contentious claim" about any person is. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
You have mistaken the search for truth with the existence of media coverage. We can clearly see the existence of media coverage, in major media such as the Los Angeles Times. There is no need to establish further facts than that. What we need to tell the reader is the undeniable fact that Smith has been said to be gay in various media. Binksternet (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
It seems to me that Cheers is correct in saying that "no mainstream media make the allegation." Goldstein isn't making an allegation about Smith here. Goldstein (in an entertainment column, not a hard news story) is mentioning an allegation made by someone else in a movie. No "reliable third-party" source is making an allegation that Smith is a closeted homosexual as per the first example in WP:WELLKNOWN, nor is there a "public scandal as per the second example in WP:WELLKNOWN. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
So Kevin Naff, the editor of the four-decade-old Washington Blade, is not reliable, nor is he third party? Naff is filmed in Outrage describing how Smith came on to him in a gay bar in 2005. It was Naff who originally outed Smith, as far as I can tell. Naff "spent four years at The Baltimore Sun, helping launch the paper's web site in 1996. He has worked as a financial reporter for Reuters..." He has a journalism degree and is a legitimate newspaperman. Of course I understand that his newspaper has a small circulation of about 30,000 but the waves rippling out from his outing of Smith have been covered much more widely, with Naff filmed by Kirby Dick, and the film covered by the Los Angeles Times among others. Binksternet (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
The LA Times does not even index that "review" at all - talk about grasping at straws! Nor is it indexed in Google news. Your (BN's) claim is actually literally unverifiable as to existence at all'. I suggest that when a person cites a non-existent soure for a contentious claim in a BLP they have gone well past the dead horse stage. Collect (talk) 15:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
You are trying to establish a novel criterion for WP:V, one that does not exist at the V policy guideline. At WP:V it says "Source material must have been published (made available to the public in some form)." The L.A. Times film review was certainly published: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/the_big_picture/2009/04/outraged-kirby-dick-kicks-open-washingtons-closet-door-.html. Sorry about your wish to refer to indexing. Binksternet (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Addressing Binksternet's comment directed to me above, Kevin Naff is definitely a third party source here, just not a "reliable third-party source" for a direct allegation. The relevant guide here, I think, is this from WP:NEWSORG: "Editorial commentary, analysis, and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or by outside authors (op-eds), are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to the editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of facts." Badmintonhist (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC) PS: This is off subject but does Wiki consider the Washington Blade to be a reliable source for anything other than its own opinions? Badmintonhist (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

By itself, the Washington Blade is a pipsqueak newspaper. Importance is conferred on Naff's outing of Smith in 2005 because it was covered more widely, especially when filmmaker Kirby Dick put Naff on screen in Outrage. Binksternet (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Then show us the news coverage. What you've shown so far is a couple of entertainment columns. Does any of this really amount to much of anything? As David Letterman might ask "Is this something or nothing?" Badmintonhist (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Just because his allegation was covered doesn't mean that people supported his allegation. If somebody's film alleges that Washington is run by dinosaurs, I'm probably going to mention it in my film review, but that doesn't mean that I consider it a valid allegation. Ducknish (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
The direct allegations come from two people: Kevin Naff, editor of the Washington Blade, and David Shankbone, a noted gay blogger and photographer. Naff said that Smith talked to Naff in a gay bar and invited Naff to have sex with him, but Naff declined. Shankbone says that Smith and he sat in a gay bar and discussed what it means for Smith to be gay. Naff was filmed by Kirby Dick in the Outrage documentary repeating his story about Smith; in this fashion Dick reinforces the prominence of Naff's allegation. Were there photographs of these encounters? Video taken? Audio recordings? No, there were not. Yet some in the media thought there was enough in the allegations to address them in print. In Patrick Goldstein's case, he defended Smith as being a poor target for Kirby Dick's wrath as Smith is not so very hypocritical. Kirby Dick defended his targeting of Smith by saying in an interview with Huffington Post' Brad Listi, "The film does report on one journalist, Shepard Smith, who was first reported on by Kevin Naff of the Washington Blade. Shepard Smith works for Fox News, which has been a major factor in the rise of anti-gay hysteria in this country over the past two decades. As one of the most prominent people in Fox News—according to the New York Times, Smith makes 7 to 8 million dollars per year—his complicity with the network's homophobic agenda rises to a level of hypocrisy that I felt was worthy of reporting." Indirect allegations come from Out magazine which places Smith in its top ten list of powerful gay people: "The Power List 2013". Binksternet (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Nice summary of the allegations, Binksternet, but none of what you've said here seems to counter the reasons given for not including the information on Smith's Wikipedia biography . Badmintonhist (talk) 23:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC) PS: Looking at my outdented comment above I realize that I erred in calling Kevin Naff a third party source. Actually he claims to be a primary source. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

BLPN discussion

Some here have also offered their opinion about this issue at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Shepard_Smith. If you wish to participate there, feel free. Binksternet (talk) 23:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

At that discussion, 11 editors opine that the allegation does not belong here -- and one and only one seems determined to plaace it in this and other articles. While I think it would be nice to have further !voters there, the likelihood of your position prevailing are somewhat under zero. If we add the 2 here who have opined on the issue here and not at BLP/N, the count is now 13 to 1. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I get a much smaller ratio (4:3) because I only count those editors who argued the "noteworthy" and "relevant" points (Bbb23, Ducknish and Arthur Rubin recently, Threeafterthree in the past), not BLPCAT or BLPGOSSIP which do not apply, nor do I count those who misinterpreted policy. Me, Pär Larsson and Cat spasms think the issue is relevant and notable enough for this bio. Note that Rubin allows for the possibility of the Shepard Smith outing staying in the Outrage article. He has not commented on the Outing article. He did imply that you had WP:canvassed him, which bears examination.
Veteran editor Darkness Shines did not give a direct opinion here or at BLPN, but recently removed some BLP-violating material about Carole Rome and Charlie Crist from the Outing article, while leaving the Shepard Smith material in the same section. Binksternet (talk) 14:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
The other articles don't really matter here. Neither of those are BLPs, and they don't have to fit to the same standards as we should apply here. And you can rework the numbers all you want, but the fact remains: consensus is clearly against including the information in Smith's article. Ducknish (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
And in addition, I think the question we really need to ask is, which would harm the wiki most: Omitting this information, whatever its accuracy, or maintaining allegations that turn out to be false? Ducknish (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
This is another example of the common confusion found in the arguments here. We are not trying to figure out what is false or what is true about Smith! Our decision here should not be based on a personal assessment of whether the outings are false or true. No, the only thing we are discussing is whether to tell the reader the inarguable fact that Smith was outed by Kevin Naff who was filmed in Outrage, a notable documentary. Binksternet (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
If it's not true, I'm not sure it counts as outing, as much as slander. Ducknish (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
We have no policy about whether the outing should be true or false. No decision here should be based on such judgement calls. Again, the only thing under discussion is whether to tell the reader what is absolutely true, which is that Kevin Naff appears on screen in the notable documentary Outrage to describe why he thinks Smith is gay, based on Naff's personal experience. Binksternet (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Which doesn't go to show why this belongs in the Smith article, and not just the Naff or Outrage articles. Ducknish (talk) 17:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
  • It doesn't belong on this article. You failed at BLPN. Disregarding editors because you (wrongly) disagree with their reading of BLPGOSSIP etc is not a legitimate reason to disregard the clear consensus that it doesn't belong. Further, you put waaaay too much stock in that film. You keep emphasizing "notable", as if that makes it reliable. Examiner.com has an article on Wikipedia, thus making it notable. It is blacklisted too. The National Enquirer and Weekly World News have articles, making them "notable", but usually not reliable sources. A nobody source (Naff) makes a claim in a minor documentary that barely seen and you act like it is an ironclad fact. Put the whip away, the pony is dead. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Arrest for aggrevated battery

Why does this keep getting edited out? It's a verifiable fact that he was arrested and charged. Later the charges were dismissed. The reason this especially looks noticeable for being left out is because it's specifically referenced as a controversy for the Fox news organization for editing it out from their office. Lacking this information displays a bias to the editors. There is no BLP violation I can read as its an accounting of an incident of a celebrity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.122.244.36 (talk) 01:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Probably because the charges were dismissed. Why is a dismissed charge that relevant to his biography?Niteshift36 (talk) 02:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Perhaps because it shows a portion of his personality? By that logic why include information about him family. Why have anything at all on people? I don't follow the logic of having less information available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.122.244.36 (talk) 07:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Being arrested means the police did something. That tells us that the police did something. The article should discuss what, if anything, reliable sources say Smith did. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Saying 'it shows his personality' sounds much more like someone making a point than someone improving an article. An arrest often means that someone merely signed a complaint. In the end, it didn't even go to trial. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

This is inappropriate.66.64.72.10 (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shepard_Smith/Archive_1&oldid=920871304"