Talk:Shepard Smith

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]


Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] Gay rumor

(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)

This is also why it has mostly been removed, for just this reason. -- Huntster T • @ • C 02:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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|&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"

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.52.142.5 (talk • contribs).

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

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)

[edit] 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] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/h/e/Talk%7EShepard_Smith_2f1e.html"