Talk:Shepard Smith

Out?

I'm surprised, and concerned, that we are claiming that Smith has come out as gay based on this:

The Fox News anchor came out today in response to a question about whether Ailes had forced him to remain in the closet. “That’s not true,” he told the Huffington Post in an interview when asked about the reports. “He was as nice as he could be to me. I loved him like a father.”"
— The Advocate

I don't see how his response could reasonably be interpreted as coming out, as opposed to not denying that he's gay. Is this sloppy reporting by The advocate, The Daily Mail and Talking Points Memo, or do they know something that the mainstream media doesn't? Safehaven86, I would be interested in your views since you just added the content. Also taking this to WP:BLPN.- MrX 18:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

It is being widely reported that he came out today in various traditionally WP:RS sources. However, it could be that the media reporting this got it wrong based on a misinterpretation of the interview--always plausible. Happy to have this content removed as discussion proceeds in the interest of ensuring absolute accuracy with a WP:BLP matter. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any mainstream/traditional sources that say he has come out. Would you mind linking to one or two?- MrX 18:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The best RS I've found on this is The Hill, which says "Fox News anchor Shepard Smith revealed he's gay in an interview with the Huffington Post..." Even though I generally consider The Hill highly reliable, this piece seems to suffer from the same issue mentioned below (a specific journalist's interpretation of the HuffPo interview). Safehaven86 (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

They can report all they want, but with a significant BLP issue such as this, I'd prefer seeing a direct quote from him coming out, and the bit above doesn't meet that qualification, IMO. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I can see how there is a substantive difference between a source, even a reliable one, saying someone came out, and the individual actually literally saying they are gay. When I added The Advocate source, since it clearly states than Smith "came out" I interpreted it to mean that he literally had come out. But based on the other RS reporting I'm seeing, it seems more likely that some journalists interpreted the fact that he answered some questions about homosexuality to mean that he was asserting he was gay, when in fact he did not state in the interview "I am gay." Therefore, I think the material should be removed. Safehaven86 (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

That seems prudent at this point.- MrX 19:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Wait Even if true, this is hardly stunning news. There is no rush here. Lets wait a day or two and see how it plays out in the press. It's being reported on all kinds of RS sources. So if it's a mistake one would presume a denial of some kind will be forthcoming. If no denial emerges in the next 48 hours, I'd say this is probably safe to post. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

If no denial emerges in the next 48 hours, I'd say this is probably safe to post., you are sh^tting me, right? This wiki is sersiously f ed up, but not that f ed up.--Malerooster (talk) 03:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, we do not operate on denials, but affirmations. He needs to make some kind of specific statement rather than us relying on third party assumptions. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

No, I am not kidding. Multiple reliable sources are reporting this. Some legitimate concerns have been raised about the original source, but it's not up to us to veto something stated as factual by this many RS sources. I am in favor of waiting a bit to see how this plays out. My gut (which is not always reliable) says that we are likely to get some measure of clarity over the next few days. But if nothing emerges confirming or contradicting the reports within a reasonable period of time then I think we need to at least mention them in the article. Showing some discretion and patience to be as sure as we reasonably can be is laudable. But in the end if that's what the sources say, and there is neither a retraction nor a denial then I don't think we can ignore it. Of course, how it is presented is a matter for discussion. If push comes to shove my preference would be to mention the reports as briefly as possible, with liberal citations, and in a manner that neither endorses nor castes doubt on them. We report what has been said in RS sources and leave our readers to draw their own conclusions. In the meantime I strongly agree with Courcelles' decision to lock the article for a few days. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I've taken the rather unusual step of fully protecting the article for 72 hours after the continued insertion of this material. Between here and BLPN I figure we'll have a consensus by then. Courcelles (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I support the precautions taken here. For all the headlines shouting that he's out, I've yet to see a quote where he says that. It's more implication than anything else. Is he gay? Maybe, maybe not. But we don't deal in maybe and "if no denial emerges...." is a horrible suggestion. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Mr: The fuck!? Selective quoting much? The article you linked says in its opening sentence "Shepard Smith came out as gay today". The article's title ("Shepard Smith Answers Question on Roger Ailes by Coming Out") is not ambiguous. The whole freakin' article is about him coming out as gay. Taking the words "The Fox News anchor came out today in response to a question" as a supposedly dubious source for the claim that he came out as gay when at several other points in the article it is specified that what is meant is that he came out about his sexual orientation is ... very questionable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Tongue rightly bitten. I missed the bit in the quotation about the closet. It looked like the OP had cherry-picked a portion of the article that appeared to be using "come out" in a more general sense. Yeah, I agree with the protection, and leaving it out until more definite clarification happens. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

That said, I'm not sure how much clearer we're going to be able to get than this, short of a reporter asking him "Are you gay?" and him saying "Yes." Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• There are plenty of celebs that come out and don't make it ambiguous. This leaves an implication, but it's that....an implication. There's no giant rush and, if he did actually come out, I'm sure it'll come back up again in less ambiguous terms. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• I cannot believe this. Are people really going to expect him to make an explicit statement before make this inclusive, despite multiple media outlets stating that he has "come out" as being gay? At minimum, it should be quotable that "multiple media outlets have reported that Shepard Smith came out as being gay". Castncoot (talk) 00:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Since you participated here, you're clearly aware of the ongoing discussion. So why do you keep forcing the information into the article? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, I firmly believe there needs to be an explicit statement before we report it. Otherwise I feel it violates BLP for something of this nature, as it falls into the realm of speculation, and we shouldn't be including speculative statements for such personal things in bio articles. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• I think it is ridiculous that we are going to ignore something stated as fact by numerous reliable sources (and contradicted by none) because the subject has not bothered to formally state that it is true. This would seem to be a violation of WP:COMMONSENSE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• And I think it's interesting that this big revelation pretty much dropped off the map in a day. No clarification. No follow up showing something explicit or unambiguous. Only a statement that some media outlets have billed as a coming out, but can't really back up. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• I think it much more likely that it dropped off everyone's radar because it was simply stating what was already common knowledge and because this is the year 2016 and with some exceptions, like Russia or Saudi Arabia and here on Wikipedia, most people just don't give a damn about other people's sexual orientation anymore. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• Well, we know what Wikipedia says about so called "common knowledge". Apparently some people here give a damn, so much so that they're willing to edit war and ignore BLP just to call him gay. You keep coming back, so unless you are Russian or Saudi, I'm not sure why. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• It may seem ridiculous, but BLP is explicit for precisely this situation. Where there is ambiguity we do not rely on speculation absent a clear declaration from the subject. Oh god, remember the Jody Foster arguments? That was even more clear and yet still had issues. Which is why BLP has taken a hard-line approach, it cuts through most of the arguments. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• This is about as ambiguous as the sun rising in the East. But if we must kowtow to the red tape so be it. All of this only serves to make us look like a bunch of lawyers obsessed with dotting I's and crossing T's. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• Far more ambiguity than you care to see. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Just because he has not come out directly does not mean him possibly being gay can not be mentioned in an article, even a BLP. BLP does not mean we don't publish anything the subject might find objectionable, it just means that we exercise extra care and quickly remove things when there is doubt. In this case, we should simply be accurate. Something like, "While Smith has never directly addressed his sexuality, he has made statements that journalists have interpreted as an acknowledgement of being gay. He has also appeared in the Power 50 list for Out Magazine, a gay publication." Fnordware (talk) 02:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• So what that sounds like is "since there are rumors, we're going to put them in the article"? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• A lack of an explicit acknowledgement is a violation of BLP. I see no way to read it any other way. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Where in WP:BLP does it say an explicit acknowledgement by the subject is required? The most relevant guidance is in WP:PUBLICFIGURE: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say." Sources have said he came out in the interview. Since it wasn't explicit, we can just indicate what the sources are saying. Fnordware (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Niteshift36? Huntster? I ask again, where in WP:BLP does it say an explicit acknowledgement by the subject is required? Fnordware (talk) 06:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

"Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment."- MrX 12:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Pretty much as above. I'm also of the opinion that it is simply good etiquette and politeness to not speak for someone else, especially when it involves their personal lives. — Huntster (t @ c) 16:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Ditto Mr. X Niteshift36 (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• The key difference is that Smith is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE. "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." There are multiple third party sources. Is the incident noteworthy or relevant? Different people will have different opinions on that one. I think it could go in, but there's no harm leaving it out, waiting for the issue to reappear again in the future. If it comes up again (and again) it will be harder to ague against including it. Fnordware (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Just being a public figure doesn't absolve us from following BLP. The sources take a vague comment and take guesses. Some even say it in the headline, then question if it is actually him coming out in the body of the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
• You guys seem to be deciding not to include this material because it would not be "good etiquette and politeness" or you feel his comment in the interview was "vague." Wikipedia does not keep material out of a BLP for these reasons, it keeps material out when it is poorly sourced, and we use a higher standard for BLPs. In this case there are multiple third-party sources who specifically interpret his comments as coming out. For you to apply your own interpretation is original research. On the other hand, a valid argument for not including the material is that the sources are not very high quality. You have Salon, The Daily Beast, Daily Mail. I don't think those sources are considered as high-quality as an established newspaper. When we get a high-quality source, we'll add it back in. Fnordware (talk) 06:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually we regularly dont include information that is speculative regardless of the source when it comes to certain areas (like sexuality or religion) due to the potential for real world harm. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

+1 Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion --Neun-x (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Not sure where to put this, but with so many sources it seems incredible not to include this information. I can't add anecdotal information, but I know for a fact that Smith is gay through a friend of mine who had a personal incident with him. This is not public knowledge or something that can be backed-up with evidence so I can't use that. However, the articles from several sources should be more than enough to allow this information on the Wikipedia page. Obviously, we wouldn't want to mislead people with speculation, but by responding to the question about Ailes forcing him to suppress his orientation with a "he was always respectful" can't really be interpreted as a denial that he's gay.Criddic (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

See WP:BLP etc. Wikipedia is careful when making assertions concerning sex or religion unless the person self-identifies in a specific group. Collect (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Well [1] should cover self-identification RE his sexuality (the event he is speaking at has been reported in a few places as well, link for convenience). However the recent Gawker addition regarding his living arrangements is not acceptable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• And where in the nearly hour long video does he say he's a homosexual? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

The bit where he talks about outing himself. I didnt get a timecode. I was actually too interested in watching it. Its an interesting Q&A. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• If it's that interesting, I'm sure you won't mind watching it again to provide the required information. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• Jesus—watch it yourself. 36:00: he talks about not being in, his faggitude, the man he's in love with, etc. BTW, the widely accepted term is gay not homosexual. This is not 1950.- MrX 23:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• Mr. X, I know you struggle with civility, but do try. Just saying "it's in there" is a crap reference. For you to come in and support the laziness just because you have a personal issue with me is additional incivility. I don't care which "widely accepted" term you use. A gay man is a homosexual. Just as a straight man is a heterosexual and a man who has sex with both genders is bisexual. Get over yourself for a minute. It does sound like he's saying he is gay. I'm sure, being the conscientious Wikipedia you are, that you'll agree that since there matter has been the subject of several discussion, that building a new consensus is probably the way to go. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • No I don't struggle with civility. I only ask that if you are going to be so involved with this subject, that you actually collaborate with the other editors, and either trust when an experienced editor has told you that a source contains certain facts, or actually do the research yourself. The subject has unambiguously self-identified as gay. It's a noteworthy fact covered in several secondary sources. Please articulate the reason why you think this information should be omitted from the article, when we routinely include such information in other biographies. What makes this one different?- MrX 01:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• When you blow it, starting with "Jesus, watch it yourself", you are being uncivil. (And you didn't "ask" me to do anything.) If the editor is so experienced, he knows that he can't just present half the source. You either do the work or you don't. (and I highly doubt you'd accept a "oh it's somewhere in the hour long video" from me, so I can't see why you'd expect me to accept it either.) That's not me refusing to collaborate, it's simply not accepting a half-assed job. Now, why are you asking me why it should be included when I clearly said "It does sound like he's saying he is gay", then said we should get a new consensus. So why are you pretending like I'm saying it can't go in? All of done was suggest consensus before adding it, since it has been a contentious issue, spanning years and multiple discussions. Sorry if my caution is a foreign concept to you. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

USA Today said Smith is gay.[2] Out is the new in, it appears. Binksternet (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• Then why not use this instead of some video? BTW, people all over Ft. Myers knew Smith was gay when he was at WBBH, but there was never RS coverage of it. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• I generally prefer self-identification (which can be either a primary or secondary source) and my post of the video was not in any way meant to be a 'Here is the only source that must be used!' declaration, but as a rebuttal and additional source to the arguments (some even made by myself) previously made. Its *confirmation* of what is already widely known and commented on in other sources. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The single sentence does not have Smith making the claim. I still find "sexual orientation" to require both self-identification and a reasonable connection to the notability of the living person. We still have neither. "Knowing that XXX is gay" is insufficient. Collect (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

He has made it very unambiguously clear that he is gay and in love with a man. It was a significant topic in his Meek speech and it was widely reported.[3][4][5]. He said "I Didn't Think I Was In". I agree that his sexuality is unrelated to his notability, but it is very noteworthy and merits inclusion in his biography.- MrX 14:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi collect, if you missed the video I linked above - he goes into significant detail during the Q&A. He also talks about it in relation to Roger Ailes which given the issues surrounding him (Ailes) and how he was treated is the interesting bit. If it should be included or not is an editorial decision, but there is now no BLP-protection issue *preventing* it. (My recent removal was not because of the gay issue, but because of the wording and sourcing involving his living arrangements with his alleged 'underling', which was totally inappropriate) Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Majored in Journalism?

I know it may not be technically incorrect, but I found it confusing when the article stated "He went on to attend the University of Mississippi, where he majored in journalism, but left two credits away from graduation." Would it not be more clear to say that he studied journalism instead of majored? If I tell somebody I majored in journalism at University X they would assume I have a degree at that university. If I were 75 credits short or only two credits short of a degree, people who heard me say I "majored: would assume I graduated. Does anyone think it would be clearer just to say he studied journalism? Mateck (talk) 23:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Mateck, I applaud you for your interest in ensuring all information is clear and concise. A person can major in a subject in college without having graduated. When information is exchanged, whether in writing or speaking, it is incumbent upon the reader or listener to not make assumptions on the information given, but to ask for clarification when he or she is uncertain. When someone says "I majored in" a particular subject, it means only that the person's education was focused on that subject. It does not imply a degree or certificate was obtained. Happy editing and God bless! MarydaleEd (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Any idea if Smith ever went back to complete his degree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.86.68 (talk) 17:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Shepard Smith.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Will edit to improve sources and proper style

Although this article is fairly well written, there are source holes and other areas where it could be improved. I will attempt to search for proper sources for unsourced material so as to keep this article as intact as possible; however, all statements of fact must be verifiable as demanded in Wikipedia standards. I will also ensure this article follows proper Wikipedia style. It is clear by the above conversations that many are passionate about the source of the article. I assure you that I have no interest in this article other than the areas I mentioned above. Your passion serves as a catalyst to me to ensure this article is accurate, that its statements are verifiable and that it adheres to all Wikipedia policies and standards. Happy editing and God bless! MarydaleEd (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)