Talk:Matthew Shepard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review Matthew Shepard has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Matthew Shepard article.
Article policies
This is not a forum for general discussion of Matthew Shepard.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] 20/20, vigils, Angel Line

More needs to be said about the issues raised by the 20/20 investigation.-- LKS 5/13/06

I think this article is biased due to its allegations that Matthew Shepard was an innocent man; he was a crystal meth dealer who was killed for his inability to pay the men who eventually killed him; it is through his own indecisiveness that he met with his demise.

Any sources on this? --dionyziz 17:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Claims like this are often made against Matthew, and none have been factually corroborated. CaveatLector 05:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
If this was true, why did the defense attempt to use the Gay Panic Defense? The Meth BS presented by Elizabeth Vargas sounds more like a Twinkie Defense. --Belinus 01:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Christian bullshit. And even if someone is a dealer, does this justify murder?
Please don't bring your biases against a particular group of people onto Wikipedia. There are many Christians that were appalled by the actions of those two men.

I think this article should contain a paragraph about the scale of international candle lit vigils. The aftershock section focuses on the celebrity reaction, which has the effect of making the protests by Phelps look similar in size to the support from Ellen - and I think that's inaccurate. For sheer numbers (if not media attention) the outpouring of support for Matthew dwarfed the anti-gay crowd. --Camipco 04:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


There should be a line about the international memorial of blacked-out websites. It was some time 15-17 October 1998. I doubt there was any record of how many sites were blacked, but perhaps the people who organised it have a record of how many webmasters said they had.--218.101.23.247 06:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)



I removed this:

A friend of Shepard's created "The Angel Line". Now, when Phelps protests in various towns at funerals of AIDS victims or slaughtered homosexuals, individuals assemble a circle around them wearing white robes and gigantic wings that literally block the protesters from the view of passers-by.

Neither Google nor InfoTrac finds anything about ("Angel Line" and "Fred Phelps") or ("Angel Line" and "Matthew Shepard"). So I would like to see some confirmation before putting this information back into the article. AxelBoldt 18:09 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

Here's a cite: [1] . They also figure in the play The Laramie Project. Here's an article [2] about a more recent anti-Phelps angel action in Idaho. Montréalais
Great, thanks. It seems the group called itself "Angels of Peace", and searching for that phrase gives a lot more hits. However, I cannot verify that the tactic was used at the funeral, only at the court hearing. See for instance [3]. AxelBoldt 03:35 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] not a hate crime?

20/20 recently interviewed principles in the case, including the prosecutor, who say that the murder was done for robbery in order to get drug money, and that Shepard knew the two killers before the night of his murder. The defense decided to argue that Shepard "came on" to the two, which infuriated them into a frenzied state in which they couldn't control their actions.

I'm not familiar with all of the details and sources, but someone who is should do a major update to this entry, about the truth of the horrendous act, yet how it has helped equal rights activists nonetheless. 54MP0 X 70RG0 05:52, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd be wary about labelling the 20/20 allegations as "the truth of the horrendous act" at the moment, especially as the propositions made in the documentary have been widely disputed by many involved in the original case (indeed, they claim that the convicted murderers contradict statements they made during the original trial process). I agree, however, that the dispute ought to be covered either within the original article or a related one. As a UK resident who hasn't had the benefit of seeing the 20/20 documentary, it'd be best left to someone who has, though. User:smatthewman

Does anyone else think "hate crime" is too much of an inherently POV, loaded term? An example of controlling terminology in order to control the debate? It seems akin to the practice of using "unborn child" when one is referring to a blastocyst or zygote. Cigarette 23:39, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Um. Maybe there should be two pages for Matthew Shepard, one for his life, which is worth more than a paragraph, and one for the details of the attack. This page seems to be too focused on his death. Maybe a separation is in order? -Ross, 16 of May, 2005

It's appropriate given that the only reason he's known is because of his murder. Exploding Boy 00:31, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
Its true that only reason why we know him is because of his death and also the fact that he was a victim of hate crime but i think what they have is good because maybe his parents might not want to tell everything and i think they gave you enough info on his life that they thought was good.

-Whitney,May 16,2005 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.85.135 (talk) 03:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I've read somewhere that Matthew Sheppard was killed because of a drug deal gone bad. The "hate crime" angle was exaggerated for personal agenda and for media coverage because major news agencies wouldn't report on a "common" drug deal gone awry. Do these statements have any factual basis?

No, they do not. The killers used "gay panic" as their defence in court. They did not say it was a drug deal gone bad. They said he had come onto them and they had beaten him to death for doing it because it had made them insane. The drug deal story was concocted later. -- Grace Note.
      • Regardless of what the killers used as their defense in court, and regardless of the beliefs of those who edit at Wikipedia, crimes against one based solely on their sexual orientation DO NOT constitute a Hate Crime. Thus it is inappropriate and false to include him in the hate crimes section or to mention this as a hate crime. Personal thoughts and feelings are supposed to be absent from these pages and they're supposed to represent pure and undisputed fact. The pure and undisputed fact here is that at the time the murders were committed and to this day, there was no legislation on the books that would consitute this a hate crime. Thus, it should not be included on the page.
        • See Hate Crime. Crimes committed against someone "solely" on the basis of their sexual orientation qualify. This act is widely cited as a hate crime, and prompted federal legislation. It is quite neutral to portray it as it is understood. Srcastic 17:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
          • If you look closely at the Hate Crime page you will see that it does indeed exclude sexual orientation in the following paragraph...As of October 2001, the federal hate crime law 18 USC 245 (b)(2), passed in 1969, protects religion, race and national origin, and applies only if the victim is engaged in one of six protected activities. Seven states have no hate crime laws, 20 states have hate crime laws that do not protect sexual orientation, and 24 states have hate crime laws that include sexual orientation. I am fairly certain that Wyoming is one of the 20 states that does not include sexual orientation as a basis for a hate crime. Thus, if the following are true, and Wyoming does not recognize it as a hate crime, the articles inclusion in the "Hate Crime" category is inappropriate and non-neutral. Additionally, I believe court and official documents from the trial clearly show that this was not classified as a "Hate Crime" under Wyoming law. As well, the official court transcripts do now show that the killers acted "solely" on the basis of sexual orientation. Several defenses were used at trial. I again reiterate that this articles inclusion in the "Hate Crime" category is inappropriate.
            • The start of Hate Crime states "Hate crimes are crimes (such as violent crime, hate speech or vandalism) that are motivated by feelings of hostility against any identifiable group of people within a society. If systematic, rather than spontaneous, instigators of such crimes are sometimes organized into hate groups." That broad definition of hate crime certainly includes crimes motivated by animus towards homosexuals. See also Merriam Webster's definition, and Dictionary.com's definitions, which explicitly include sexual orientation. That a statute does not happen to include sexual orientation in the scope does not detract from the term's common understanding, usage, or definition. The inclusion in the Hate Crime category is thus entirely appropriate, and efforts to stifle this mere cross reference cannot be couched on an overly technical reading of the term, when the term itself is not so defined in Wikipedia. Srcastic 23:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Please read the rest of this talk page below. There is a possible NPOV way to say all of this and add everyone's points. Rather than debate the subject, we can try and work together to come up with an NPOV way of stating everyone's points. -- Samuel Wantman 00:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree that there is a neutral point of view way to post that some people consider this crime to be a hate crime. But listing it in the hate crime section with the current law in Wyoming clearly void of any mention of sexual orientation is both misleading and inaccurate. It would not be included in an Encyclopedia Brittanica article, thus it should not be included here.

Shepard's murder touched off a tremendous national debate about hate crime. You cannot possibly believe that his death has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of hate crimes. Putting his name in Category:Hate crimes has nothing to do with the fact that the murderers were or were not convicted of a hate crime. Policy on categorization, says that articles should be placed in categories if the topic is discussed in the article. Categories are not a stict taxonomy. If you look in Category:George W. Bush you will find The Pet Goat. The Pet Goat is in Bush's category, not because the book is about Bush, but because Bush is discussed in the article, and its claim to fame was related to Bush. Let's assume that next week there is incontivertible evidence revealed that the convicted murderers of Shepard were framed, and Shepard worked for the CIA and was killed by terrorists. This article should STILL belong in Category:Hate crimes because of national controversy and discussion that has already taken place. -- Samuel Wantman 06:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This was not a hate crime so it is dishonest and inaccurate to include it in the category of hate crimes. Doing so only perpetuates the myth that it was a hate crime. Everything else is irrelevant. --SpinyNorman 08:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
This WAS a hate crime, regardless of what do you think about it. And, per arguments above, it is also regardless of what is written in statute, because hate crime is a broad term, including sexual orientation too. 88.155.95.43 07:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Since there's no such thing as a hate crime in Wyoming, they obviously couldn't have committed a hate crime. "Hate Crime" is, first and foremost, a legal definition. It's illegal in some countries for a woman to show skin outdoors; that doesn't mean you can say every American is guilty of that "crime", since the crime doesn't exist in the US. 66.167.146.238 23:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

My brother attended the University of Wyoming in 1999 shortly after this happened, and said it was widely known and accepted in Laramie that this was in fact a crime related to Shepard owing them drug money and had little, if anything, to do with his sexual orientation. Basically, special interest groups just used this otherwise obscure murder as a prop to push their own agendas. Not that some of them didn't have worthy goals, but this was taken out of context in almost every news cast I saw of it. I unfortunately never saw the 20/20 in question, otherwise I would rewrite this article myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.39.118.10 (talk) 08:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
FYI, you guys are replying to a very old thread from 2004 (in 2006, one editor suggested that readers continue down to more recent threads that describe the NPOV way to deal with this subject). ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Republican majority

Is it necessary to emphasize the Republican majority of the House of Representatives for the hate crime legislation bill, for purposes of neutrality?

The information is relevant. The Republican party's stance is indeed against homosexuality being considered a hate crime (and, in fact, I believe they're against hate crimes in general). So, it adds context. I don't quite see how it's POV. —BorgHunter (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
The information is not relevant in that a measure in congress is not listed as "defeated by the republicans" or "defeated by the democrats." It is listed as "defeated by a majority."
State the vote in a NPOV way. I don't know the details, but say "in a senate vote, X democrats joining (all?) Y republicans to defeat the bill." Another possibility is to reference a different article that discusses the vote. -- Samuel Wantman 04:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Good idea, my initial thoughts are that the questionable material was included as a political statement. Further, the argument that "I believe they're against hate crimes in general" should be included in an article about the republican parties political stance, not in a biographical article such as this.

[edit] Categories

I've reinstated the categories that were removed. In the first instance, you can be a figure in the history of LGBT rights without fighting for rights yourself. In the second, the killers were convicted of a hate crime, regardless that they later recanted their testimony. In any case, it is widely regarded to have been a hate crime, regardless whether the perpetrators themselves thought it was. You might compare the crimes of Nazis in WWII. They didn't think they were doing anything wrong but still, they swung for it. -- Grace Note.

Googling "Matthew Shepard" "hate crime" brings up some very respectable sources. Though Wyoming may not have had a hate crime statute, and thus no charges could be brought accusing the perpetrators of that, nonetheless it appears to be widely considered by outside sources to have been a hate crime. -Willmcw 07:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Shepard wasn't killed because he was gay and he's only really notable because of his death. So it isn't really appropriate to mention him in the context of LGBT rights. Since his murderers weren't convicted of hate crimes, it isn't appropriate to mention them here either - popular prejudice notwithstanding. Also, I removed the quote from the obscure pop singer. It isn't really relevant and it is arguably uninformed as well. --SpinyNorman 08:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
On what basis do yuo say he wasn't killed because he was gay? I thought that was what the murderers testified to in court. -Willmcw 08:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
The murderers recanted this claim. The "gay bashing" issue was created by the media. --SpinyNorman 08:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
And you believe the recantation of murderers because....? If it was the murderers who first made that assertion, then it can hardly be the media who created it. -Willmcw 08:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
According to reports in the media, it was the girlfriend of one of the murderers who came up with the idea of the "gay panic" defense. The court rejected it and interviews after their conviction, the murderers admitted that it was just a ploy. --SpinyNorman 16:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
According to the murderers' lawyers, it was due to "gay panic". [4] The judge wouldn't allow them to use that as a defense, but that doesn't mean he didn't think it was accurate. It means that, even if true, it is not a defense in a murder case. We can certainly mention that the killers later came up with a different story. -Willmcw 17:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
The claims they made after the trial make it clear that the "gay panic" was a contrived defense. Especially considering the statements by some of the people who knew him that one of the killers was bisexual. --SpinyNorman 03:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
We'll never know the truth. If they lied under oath than it is hard to give more credence to their unsworn comments. Were the statements about one the killers being bisexual made under oath? What's the source for that? -Willmcw 03:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't know that they testified under oath that they attacked Shepard because he was gay. I'm not sure that being under oath means anything as far as their credibility is concerned. In any case, it wouldn't be the first time that a murder defendant embellished on the stand. The fact that they said they attacked him for money after they'd been convicted (they had no motivation to lie any longer) is telling (to me at least). The comment about one of the killers being bi came from one of the girlfriends I believe. I forgot where I read it. --SpinyNorman 03:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
It's all absolutely irrelevant: Matthew Shepard's murder is generally considered motivated by his homosexuality in some manner, therefore, it should be in the hate crime category. We can argue in circles for months on he said this, and they said that, oh but they later recanted...it doesn't matter! It's one simple category. If this continues, quite honestly, we'll have a candidate for WP:LAME on our hands. People think it's a hate crime, so leave the category there, it's as simple as that. —BorgHunter (talk) 03:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


Shepards murderers weren't convicted of a hate crime. How it was "generally considered" is irrelevant. --SpinyNorman 19:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
SpinyNorman, see below which summarizes the justifications for including in the hate crime section quite well. See also Wikipedia, which states that "Editors are encouraged to uphold a policy of "neutral point of view" under which notable perspectives are summarized without an attempt to determine an objective truth." Taking that ideal to heart certainly weighs for the relevance of how the crime is "generally considered", and justifies mentioning that the crime was widely considered to be a hate crime. Srcastic 23:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Why should we believe them after the trial, but not to believe what was said expressly on their behalf, during the trial? You even want us to disbelieve what they may have said under oath, and yet believe what they say now. What's your rationale? Please, SpinyNorman, enlighten us as to the thought processes leading you to defend them. --Markzero 02:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason why most of what is stated above BY BOTH SIDES of the debate cannot be included in the article. But, it is important that ANY assertions made in the article be backed up with citations. Wikipedia is not the judge and jury of this case. If something has been reported by a reputable news source it can be mentioned in the article. If the assertion has been refuted by other reliable sources the fact that the assertion has been refuted can also be mentioned. Everything must be stated in a NPOV way. It is not up to us to decide which assertion is correct. Even if it turns out that Matthew's murder was proven NOT to be a hate crime, it would still make sense to categorize the article under "hate crime". If only to point out an example of a situation in which a case was mis-judged. Frankly, I don't think that is the case, I think it was a hate crime, but my opinion doesn't matter. --Samuel Wantman 06:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

Please work out your differences here on the talk page, and remember to follow the rules. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 21:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hate crime?

I don't know whether Shepard was killed because he was gay or not. If his murder was the result of homophobia, then on a personal level (as a gay person), I hope everybody would unite in condemning it even more than a drug-related murder. Regardless, I have to agree that the inclusion of a category called "hate" crimes seems rather, well, POV. Maybe a term like "identity-related crimes" or something like that would be more appropriate. Corax 22:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

My only point here is that if his murderers weren't convicted of a hate crime, then his murder can't be called a hate crime. Wikipedia is supposed to be in the business of reporting facts, not popular misconceptions. I agree that his murder was tragic and his murderers reprehensible. Whether or not he was targetted because he was gay, and there is conflicting evidence on that, he was certainly targetted because he was smaller and appeared to be weaker than his attackers. --SpinyNorman 00:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Spiny, you miss the point. The reason that they were not convicted of a hate crime is becuase under current law crimes done on the basis of sexual orientation are not classified that way. If sexual orientation would have been included they wuld have given the jury convicted the two based on testimonty from the girlfriends stating the two plotted to pose as homosexuals. The court found premeditated - not random. 144.35.254.12 23:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
The point is that they were not convicted of hate crimes. The reason why is irrelevant. The fact that Shepard's attackers were found guilty of a premeditated act doesn't mean they committed a hate crime. Lots of premeditated crimes against gays are not "hate crimes". --SpinyNorman 16:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Please see my comment above. It is possible for both concerns to be incorporated into a paragraph that is NPOV. Something like this...

Even though the murderers were not convicted of a hate crime, the case is often considered a hate crime because court testimony claimed that Matthew Shepard was targeted on the basis of his sexual orientation [citations here calling it a hate crime]; . Under federal United States law and Wyoming state law, crimes committed on the basis of sexual orientation are not considered hate crimes [citation here]. Shortly after the murder President Bill Clinton tried to push legislation through Congress adding sexual orientation to the hate crimes law. The measure was defeated [citation here].
--Samuel Wantman 02:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
The prosecutor charged that Matthew's killers plotted beforehand to pose as homosexual to rob one. The court found them guilty. They targeted homosexuals, on the basis of their sexual orientation. The only reason it is not officialy a hate crime is because current laws do not includes sexual orientation. That is exactly why his death resulted in a push to include it. 144.35.254.12 23:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I like Samuel's proposal. 144.35.254.12 23:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

If we can reach consensus on the paragraph, I can unblock the page. I'm just here trying to facilitate. Citations are still needed, and the parties who have been reverting each other need to agree on the wording. -- Samuel Wantman 07:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
You can't say "often considered a hate crime" because that's an editorial comment. You could say "some consider the attack to be a hate crime" - that would be neutral, but it doesn't really matter in the end because what some people consider isn't really relevant. The fact is that it wasn't a hate crime. Calling it a hate crime is factually incorrect. --SpinyNorman 16:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
"You can't say 'often considered a hate crime' because that's an editorial comment." Say what? If you can get several citations, from different points in time, then it's not an editorial comment, it's a statement of fact. (As someone who has kept tabs on items about this murder since I wrote about it at the time, I can assure you that finding such references will not be difficult, because it is often considered a hate crime.) "As often as not" might be an editorial comment, but that's not what it says. --TreyHarris 18:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Of course it is. The word "often" is judgmental. You could say "some consider it the attack to be motivated by Shepard's sexuality" if you had several references, and that would not be editorial. But there is another problem with the phrase: whether people "consider it a hate crime" is irrelevant. Some people also consider it a "public service" to attack gays. The opinions of individuals are not relevant in this context. The term "hate crime" has a specific legal meaning. You can't say it was a "hate crime" any more than you can say that it was "jaywalking" or "money laundering". --SpinyNorman 18:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
"The word "often" is judgmental." Wikipedia is not a search for the Perfectly Objective Truth. (The viewpoint that such a thing as Perfectly Objective Truth even exists is itself not NPOV.) Just because the word "often" requires a minor judgment call, just because there are no values n, m such that n per m is "often" but n-1 per m is "not often", does not mean that the word "often" is inherently POV. "Often" is defined as "frequently; many times." If we can show (and we can) through citations that various people have considered this a hate crime "many times" or "frequently", then it is "often considered a hate crime". We're about to descend into metaphysics here; this is ridiculous. --TreyHarris 21:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
"The fact is that it wasn't a hate crime." Do I understand your argument correctly: you're saying that, because neither Henderson nor McKinney were convicted of violating a statute popularly known as a "hate crime", it can factually be said that the act was not a hate crime, correct? --TreyHarris 18:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
It is worth noting that the FBI would consider it a hate crime for reporting purposes, as they explicitly track sexual orientation motivated crimes. Please see my comments in the above section to the effect that hate crime's broad definition, along Merriam Webster's definition, and Dictionary.com's definitions, explicitly and implicitly include sexual orientation in the meaning of hate crime. I would support "often considered a hate crime" over "some consider it to be a hate crime," as that is perfectly consistent with Wikipedia's stated goal of including "notable perspectives ... without an attempt to determine an objective truth". Other support for "often considered" would include references to media outlets and foundations like MTV, the BBC, and the Matthew Shepard Foundation. Also, see major newspaper articles, including:
  • McGhee, Tom. "Summit Focus on LGBT Workers." The Denver Post, September 22, 2005: C-04
  • Killeen, Wendy. "Stories, Music, Magic." The Boston Globe, December 04, 2005: pg. 13
  • Spencer, Charles. "Bigotry in the Backwoods." The Daily Telegraph, June 28, 2005 London Edition: Arts pg. 017
  • Cooperman, Alan. "Christian Groups Plan More Monuments." The Washington Post, June 28, 2005. pg. A06.
  • Shuttleworth, Ian. "The Laramie Project - Sound Theatre." The Financial Times, July 1, 2005. Pg. 15.
The above demonstrate fairly conclusively that Shepards murder was a hate crime, as commonly understood, though perhaps not under the law at the time in the jurisdiction. It is worth mentioning that there is controversy over labeling the murder as a hate crime, and that can be reflected on the hate crime page. Nonetheless, NPOV certainly supports its inclusion. Srcastic 00:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
The phrase "most people consider it a hate crime" is inherently POV. The person using this phrase is using an "appeal to the majority" argument to claim that it was a hate crime with the implication that hate crimes are somehow worse than identical crimes that were not motivated by prejudice. Yet the question of whether or not it was a hate crime can be answered asbolutely and objectively. Were Shepard's attackers convicted of a hate crime? The answer to that question is not subject to interpretation or the whim of public opinion. It could be stated that a number of people believe that they should have been convicted of a hate crime or that US federal law included attacks on gays as being within the scope of a hate crime. But the fact remains that Shepard's murder was not prodecuted as a hate crime and that the girlfriend of one of the attackers has stated that the attack was not motivated by Shepard's sexuality but by the fact that he was small, weak and appeared to be someone who had a lot of money on them. And as an editorial note of my own, I'd like to know why a murder committed by bigots is worse than a murder committed by bullies/cowards. --SpinyNorman 17:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC) Please note that your comment in response to mine mischaracterizes my argument. I did not say that we should say "most people." Rather, I said it should be referred to as "often considered" which merely acknowledges reality. Srcastic 02:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Again, I repeat my question. Do I understand your argument correctly: you're saying that, because neither Henderson nor McKinney were convicted of violating a statute popularly known as a "hate crime", it can factually be said that the act was not a hate crime, correct? --TreyHarris 21:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm saying that since Shepard's attackers were not convicted of a hate crime, it is inaccurate to say that they were. --SpinyNorman 01:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
And again, you fail to seperate the legal definition from the popular understanding, Wikipedia definition, and dictionary definations. No one is contending that it should say they were convicted of a hate crime, but certainly it is NPOV to state that they are widely understood, though contentiously so, to be perpetrators of a hate crime (meaning crime motivated by bias, not legal definition). Please engage with the Wikipedia purpose of reflecting widely held views without seeking to portray objective truth instead of merely restating your opinion. Srcastic 02:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Popular understanding (aka popular ignorance) is irrelevant in an encyclopedia. This article must reported what ACTUALLY happened - not what some people wish would have happened as though it actually did happen. --SpinyNorman 00:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


Let's try a different tact here. I am copying my proposed paragraph below. Could we start by just ADDING to it any points of view about the crime being a hate crime. Let me be clear. I don't want you to add YOUR point of view, I want people to add POV's that can be cited, and add the POV's in as NPOV way as you can. For now, let's agree not to discuss these individually, but just make the paragraph as complete as possible. Afterwards, we can talk about how to edit it down to something we all agree represents the varying opinions about this issue. I want to reiterate again that we are not deciding the correct POV of this issue is. We are just laying out what the issues are, and what the different citable POVs are.

Even though the murderers were not convicted of a hate crime, the case has been called a hate crime by [gay rights groups and some media reports (this should be adjusted to match the citations)] because court testimony claimed that Matthew Shepard was targeted on the basis of his sexual orientation [citations here calling it a hate crime]; . Under federal United States law and Wyoming state law, crimes committed on the basis of sexual orientation are not considered hate crimes [citation here]. Shortly after the murder President Bill Clinton tried to push legislation through Congress adding sexual orientation to the hate crimes law. The measure was defeated [citation here].

So what needs to be added to this? -- Samuel Wantman 22:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Because there are statements from witnesses in the case that Shepard was not targetted because of his sexuality, the phrase "because court testimony claimed that Matthew Shepard was targeted on the basis of his sexual orientation" shouldn't be included unless there are excerpts from the court record that support the claim. Also, the statement about president Clinton and federal hate crimes legislation is irrelevant. Shepard's attackers weren't prosecuted by the federal government and the federal law wouldn't have applied to this case even if it had been in effect. --SpinyNorman 01:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
The reasons should match whatever the citations are. I am not participating in the editing of this page, just facilitating. If there are citations (which I believe there many) talking about this case being a hate crime, the citations will have the reasons. You cannot claim that the people making the claims IN THE CITATION are wrong, and since they are wrong, their statements and the controversy that resulted should not be mentioned. This would be revisionist. You can find citations that counter the claims. Your claim that the hate crimes legislation "is irrelevant" would be true if someone cannot produce a citation that connects the legislation to the case. I believe that will also be an easy citation to find. You can find counter claims with citations and add them. Everyone needs to back up claims with citations. I wrote the paragraph with the assumption that these citations will be found. -- Samuel Wantman 02:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
So we apparently agree. If there are excerpts from the court record where witnesses offer testimony that Shepard was targetted because of his sexuality, then those can be reported here. However, the bare statement "Shepard was targetted because of his sexuality" shouldn't be included without that supporting evidence, especially in light of the claims by the attackers and the girlfriend that this was not the case. As for the comments on the legislation being relevant, we evidently agree on that as well. It should only be mentioned if someone can produce evidence that federal law is connected with Wyoming state law (which, in this case, it is not). Ergo, the mention of federal hate-crime legislation is not relevant. If, however, the Shepard case had a direct effect on Wyoming legislation, that would be relevant and should probably be mentioned. --SpinyNorman 05:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Let me be clear. We are not retrying the case on this page. If someone produces a citation that says "_____ considers this a hate crime because ______", it is a legit cite and can be used. If the reasons put forward in the cite are in error, the cite can STILL be used. If you want to refute the cite with another cite you can and should. BOTH cites may be used. If someone produces a cite that says that the case led directly or indirectly to the push for federal legislation, that can be use also. If you find a cite that states there is no connection, BOTH cites may be used.
If someone says "The Earth is flat because _________", would that be a "legit cite"? I don't think so. The question of whether or not this is a hate crime isn't a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. Shepard's murderers were not convicted of a hate crime, ergo the murder was not a hate crime. --SpinyNorman 09:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
YES! absolutely. If I were writing about Colombus, I would not remove text about those that worried that he would fall off the earth. Also, in this case there is more than one meaning of hate crime and you are insisting that we only consider conviction under Wyoming law as the only possible meaning of hate crime. That makes no sense, especially when the paragraph I have proposed makes it clear that they were not convicted of a hate crime and why. -- Samuel Wantman 09:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Your logic escapes me. It is like saying that the 1963 Civil Rights March in Washington, had nothing to do with the Civil Rights legislation that followed because laws are made by congress and not by protesters. Wyoming is part of the U.S. the last I checked. The case got NATIONAL attention, and if that attention led to FEDERAL legislation it SHOULD be mentioned in this article. -- Samuel Wantman 06:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
You're overlooking an important difference. The federal hate-crimes law doesn't tell states how to prosecute their criminals. --SpinyNorman 09:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Even if it led to higher gasoline prices it would be relevant. If the legislation was related even indirectly to this case, it is worth mentioning. Please try to make constructive changes and work collaboratively. -- Samuel Wantman
Indeed not, however if the federal government did have such a LGBT hate-crime law, they could choose to prosecute for violations of a person's civil rights. Remember, it is an opinion that this could've/should've be constitued as a hate crime, and opinions generally have no place here. However, it is a fact that many people would've liked to have it considered a hate crime, and reporting that fact does not violate any NPOV rules. I don't know why you don't understand that. Maverick 07:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

SpinyNorman is tactitly assuming that a crime that isn't tried in court cannot be as such, as the requisite motivational aspect that enters into the definition of a hate crime was not itself part of the charges being tried. But that view is flawed. Had the DAs in the case not tried the defendants for kidnapping, would the crime not still been a case of kidnapping? You tell me. ProfessorFokker 10:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The term "hate crime" is a legal one. It can't be used any other way. It is like the term "murder". Someone can't accurately be called a "murderer" unless they've been convicted of murder. An act can't accurately be called a "hate crime" unless the perpetrators have been convicted of a hate crime. The murderers of Matthew Shepard were not convicted of a hate crime, ergo Matthew Shepard's murder was not a hate crime. It really is that simple. --SpinyNorman 00:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Even though the crime was not considered a hate crime by the state of Wyoming and US law, it has been called a hate crime and reported as a hate crime by many groups and media outlets. That is what the article says, in a NPOV way. To igonre those facts would be taking a POV stance. The crime stimulated more recent discussion about "hate crimes" than any other recent event I can think of. Someone can't be called a murderer unless found guilty of murder, however they can be accused of murder, and there can be mention of news accounts about them getting away with murder. The article does not say that the accused were convicted of a hate crime. It does report that many thought they derserved to be so charged, yet for legal reasons could not be. There is nothing wrong with saying this in the article. -- Samuel Wantman 01:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The only thing that matters here is the reporting of facts. The fact is that Shepards killers were neither charged with, nor convicted of, a hate crime. They weren't even accused by prosecutors of having committed a hate crime. Ergo, Shepard's murder is not a hate crime - despite some people's insistence on misusing the term. It is nothing short of dishonest to call Shepard's murder a "hate crime" or to include it in the category of hate crimes. Yes, some people think that it should have been prosecuted as a hate crime and there's nothing wrong with reporting that fact. But to deliberately attempt to blur reality here is unacceptable. --SpinyNorman 04:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Background

On the Matthew Shepard page under background, it says "Shepard was born in Casper, the only son of..." Matthew actually had a younger brother, Logan. Therefore, this section is inaccurate.

The page also does not mention Matthew's trip to Morocco, where he was attacked and raped by a group of locals.

Do you have sources for these assertions? -Will Beback 20:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I have personally spoken with Judy Shepard (Matthew's mother) many times over many years since Matthew's murder, and Logan Shepard does indeed exist - Matthew's younger brother. I also concur on the lack of any mention of Matthew's trip to Morocco and the attack that occurred there - it too is true. Beyond verification by family members (& even IMDB for info on the well-researched films), simple Google searches yield Denis Shepard's statement in court that verifies Logan's existence and numerous citations from reputable entities about his Morocco experience. 68.94.41.100 01:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)PFink

Does anybody know anything about the murderers background, does anyone care? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.78.2 (talk) 05:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Getting this page unblocked

To get this page unblocked we have to agree on the wording of this paragraph, or agree on a different paragraph.

Even though the murderers were not convicted of a hate crime, the case has been called a hate crime by [gay rights groups and some media reports (this should be adjusted to match the citations)] because [reason for calling it a hate crime as mentioned in the citation] [citations here calling it a hate crime] . Under federal United States law and Wyoming state law, crimes committed on the basis of sexual orientation are not considered hate crimes [citation here]. Shortly after the murder President Bill Clinton tried to push legislation through Congress adding sexual orientation to the hate crimes law. The measure was defeated [citation here].

I am just mediating this, and as such, I am requesting that the blanks be filled in, or alternatives written for consideration. -- Samuel Wantman 07:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] extra sentence in first paragraph clarifying dates.

just added to the first paragraph a sentence that clarifies the attack was on Oct 7 and that he died on Oct 12. I think it can be confusing to folks how this first sentence originally lists his dates as 12/1/76 - 10/12/98 and then also says he was murdered on the night of October 6 - October 7. This gets detailed later in the section "The Attack," but I thought it was worth mentioning upfront. Snowden666 21:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)snowden666

[edit] Melissa Etheridge Reference

The wording "Lesbian Singer Melissa Etheridge" doesn't sound quite unbiased. While it is relevant that she is a homosexual, it's not the way to start that sentence, and kind of sounds like the "Lesbian Singer" part was added by someone who wanted to make absolutely sure people didn't think a heterosexual had sympathy for Shepard.

[edit] re: Melissa

I dont think it is too relavent that she was a lesbian, in reguards to feeling sympathy. So, yeah saying "lesbian singer" does sound rather bias and degrading - does being a lesbian affect how she gives her condolence? One might say "human rights activist and singer" instead.

[edit] Santa Monica Blvd memorial

I drive through West Hollywood about once or twice a week, and I noticed that there is a corner, or landscaped snippet of a median at Santa Monica Blvd and Crescent Heights that was dedicated to Shepard. I thought maybe it would be something interesting to add to the article; I saw that someone commented on the lack of info of nation-wide empathy, i.e. candlelight vigils and such.

Apparently, an activist by the name of Morris Kight proposed the idea for this memorial area. a small biography which contains this can be found here. Scroll to the bottom of the page to find out about the memorial. Other than this biography, I haven't been able to find any terribly thorough sources.

[edit] WP:POINT cite requests

Sorry for those I just trounced on. I saw all of those {{fact}} notations, and thought they were legitimate, so I started researching. Then when I got a few done and tried to save, I saw the edit conflict, and discovered that it was actually just trying to make a point. But rather than throw away the research, I just saved (incorporating in, in a pitiful sort of way, the simultaneous edit that also tried to add references).

Unhappy.... --TreyHarris 00:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the additional sourcing for the article. I'm sorry that you went to the trouble. I'd removed the spurious requests, but due to an edit conflict they were restored. That's why WP:POINT is an important guideline. -Will Beback 00:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, they're all cited. Whew! --TreyHarris 08:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 20/20

More needs to be said about the issues raised by the 20/20 investigation..-- LKS 5/13/06

[edit] Category:Hate crime

Several months ago, to accommodate Spiny Norman, I split the category Hate crimes. It is now Category:Hate crime which is for articles that discuss the TOPIC of hate crime, and there is Category:Hate crimes (with an "s") that is for crimes that were prosecuted as hate crimes. While there may be disagreement about putting this article in the latter category, I cannot think of any reason not to put it in the former. This article discusses hate crime, it talks about the legislation that was proposed as a result of Matthew's murder. It is very NPOV to categorize this in the TOPIC of hate crime. Someone researching the topic, no matter what their bias, might want to visit this article. I do not want to rehash all the discussions that we have already have. I thought this was settled, but recently Spiny Norman removed the "Hate crime" categorization. I am going to assume good faith that he did not see or understand the "s". -- Samuel Wantman 00:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The new category is irrelevant - it is just a way to do an end-run around the issue. The "new category" is essentially just a thinly-veiled redirection to the hate crime article which brings us back to the legal issue. The fact remains that Shepard's attackers were neither charged with, nor convicted of a hate crime. As such it is blatantly deceptive to mention hate crimes in connection with his case. The fact that some people believe that Shepard's attackers SHOULD HAVE been charged with a hate crime is irrelevent. It is their personal opinions and speculation and is not relevant to an encyclopedia article. There isn't even agreement that Shepard was targetted because of his sexuality. First his attackers said he was (evidently as a legal ploy) and then they said he wasn't (when they had no motive to lie). --SpinyNorman 21:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in late in this conversation, but I fail to see how your arguments to nullyfy the use of "hate crime" as a categorization scheme will help the Wikipedia project. As an indexing tool, it is valid. The fact that Matthew Shepard's death is linked hate crime laws and the development of hate crime legislation is well established by various U.S. government publications. [5]. I think you are confusing the issue in saying that we cannot depend upon de facto status and must instead rely upon de jure interpretations. The fact that no "hate crime law" existed in the state of his death is not disputed, nor is it really relevant here. And, true, you cannot charge someone for a hate crime, per se, if the criminalization of hate crimes is not on the books in that particular jurisdiction. But that does not mean that the case is not relevant to the "hate crime" topic, under common academic usage and understanding of the term. Furthermore, reasoning is not cogent when it is based upon the legal trivia of a particular state's laws, especially when they conflict with the de facto truth of the matter: Matthew Sheppard's death was/is an instrumental milestone in the development of hate crime legislation, both pro and con (as your arguments illustrate). To not recognize that Matthew Shepard's slaying payed such a role would be academically dishonest. So, therefore, that fact the killers were not charged with "hate crimes" or not has no merit as to the notability this case has in the hate crime debate or in the study of hate-crime law. That alone makes it a valid hate crime topic, particularly to scholars of LGBT topics and criminal law. - Davodd 22:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
It's also very misleading to say "Shepard's attackers were neither charged with, nor convicted of a hate crime." The fact that Wyoming didn't have hate crimes legislation on its books (and still doesn't)[6], -- and that there is no federal hate crimes legislation based on sexual orientation -- means that the perpetrators couldn't be charged with a hate crime. That doesn't mean, however, that it wasn't a hate crime. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter WHY they weren't charged with a hate crime. The only relevant issue is Shepard's attackers were not so-charged and despite the informal association of Shepard's name with the issue of hate crimes, the fact remains that his murderers were not subject to prosecution for hate crimes. To say otherwise is wrong. It is like people who insist on calling OJ Simpson a murderer. He's not. He might well have killed his ex wife and her maybe-boyfriend, but he wasn't convicted of murder, so to include Simpson in the category of "murderers" is simply incorrect. --SpinyNorman 03:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Your analogy is not correct. If O.J. Simpson got away with murder because the State of California did not try people for murder but only for assault; and thousands of people were appalled and called on the government to make murder illegal; and if the President called for congress to make murder illegal; then I would certainly think that the article about O.J. Simpson could be put in the category "Murder" even if he was not in the category "Murderers". His guilt or innocence, or his not being convicted of murder would be irrelevant. -- Samuel Wantman 04:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Again, the fact of the matter is that Shepard's attackers were not charged with or convicted of a hate crime. Why they were not is irrelevant. The fact some people think (incorrectly) that Shepard's murder was a hate crime is also irrelevant. Wikipedia is about reporting facts, not wishful thinking or popular ignorance. --SpinyNorman 21:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
What you're saying is there's a difference between "OJ Simpson was convicted of murdering his wife" and "OJ Simpson is believed to have murdered his wife". And you're right. But either one would be included in his Wikipedia page. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the latter wouldn't be included because whether or not some hypothetical person's opinion is that OJ is a murderer isn't relevant. --SpinyNorman 06:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

(reset margin) And yet the fact remains that Shepard's attackers were not charged with or convicted of a hate crime. Ergo, this was not a hate crime - the opinions and wishful thinking of the public notwithstanding. --SpinyNorman 18:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

See, this is the problem - you see an "ergo" that just isn't there. Why does it matter what the state of Wyoming charged them with, or what they were convicted of? How does that affect whether the murder was a hate crime? You seem to have the peculiar delusion that the definition of a hate crime depends on what a state chooses to do about it. This is clear nonsense. The Sheppard murder was either motivated by hate or it wasn't, but that doesn't depend in any way on what charges were brought. Next you'll say that if nobody is charged with a murder then it never happened!
Zsero 21:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
It matters because if they were convicted of a hate crime, then it would be truthful to include this article in the category of hate crimes. Since they weren't, it is dishonest to categorize the article in this way. If someone is not convicted of murder, then they can't honestly be called a murderer. And, since you mention it, Shepard's attackers say that they were motivated by greed rather than hate. So are you undermining your own claim? --SpinyNorman 10:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
If someone is not convicted of murder, then they can't honestly be called a murderer.
This is just a bizarre statement. Many murderers are never convicted, or even caught in the first place. Are you really saying that they're not murderers? Are you really that detached from reality? Or are you speaking some strange private language in which "murderer" means "convicted of murder", and "committed a hate crime" means "was convicted of a hate crime". Or perhaps in your universe nothing exists until a court says it does.
But in the real world things do happen outside courtrooms, and in the English language "murderer" means someone who committed a murder, whether or not they were ever caught, charged, or convicted. And a "hate crime" is any crime that is motivated by hatred for a broad class of people, regardless of whether the local laws have special procedures for such crimes, or of whether the motivation ever became a legal issue. Zsero 10:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
The term "murderer" is a legal one. It is a "term of art" - just as the phrase "hate crime" is. Just because a person who commits a crime hates the person against which it is committed, that doesn't make it a "hate crime". Since Shepard's attackers were never charged with or convicted of a hate crime, that means they didn't commit a hate crime. There's no evidence they even targetted Shepard because he was gay - that was just second-hand spin from the gay community. --SpinyNorman 06:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
No, "murderer" is not a term of art. It is an ordinary English word, meaning someone who has committed murder, 'without regard' to whether they have been caught, let alone charged or convicted. Even if nobody ever finds out that a murder has occurred, it is still a murder, and the person who did it is a murderer. That is not an opinion, it is a simple fact well-known to any fluent speaker of the English language. I can only presume that you are not one. Zsero 15:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
"Categorization isn't what you think it is". I'm not sure if you guys have covered this, but categories are not as hard-and-fast as you describe. I'll bring you a quote from Talk:Parapsychology:

This whole discussion is hinged on an incorrect assumption about the nature of categorization on Wikipedia. That an article is in a category indicates that the article has some relevance to that category. It is the article, and not the topic which is categorized. If you understand this, then a great many categorizations on Wikipedia will make sense to you, which are otherwise patently absurd. Placing Parapsychology in Category:Pseudoscience is not a POV statement about parapsychology, it is an assertion that someone interested in the parapsychology article might benefit from further research through other articles which touch on pseudoscience, and conversely that people researching the pseudoscience category would benefit from the parapsycology article. Period. -Harmil 20:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

In other words, someone who came to Matthew Shepard might want to know about hate crimes. Therefore, keep the category in. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
There is already a link to hate crime in the article, it isn't necessary to lie to the reader and claim something that isn't true - that Shepard's attack was a hate crime. --SpinyNorman 10:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if it was a hate crime or if it wasn't. If someone's searching through the category tree for hate crimes, they should be able to find this case, which is relavant to the concept of hate crimes whether or not it actually was one. Just the way someone searching through Category:Science should be able to find the topic Parapsychology - whether it really is a science or not. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Why is it relevant? Because people think it should have been charged as a hate crime? That isn't relevant at all. Since when is wishful thinking a criteria for reporting? Oh, and I disagree with your claim about parapsychology as well. Someone searching through the science category shouldn't have to sift through pseudoscience. Now if you want to create a category for pseudoscience, then I agree parapsychology should be there. Likewise, if you want to create a category for attacks that weren't prosecuted as hate crimes even though some people think they should have been, then you can include Matthew Shepard. --SpinyNorman 04:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
It's relevant not just for wishful thinking. It's also relevant because the debate over whether or not it was a hate crime made national news and sparked activity in the Oval Office[7] as well as Capitol Hill. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Such "debate" that existed was manufactured out of ignorance and misinformation. As such, it isn't relevant. What happened is that certain activists used the incident as an excuse to talk about gay-bashing. What happened to Shepard was a tragedy to be sure and the men who attacked him are in prison where they belong. However, that doesn't make what they did a hate crime. --SpinyNorman 06:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
For the sake of argument, let's assume that everything you say is true. If the debate was manufactured out of ignorance and misinformation, add citations to the article that document how the debate was manufactured, and that dispute the misinformation. Let us also assume that tomorrow, undeniable evidence comes to light that clearly shows that the murder was not a hate crime and over time everyone agrees that it was not a hate crime. Even then, this article should remain in the "hate crime" category because of the murder's strong connection with the hate crime debate. I cannot think of any other incident, rightly or wrongly, that brought more attention on the topic of hate crime against LGBT people. Even if the murder was not a hate crime, the aftermath most certainly was related to the topic of hate crime. So Spiny, what you are arguing has nothing to do with putting this article in a hate crime category. Your own statement above, "What happened is that certain activists used the incident as an excuse to talk about gay-bashing" is reason enough to put this in the hate crime category. -- Samuel Wantman 07:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
The evidence of which you speak already exists. Shepard's attackers have, after they passed the point where they were motivated to lie about it, admitted that they didn't target Shepard for attack based on his being gay. So we're back to the crux of the matter - that Shepard was not the victim of a hate crime and his attackers were not prosecuted for having committed a hate crime. The uninformed and irrelevant discussion by activists is beside the point. Wikipedia is here to report facts - not gossip and propaganda. --SpinyNorman 07:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I think I'd want more than just the attackers (and one of their friends) asserting that they didn't beat Matthew Shepard to death because he was gay. But, in any case, I think taking the position that the attackers claim now that it wasn't a hate crime is futile: the attack was certainly at the time claimed by his attackers to be motivated by their hatred for gay men, and without doubt became part of the national and international debate about hate crime on that basis. To argue that it can't be included in the category hate crime because the criminals have since changed their story about the motivation for their attack on him is to rewrite history. Yonmei 11:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
The only reason they claimed they attacked Shepard because he was gay was to play into a legal defense tactic that turned out to be futile. Statements made by both the attackers and people who knew them show that it was a defense tactic. Now that the two are in prison and they have no motive to lie anymore they have said that their motive in the attack was greed, not hate. --SpinyNorman 16:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
But the "legal defense tactic" they used was the infamous "gay panic defense", which is, effectively, a legal excuse for men carrying out hate crimes against gay men. You, for some reason, want to believe they were lying then and are telling the truth now. But, even if we were to assume that they were lying then, and also assume that they are telling the truth now, Matthew Shepard's murder still belongs in the category Hate Crime. You are arguing that because his murderers now claim they were lying when they asserted that they murdered Matthew because they hated gay men, we should rewrite history and pretend that they never said it at all. Why do you want to do that? Surely, as you say, it's facts that matter, and, truth or lie, their use of "gay panic defense" is a fact. Yonmei 21:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter why the debate existed - the fact is that it does exist. People (the press, the government, the talk shows, co-workers around the water cooler - not just wishful thinking, but a large percentage of the population) were talking about hate crimes and hate crime legistlation. To use your own argument, it doesn't matter why there was a debate - the point is that there was one. That alone makes the article eligible for the category. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
No, actually, it doesn't. Encylopedia articles are supposed to report facts, not reflect popular ignorance. One of wikipedia's greatest strengths (the fact that anyone can edit articles) is also its greatest weakness. The amount of popular ignorance to be found in these pages is astonishing. It is also difficult to remove since popular ignorance tends to be, well, popular. And also, I'm getting pretty pissed off that people are reverting other legitimate changes I've made to the article along with the disputed category removal. But I guess that's just another example of the kind of intellectual laziness that plagues this site. --SpinyNorman 16:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Spiny, you are missing the point. The point is that that national debate occured in a large part due to Shepard's death and the surrounding events. Therefore the category is relevant. JoshuaZ 16:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
OK Spiny, lets talk about the other changes. You added "however, there is no evidence that Shepard was targeted because he was gay and his attackers deny targeting him for this reason." The evidence that he was targeted because he was gay came from the attackers. If they later denied it, it doesn't erase that evidence. It is quite possible that their initial accounts were correct, and they lied about the denial. Do you have some sort of crystal ball that lets you know which account is a lie? Even if you did, it would be original research. If you post a cited claim which has evidence that supports their denial, feel free to add it. But even having a cited claim does not mean that you can state it as a fact. SpinyNorman is not the arbiter of truth at Wikipedia. Nobody is. -- Samuel Wantman 21:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
What claims they defendants may or may not have made as a part of their legal defense are not "evidence". They are allegations. The fact that they have since retracted these allegations completely nullifies them. --SpinyNorman 06:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Spiny, we've been over this a hundred times. This is not a court of law. While it might make them not matter in some legal system, it still makes them related to the category. What matters is how it is connected to the legislation that later passed about hate crimes. JoshuaZ 07:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion Request for the Picture on commons

Can someone ask the parents per email for a correct license for the picture? Helps on Commons: [8] [9] [10] Here are Templates for Mails: [11] an here is a Template for a Permission [12]. Then are there no question anymore. --Fg68at de:Disk 15:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Um, don't want to re-ignite old flames but

1. Some of the cites seem pretty thin - ref 2 says

"Mother of Hate-Crime Victim to Speak at Colby

Judy Shepard, mother of Matthew Shepard, a 21-year-old man from Wyoming who was murdered in an anti-gay hate crime in 1998, will speak at Colby College on Wednesday, March 8, at 7:30 p.m. [...]"

To support the claim that "Many people think the case should have been dealt with as a hate crime".

The second cite (ref 3) "widely denounced as a hate crime" has more weight (as does the source). But with these cites (and the law as it stood then and now, I believe) I would be reluctant to go any further than:-

"According to Talk of the Nation the murder was widely considered a hate crime."Rich Farmbrough, 11:53 15 October 2006 (GMT).

How many cites, then, do we need to avoid this "controversy" that it was a hate crime? I live in the UK, I heard it reported, in the UK and elsewhere at the time as a hate crime. It never occurred to me until I read this "controversy" on this Talk page that anyone would try to argue that it was not a hate crime. I recognize that my own personal recollection that the murder was widely considered to be a hate crime is not a sufficient citation: so, how many cites do we need of contemporary reports of the murder in order to squelch this "controversy"?Yonmei 14:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


2. If someone was so minded, a short section after of within the "After the attack" section could concentrate the "Hate crime controversy" (there does seem to be one, outside this talk page?) in one place. Rich Farmbrough, 11:53 15 October 2006 (GMT).

That's a good idea, though I have no idea where, outside this Talk page, one would find cites for it. This Talk page is the only place I have ever seen anyone question the fact that the murder was and is widely regarded as a hate crime: yet I suppose the people posting here claiming that it isn't must be getting that idea from somewhere else. Yonmei 14:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
That last line should probably read "the person posting here claiming that it isn't..." and his logic has been challenged by many others. I think there is a clear consensus and the flame is out. -- Samuel Wantman 16:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HIV status

There seem to be several conflicting claims about Shepard's HIV status (i.e. negative or positive). Is there any way we can address this? Carolynparrishfan 00:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see anything about that either way in the article. I suppose a copy of a definitive pos/neg test result just before his murder would be best. Though, is his HIV status relevant? ---*- u:Chazz/contact/t: 20:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I recall a report that the first police person on the scene was a woman who also raised animals of some sort. She had several fresh cuts on her hands from replacing the fencing at her farm. She contacted his blood and became HIV infected, but then some years later tested negative. I will try to find this information from a verifiable source. If cited, this would only provide background for the rhumors and support a statement that his HIV status is officially "unknown". Jerry 04:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cites

I have added citation needed tags to unsourced comments, several of which are potentially libellous if they are not true. They were previously rv'ed without any discussion at all. If people want the tags removed can I asked that the comments in question are sourced. -*- u:Chazz/contact/t: 21:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Question: Whom would they be libelling? Zsero 02:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remove section?

"When the Wyoming Supreme Court ruled that it was legal to display any sort of religious message on city property if it was legal for Casper's Ten Commandments display to remain, Phelps made attempts to gain city permits in Cheyenne and Casper to build a monument "of marble or granite 5 or 6 feet in height" on which will be a bronze plaque bearing Shepard's picture and the words: "MATTHEW SHEPARD, Entered Hell October 12, 1998, in Defiance of God's Warning: 'Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is abomination.' Leviticus 18:22."

If nothing has come of the above (no plans are currently in process) or if the plaque has been denied, this should be removed. It's much more about Phelps and Cheyenne than it is about Matthew. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The plans for the memorial are still up on the godhatesfags website, btw. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
But haven't been updated in over 3 years. Casper denied the request in November 2003, and temporarily removed its Ten Commandments sculpture; in late 2006 it announced plans to restore the Ten Commandments in a setting that would not require it to allow private groups to put anything up. Zsero 15:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
What do y'all think? Should that section be removed from the article? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it should be kept. The page is about more than just the individual Matthew Shepard, it's about everything that happened as a result of his murder. I think the Phelps information should be kept and possibly updated with the info Zsero posted as well. I've noticed there are a lot of citation requests, some every other sentence. Seems a little excessive but I will try and help out with addressing them. Cheers. Parammon 00:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree the article has (and should have) information about what happened to Matthew and the results. But the sentences quoted above are about Phelps, Cheyenne, and plans for a plaque that were shot down. They seem rather far afield from Matthew and what happened to him. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd agree except the plaque and words target Shepard specifically. That makes it worthy of inclusion here; at least that's my vote. As the new kid here I will gladly cede the point if that's the consensus. I hope that if it's not included here it can be added to Fred Phelps page in the People Targeted by Phelps section. It's a noteworthy incident.Parammon 19:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Clearly the Phelps information is still pertinent to the article. He has directly used Matthew Shepard as a vehicle to perpetuate his hatred for the gay community for almost a decade. The monument and plaque, which specifically target Matthew, are symbolism of this hatred and its impact on society. There was wide news covereage regarding the monument- it is inmaterial whether or not it actually ever comes to fruition. TBarry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.71.166 (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent revert: Criticism of Hate Crime Theory

I reverted to a previous version because the information under this heading, starting with this paragraph:

'Numerous Critics have emerged against the Hate Crime Theory of Shepard's Murder. These critics contend that no credible evidence has been brought forward to suggest that this was a hate crime, and that Shepard murder in fact involved drugs and robbery, not a bias attack.'

Is already covered in the article and does not need to be repeated. The only source it uses is the already mentioned ABC News. Although the idea that the critics are numerous does seem new, though that is unsourced. If there is new information please include it. There was also a claim, again unsourced, that one of the assailiants is bi-sexual. Thanks. ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 03:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the sourced link??? "O'Connor had known Aaron McKinney for years. In flush times, McKinney partied in O'Connor's limos, and, in fact, McKinney and his girlfriend lived for a while in an apartment on O'Connor's property. O'Connor says he never heard McKinney express any anti-gay attitudes. In his interview with Vargas, O'Connor reveals his belief that McKinney is bisexual. "I know of an instance where he had a three-way, two guys and one gal," he said. "Because he did it with me." O'Connor added, "I know he's bisexual. There ain't no doubt in my mind. He is bisexual." McKinney's former girlfriend Price says she now believes that as well. "He was always into trying to talk me into having a three-way with one of his guy friends," she said." http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=277685&page=4

This isn't anywhere else in the article, and it's directly relevant to the "hate crime" theory. I hope you just are not trying to hide this information. I am putting it back up.

Did you read the article? The discussion about the drug theory is already there. You are needlessly adding a section on information that is already represented in the article. In fact the same source you cite is used repeatedly in the article.
If you want to go back up into the article and add to that discussion the statement about his bisexuality, feel free. I don't care. I don't think it is endemic to the arguement. Gay and Bisexual people are just as capable of being homophobic as the rest of the population. I'm not going to touch what you added. I will leave anymore action to others.
Please learn how to add refernces to an article, i.e. the correct format. Your enthusiasm is appreciated but I would never try to hide anything, so please try not to throw aspersions around like that. It is unwarranted and quite frankly offensive.ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 04:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


I appreciate any constructive criticism. If you think that the information needs to be added further up in the article, rather than have it's own new section, I have no problem with that. If you also want to change the way the source is listed, I have no problem with that. But it is clear that the bi-sexuality reference to McKinney is sourced, and I believe it's relevant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.11.188.26 (talk) 06:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC).
Someone else moved the bisexuality reference further up in the article. I agree by the way, it is worth noting and I'm glad it's incoprporated. Thanks! ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 06:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
McKinney's initial defense was that he had had homosexual experiences in the past, and that they had traumatized him to the point that he burst into tears upon the sign of a gay couple kissing at a church. (As stated by his girlfriend) The suggestion that he might be bisexual, is indifferent to case he presented to the court. Rather than attempting to show that he was a bisexual, and had a significantly diminished chance of being homophobic, rather than choose to stay openly and loudly that the alleged advances returned him to traumatic experiences of his childhood? ... Come on, someone's trying to spin the truth here, and it is in all likelihood him, as he has presented so many different and varied stories that it would be impossible to tell which were the most true based on anyone's accounts. --Puellanivis (talk) 05:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] some thoughts on Article improvement

I just read this article for the first time by following a Wiki link and would like to offer what hopefully will be considered constructive comments, coming from someone in the general public reading it as an encyclopedia entry.

Firstly, I suggest the opening paragraph should state what is the significance of the subject, instead of assuming the reader already knows. It could state in neutral tone, "His murder, which was widely reported as a horrific hate crime, brought national attention to the subject of hate crime legislation...", or something like that.

Secondly, the article is quite terse with regard to Matthew Shepard, the person. While I realize that he is notable because of his murder, in my opinion the article should tell us a little bit more about him than simply which schools he attended. What were his interests? Did he have any friends? Was he ostracized at school and lonely? Indeed, the article implies that he was homosexual, but nowhere does it explicitly state this as fact.

In other words, added context would aid understanding of the circumstances leading to his demise. Surely, the published works (which admittedly I've not read at all) could be sourced to provide this info. FWIW, JGHowes 12:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relevance of quote

Recently some editors have been removing this paragraph from the article, questioning its relevance:

After the attack, the prosecutor told reporters that Shepard's friends had been vocal about Shepard's sexuality: "They were calling the County Attorney's office, they were calling the media and indicating Matthew Shepard is gay and we don't want the fact that he is gay to go unnoticed."

If you read the source article you can see the relevance. The major point of that article was to raise doubt over the motive. The question is why everyone seemed to assume right from the start that it was a hate crime. If that was the conclusion the detectives drew from objectively examining the evidence, then countering that conclusion would require a strong argument. But it transpires that the initial impression did not simply emerge on its own, but was the result of an organised effort to put it out there. Before the police could form a conclusion of their own, this campaign made sure that "hate crime" was foremost in everyone's minds. So the suggestion that it wasn't one after all shouldn't be so surprising, and doesn't require much evidence. That's why it's relevant. Zsero 21:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

...so the quote should be included in order to put forward a grand (and POV) conspiracy theory? CaveatLectorTalk 21:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me? "Paranoid conspiracy theory"? What conspiracy theory? This is a well-sourced fact; at least as well-sourced as any other fact in the article. Are you seriously denying its truth? I thought you were worried about its relevance, not claiming that it wasn't true! In any case, the paragraph has been in the article undisturbed for over a year, until some anonymous person came along and removed it (or was that you?). If you have a serious case to make for why it should not be there, make it here. In the meantime, the paragraph should stay. Convince us that it should be deleted, and it can go.
I'm not going to put it back right now, because I'm giving you a chance to put it back yourself. If you're serious and honest about the editing process you'll restore the article to how it was, and then come and discuss it. If you're not serious, then I'll know how to proceed.
Zsero 23:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Please remember to stay WP:CIVIL. While I certainly criticized your edit, I did not say such downright obnoxious things as you just have. Let's look at the 'paragraph' (this is actually just once sentence) shall we?
After the attack, the prosecutor told reporters that Shepard's friends had been vocal about Shepard's sexuality: "They were calling the County Attorney's office, they were calling the media and indicating Matthew Shepard is gay and we don't want the fact that he is gay to go unnoticed." [1]
First and foremost, if this information is to be included it should go into the section that is clearly marked as After the Attack. Now, I have asked what exactly this adds to the article. It's one sentence, taken completely out of context of the entire article, which YOU believe somehow shows 'evidence' that the police did not objectively classify this as a hate crime. Can you seriously see this isn't POV on your part? It certainly is a fact of the case, but all I can ask is what does it matter and why should it be in the article? And on another note, it's quite clear from your comments that you want to import the 'this was not a hate crime' POV into this article. For whatever motives you might have. CaveatLectorTalk 22:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me? What "obnoxious things" did I say about you? You're the one who goes on about "paranoid conspiracy theories", so it's a bit rich of you to demand civility. I've been perfectly civil, but your refusal to allow your edit to stay reverted until after we've sorted it out leads me to question how serious you are about the process. You've decided that the sentence should be removed, and so it must be removed regardless of anyone else's opinion. First you don't question its factuality, but say that it should go because you can't see its relevance; but then I explain why it is relevant you see to switch arguments, and now seem to be claiming that it's not factual. Pick an argument and stick with it.
I've already clearly explained the relevance. Whether the attack was or was not a hate crime is an open question. The reader must make up her own mind about it. And therefore the article needs to present the relevant facts. One fact is that right after the attack everyone seemed to assume that it was a hate crime. But how did this idea get out there? Was it based on the evidence alone, or on something else. The fact is that there was an organised campaign to get the idea out there, and that must shed some doubt on whether it really was one.
Now for your POV argument. I am not pushing a POV at all here, but you certainly seem to be. You seem determined that it was a hate crime, and that anything which might lead the reader to another conclusion must be erased. That's POV. Or don't you think so?
I repeat my previous offer: if you want to discuss this calmly and honestly, revert your own edit, restore it to how it was, and then we can discuss it. If you don't do this, and won't discuss it, and simply leave things alone, but then when I revert it you let loose with comments like "again with this nonsense", I'll have to conclude that you're not dealing in good faith. And accusing me of paranoid conspiracy theories is certain to make me question your good faith.
Zsero 08:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
First of all, please do not question my seriousness when you have been on the wiki for half as long as I have. It is obviously you who does not understand the process. Somebody removed a sentence from the article they felt didn't belong. You added it back, but I agreed with the other editor, so I then removed it again. You then reverted it BACK and THEN came to the talk page to 'discuss' it ('If you read the source article you can see the relevance. The major point of that article was to raise doubt over the motive. The question is why everyone seemed to assume right from the start that it was a hate crime. If that was the conclusion the detectives drew from objectively examining the evidence, then countering that conclusion would require a strong argument.') The major point of the article was NOT to 'raise doubt over the motive' This is an ABCNews article that is looking back on the crime years after it has been committed, which includes these questions. The article itself does not have an agenda. The quote you pulled from the article is what you are using to service YOUR own agenda in the wiki article. If you're wondering about your obnoxious comments, assuming that I somehow don't know about the wiki process or that I was the previous anonymous editor (when a quick look at my contribution history shows that I've been here twice as long as you have). The fact that Shepherd's friends told investigators that he was gay is not an organized campaign. THAT is the 'paranoid conspiracy theory' I was referring to. 'Was it based on the evidence alone?' Is Shepherd's sexual orientation not part of the evidence?
I'm genuinely confused by all of this. You seem to think that this one sentence inclines people to believe that it wasn't a hate crime. I really don't think so. I just think its a random sentence taken out of the article that doesn't actually RELATE anything of any importance. Now, if you seem to want people to think that there was a big conspiracy/campaign/whatever to have this seen as a hate crime. This is what bothers me. If you want to take a quote in order to let people make up their own minds, take the quote from the lead detective who gives his opinion on the matter, rather than subtly suggesting that a bunch of activists got together to deliberately trump up hate crime charges against the killers. So excuse me, but if you want the edit reverted, do it yourself, and perhaps we can call in more editors to help us discuss this out. THAT is the 'process' that you are referring to. CaveatLectorTalk 16:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I hardly think the two articles below are irrelevant since a number of sources (most notably LifeSiteNews) say something akin to the fact that "In perhaps the most famous 'hate crime' case of Matthew Shephard, his murderers said their crime had nothing to do with Shephard's homosexual orientation, but concerned money for drugs. ABC News' 20/20 admitted after an investigation that the attack had not been a 'hate crime,' but was, in fact, a bungled robbery. Nevertheless, the case generated over 13,500 'Matthew Shepard' news stories, massive TV coverage, two major Hollywood specials, three TV movies and a play."

Moreover, "It's important to note that the two thugs who robbed and murdered Shephard are now serving life in prison apart from any "hate crimes" law, proving once again that such laws are entirely unnecessary if not completely unconstitutional. Equal justice under the law is guaranteed, and equal justice was received."

Whoever posted what is immediately above--sign your posts. Please. It's really hard to take you seriously. Also, again, (see lengthy debate above under "hate crimes") it's cherry picking to cite the defendants' insistences that they killed Shepard because of drugs, and then ignore their defense at trial (that they killed him because he was gay), which has been entered into evidence in a court of law. If people insist on getting legalistic about this, then the trial should be balanced with their statements to ABCNews. Or the account provided in the trial should take precedence outright.--ProfessorFokker 20:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Rape victims

There's no mention of this in the article.~ZytheTalk to me! 19:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I'll remove it. Anybody, go ahead and re-add it if information becomes available. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Howard Stern?!

"Stern allowed the group to build their own demise as the show cast and callers proceeded to insult and discredit the anti-gay cause."

Does anybody else find this statement to be a little ridiculous? "Build their own demise" and "discredit the anti-gay cause?" Hardly objective and definitely not unbiased. Doesn't seem appropriate in an encyclopedia article.

Can somebody perhaps rewrite this little bit to make more sense and avoid the clearly subjective sentiment it has now? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.88.107 (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

  • I'd also like to request that somebody move the tale of the incident to Stern's article and/or the Phelps groups article. Much as I enjoyed reading it, it doesn't feel particularly relevant here.--ProfessorFokker 20:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] 20/20 section POV

The section on the 20/20 story is 1) way too long; and 2) POV. "...who yet again changed their versions of what happened that night."," To aid the impugnment of the report... " I suggest cutting it down considerably. Thoughts? Cap'n Walker 15:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. Its current status is a violation of WP:UNDUE, particularly the lengthy quotes. --Strothra 15:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, I "neutralized" and shortened it considerably. I don't think jailhouse recantations merit more than a paragraph or two in this article. Cap'n Walker 19:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] The Attack

Why is the description of the attack described from the perspective of the attacker who was found guilty in court? Usually history is written by the victor. Not on Wikipedia!RineholdM (talk) 08:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I just had a look at that section and don't feel it is written in anything but a neutral way. The only part which gives input from the attackers is the sentence which says "according to [the attacker], Shepard asked for a ride home". The rest of the paragraph is obviously taken from the police report and newspaper articles. Do you see something which would lead yuou to believe this section is NPOV? If so, please either discuss it here or rewrite the paragraph. And thanks for sharing your concerns. Jeffpw (talk) 08:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
RineholdM, the article has been written in a neutral way and according to sources available. We cannot simply rewrite sourced material without replacing it with better sources. Since you are a new editor, it would be helpful to see WP:VERIFY before making edits such as this: [13]. In order to maintain WP:NPOV all sides should be presented. --Strothra (talk) 09:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree. While Iknow that RineholdM's rewrite of the paragraph is correct, having followed the case at the time, it looks like original research without sources to back it up. I haven't reverted the changes, but I encourage RineghldM to find sources. Jeffpw (talk) 09:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to revert either - I'll add cn tags, but the testimony of the convicted should be added again to the section about the case since it was a key part of the trial. --Strothra (talk) 09:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Never mind the cn comment, just saw Rine's last edit that added the Salon article. --Strothra (talk) 09:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested additions to the 20/20 portion of the page, comment please?

While ABC's 20/20 report has recently received much attention from people attempting to show that Shepard's murder was not caused by hate crimes, and therefore that the most recent Hate Crimes Act passed by the House of Representatives is based upon an erroneous assumptions about Shepard's murder. With some investigation there are numerous inconsistencies in the report compared to the recorded events of the trial. McKinney speaking for the first time about the case, directly violating a condition of his plea bargain[2], stated that "I have gay friends. ... You know, that kind of thing don't bother me so much."[3] Directly contradicts with the presented defense that he used during the trial, which was also in part confirmed by the Laramie Police.
McKinney used a "gay panic" defense, by suggesting that Shepard's alleged advances brought McKinney back to memories that were stated to be that he had had two homosexual experiences prior to the murder, one was as a young child, when he was forced to give oral sex to another child[citation needed], and another situation described as a confused teenage experience with a male cousin.[citation needed] It was also testified by his girlfriend that upon accidentally entering a gay church, he was struck to tears by the sight of two men kissing.[citation needed] His defense to the claims that it was a crime motivated by hate, was that Shepard's alleged advances had actually caused him to return to repressed feelings about his own homosexual experiences. To now, years later, claim that his responses to homosexuality are of indifference, rather than a fundamentally uncontrollable response of fear, is itself at least contradictory, and at worst perjurious.
While other officers have told 20/20 their recollections about the details of the case, and precipitation of the attack[citation needed], Detective DeBere(?) under oath, had testified that the original statements made by the convicted murders left no doubt in his mind that the attacks were not only premeditated, but were motivated by hatred of homosexuals, and homosexuality, which seems much more substantiated by the actions of McKinney's own defense of his reaction to homosexuality, rather than if the precipitation of the attack had been drug-related.

I know, a lot of it is a bit of an essay, and shouldn't be included as is, that's why I took it to the talk page to get it cleaned up and polished before it's added to the actual article. --Puellanivis (talk) 05:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I have a quick question.

Ok, was Shepard gay or just a ardent supporter of LGBT? I've been trying to figure this out. Can anyone answer it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.8.59.31 (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] For people engaged in the "not a hate crime" POV pushing.

I think you'd feel more at home over at Conservapedia. It really does seem more suited for your particular demographic. There are also a number of other lovely articles you will probably enjoy reading and contributing to. --W2bh (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discredit is subjective and doesn't apply, since they don't have good reputations to begin with.

I removed the "and discredit" in the portion concerning their appearance on Howard Stern because a)whether they were being discredited by the words of the callers is subjective and b)Phelps and his followers don't currently have a good reputation(outside of other limited groups that share their views) to tarnish, which is what discredit means, "to harm someone's good reputation". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronar (talk • contribs) 14:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review request

A peer review request has been made. Please watchlist Wikipedia:Peer review/Matthew Shepard/archive1 to track comments. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adding sexual orientation

I think that his sexual orientation needs to be more directly stated in the background or the introduction part. This is important, as he was attacked, according to the attackers during-that-time-girlfriends, because he was gay. Also, the hate crime legislations was incited because of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.92.24.56 (talk) 02:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "The Trial"

"media reports often contained the graphic account of the pistol whipping and his smashed skull" Doesn't this seem a bit insensitive? I doubt there are guidelines regarding this sort of thing, but I think this can be reworded, and if (for some strange reason) it cannot, then would it hurt to remove this sentence? Littelbro14 (talk) 08:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this is toned down from the original version. There are guidelines for this - Wikipedia is not censored and may contain information others find offensive. --Ave Caesar (talk) 13:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)