Talk:Matthew Shepard

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)[reply]

Claims like this are often made against Matthew, and none have been factually corroborated. CaveatLector 05:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Christian bullshit. And even if someone is a dealer, does this justify murder?

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)[reply]

An event mentioned in this article is an October 6 selected anniversary.

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)

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)

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)[reply]

- - - - 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.

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The murderers recanted this claim. The "gay bashing" issue was created by the media. --SpinyNorman 08:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Shepards murderers weren't convicted of a hate crime. How it was "generally considered" is irrelevant. --SpinyNorman 19:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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