Talk:Matthew Shepard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 21:04, 25 August 2006 editSpinyNorman (talk \| contribs)1,550 edits →[]← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 21:27, 31 December 2024 edit undoTrystan (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users7,537 edits →Requested move 22 December 2024: clarify
(944 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Skip to talk}}
	More needs to be said about the issues raised by the 20/20 investigation.-- LKS 5/13/06
			{{Talk header}}
			{{Not a forum}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=B\|vital=yes\|living=no\|listas=Shepard, Matthew\|1=
			{{WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies\|person=yes\|old-peer-review=yes}}
			{{WikiProject Biography}}
			{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography\|importance=mid}}
			{{WikiProject United States\|importance=low\|WY=Yes\|WY-importance=Low}}
			}}
			{{Article history
			\|action1=PR
			\|action1date=03:47:56 08 May 2008 (UTC)
			\|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Matthew Shepard/archive1
			\|action1result=reviewed
			\|action1oldid=937866224
			\|otd1date=2004-04-05\|otd1oldid=5385970
			\|otd2date=2004-10-06\|otd2oldid=6402618
			\|otd3date=2009-10-06\|otd3oldid=318225263
			\|otd4date=2010-10-06\|otd4oldid=389123150
			\|otd5date=2013-10-06\|otd5oldid=575948551
			\|otd6date=2018-10-06\|otd6oldid=862596236
			\|otd7date=2023-10-06\|otd7oldid=1178831780
			}}

			{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
	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.
			\|target=Talk:Matthew Shepard/Archive index
			\|mask=Talk:Matthew Shepard/Archive <#>
			\|leading_zeros=0
			\|indexhere=yes}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = {{atnhead}}
			\|maxarchivesize = 200K
			\|counter = 2
			\|minthreadsleft = 5
			\|algo = old(31d)
			\|archive = Talk:Matthew Shepard/Archive %(counter)d
			}}
			{{archives\|search=yes\|bot=MiszaBot I\|age=31}}

			== Requested move 12 October 2018 ==
	:Any sources on this? --] 17:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
			<!-- ] 01:16, 24 March 2032 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|1963703801}}
	::Claims like this are often made against Matthew, and none have been factually corroborated. ] 05:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
			<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
	:::If this was true, why did the defense attempt to use the ]? The Meth BS presented by Elizabeth Vargas sounds more like a ]. --] 01:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
			:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ]. No further edits should be made to this section. ''
	:::: 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 Misplaced Pages. There are many Christians that were appalled by the actions of those two men.
	----

			The result of the move request was: Not moved: no consensus to do so, and proposer verges on withdrawall of the proposition. <small>(])</small> ] (]) 20:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
	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.
	--] 04:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

	''An event mentioned in this article is an ].''
	----		----

			] → {{no redirect\|Murder of Matthew Shepard}} – ]: Shepard was not a notable person, he was the victim of a crime. The crime is what is notable, and the information about Shepard is background. ] (]) 07:26, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
	I removed this:
	:'' A friend of Shepard's created "]". Now, when Phelps protests in various towns at funerals of ] 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.''

			:For reference, such a proposal occurred here ten years ago, as included in ] and ]. —] 09:35, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
	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. ] 18:09 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose'''. There is a lot of material out there now that focuses on Shepard himself and his life, not just his death. I also oppose for similar reasons we have an article titled "]" rather than "Murder of Emmett Till." On a side note: I'll alert ] to this move request. ] (]) 11:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

			*'''Oppose''' Plenty of sources document Matthew Shepard for who he was. His memory has gained heroic standing and lots of sources focus on him as representative of gay men in a certain historic era. His biography is unlike the cases to which Misplaced Pages editors usually apply ]. ]] 13:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
	:Here's a cite: . They also figure in the play ''The Laramie Project''. Here's an article about a more recent anti-Phelps angel action in Idaho. ]
			*'''Comment''': Ok, I didn't know this. ] (]) 11:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

			*'''Support''' per ]. His murder is what is notable. If he had simply died in a car accident instead of being murdered, he would have never met Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines. ] (]) 03:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
	::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 . ] 03:35 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC)
			:*'''Comment''': Nor would his parents likely have attained notability under such a situation. Would the same logic suggest we prefix their article titles with "Murder victim parent"? —] 06:23, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

			::*However, they have done notable things since. Matthew, unfortunately, never got the chance. --] (]) 18:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
	== not a hate crime? ==
			*'''Oppose''': While ], which is being cited as support for renaming, included a when it was a proposed guideline, it no longer does. If Shepard's notability is truly questioned per the current guideline, the article content should be considered for a merge with another article (or made a sub-article to it due to size), instead of being given simply a "murder of" naming prefix. —] 07:57, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

			*'''Support''' - Matthew Shepard was not notable before being killed, his notability is solely as a murder victim. And I would also support a move for Emmett Till on the same grounds. --] (]) 18:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
	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.
			*'''Oppose'''. It's often true that for people who are notable only for having been murdered, an event article about the murder is more appropriate than a biographical article about the person. However, there can be exceptions in certain circumstances — and Matthew Shepard, a person whose murder turned him into an international icon of human rights, who 20 years after his death is ''still'' more household-name hyperfamous than virtually any other not-already-notable-in-life murder victim in the entire history of human death, is legitimately one of those special circumstances. There's been a ''lot'' written in those intervening 20 years about his life ''before'' his murder, far, far more than most other murder victims have ever seen. And this has been proposed before, but failed for exactly this reason — it's not solely a question of whether he became notable by doing something or by having something done to him, in and of itself, but a question of where the ] do or don't enable us to place the balance of ''content''. And the sources ''do'' enable us to write a lot ''more'' about Matthew Shepard as a ''person'' than we can about most other murder victims, and his name is much more instantly and sustainably recognizable to the general public than the names of most other murder victims are.<br>Matthew Shepard is a special case who can't simply be treated the same way as most others, because for one reason or another his notability as an article topic ''transcended'' the circumstances of how it was initially established in the first place — very few other murder victims can honestly claim to have become enduringly megafamous symbols of human rights in the way that Shepard has. Out of all the gaybashing deaths that happened before Matthew Shepard's, for whatever reason ''his'' was the one that made the world stop and really ''look'' at the fact that people were getting killed for being gay — ''his'' was the gaybashing death that ''changed history'' in a much deeper way than any other gaybashing death ever had before. That's why he's special: he ''transcended'' the circumstances of his death to become ''the ultimate symbol'' of the fact that nobody else should ever die this way again. ] (]) 17:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

			*'''Oppose'''. per Bearcat and also the fact that the Britannica , lists him under biography, so we're not establishing precedent here, it's just common sense. ] (]) 03:00, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
	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. ] 05:52, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose'''. per Bearcat. MS's notability was triggered by his murder, and if this discussion was taking in the immediate aftermath of the murder then "Murder of MS" would be the appropriate title. But 2 decades, his life has been written about at least as much as his death. We ''can'' write a reliably-sourced encyclopedic article about his life, and we already have one. So no need to narrow the scope. --] <small>] • (])</small> 04:45, 19 October 2018 (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. ]
	----		----
			:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this ] or in a ]. No further edits should be made to this section.''<!-- Template:RM bottom --></div>
	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 ] or ]. ] 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. ] 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 ]. 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. ] 17:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

	*****If you look closely at the ] 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 ] 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 definition, and 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 Misplaced Pages. ] 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. -- ] 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 ] has nothing to do with the fact that the murderers were or were not convicted of a hate crime. ], 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 ] you will find '']''. ''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 ] because of national controversy and discussion that has already taken place. -- ] 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. --] 08:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

	== 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. —] (]) 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. -- ] 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.

	== 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 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. -] 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. --] 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. -] 08:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

	::::The murderers recanted this claim. The "gay bashing" issue was created by the media. --] 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. -] 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. --] 16:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
	:::::::According to the murderers' lawyers, it was due to "gay panic". 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. -] 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. --] 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? -] 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. --] 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 ] on our hands. People think it's a hate crime, so leave the category there, it's as simple as that. —] (]) 03:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


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

	:::::::::::::: SpinyNorman, see below which summarizes the justifications for including in the hate crime section quite well. See also ], 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. ] 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, ], enlighten us as to the thought processes leading you to defend them. --] 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. Misplaced Pages 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. --] 06:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

	== Protected ==

	Please work out your differences here on the talk page, and remember to follow the ]. · ]<sup>]</sup>/<small>]</small> 21:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

	== 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. ] 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. Misplaced Pages 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. --] 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. ] 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". --] 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 ; . Under federal United States law and Wyoming state law, crimes committed on the basis of sexual orientation are not considered hate crimes . 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 .
	:::--] 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. ] 23:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

	I like Samuel's proposal. ] 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. -- ] 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. --] 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. --] 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". --] 18:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

	::::::"''The word "often" is judgmental.''" Misplaced Pages 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 ] 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. --] 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? --] 18:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

	:::It is worth noting that the , as they explicitly track sexual orientation motivated crimes. Please see my comments in the above section to the effect that ]'s broad definition, along definition, and 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 ]'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 , the , and the . 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 ] page. Nonetheless, NPOV certainly supports its inclusion. ] 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. --] 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. ] 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? --] 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. --] 01:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

	::::::::And again, you fail to seperate the legal definition from the popular understanding, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages purpose of reflecting widely held views without seeking to portray objective truth instead of merely restating your opinion. ] 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. --] 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 because court testimony claimed that Matthew Shepard was targeted on the basis of his sexual orientation ; . Under federal United States law and Wyoming state law, crimes committed on the basis of sexual orientation are not considered hate crimes . 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 .

	So what needs to be added to this? -- ] 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. --] 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. -- ] 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. --] 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. --] 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. -- ] 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. -- ] 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. --] 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. -- ]

	:::::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. ] 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. ] 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. --] 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. -- ] 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. --] 04:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

	== 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? -] 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. ] 01:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)PFink

	== 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 because . Under federal United States law and Wyoming state law, crimes committed on the basis of sexual orientation are not considered hate crimes . 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 .

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

	== extra sentence in first paragraph clarifying dates. ==

			== His murder had nothing to do with the fact that he was gay ==
	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. ] 21:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)snowden666

			He was killed during a robbery because he was a drug dealer ] (]) 10:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
	== Melissa Etheridge Reference ==

			:This view is already included in the article's "Subsequent reporting" section. —] 11:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
	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.

			::Not really. Most of the article implies otherwise. And that is only mentioned described as an allegation by one person. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 12:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
	== re: Melissa ==
			:::The "emperor had no clothes " statement is that there is no basis for the the widely accepted and broadly asserted ] meme that it was because he was gay. The big story here is how widely it was accepted as fact (per ]) despite having no basis. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 00:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
			:These people create martyrs out of victims, they’re silly and low intelligence. ] (]) 23:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
			::Curious: Who are "these people?" ] (]) 23:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
			Folks: Talk pages are a place to discuss changes to articles, not a platform for personal views on a topic.

			The theory that this incident was about a drug deal is mentioned in the article and covered in the book promoting that theory. There's significant criticism of that book's theory.
	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.

			I question the neutrality of an experienced Misplaced Pages editor would say "there is no basis for the the widely accepted and broadly asserted ] meme that it was because he was gay." That assertion is easily refuted by a cursory read of the article. For example, the killer's defense asserted that he killed Shepard because he was gay while under a state of temporary insanity. Furthermore, the various reliable sources cited in the article present that his sexuality was related to his murder.
	== Santa Monica Blvd memorial ==

			I sense that people have strong feelings about this and related topics, but I recommend stepping back and keeping ] and ] in mind. ] (]) 16:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
	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.
			:My statement was about the widely accepted meme that the murder was ''because'' he was gay. Not that it was unrelated. For example, that is how they lured him. "Related" is not "because". Your added "because" was not in the article. The only place where because ''was'' mentioned was a statement by the girlfriend which was later recanted. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 19:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

			:Just one example from the article: "McKinney's lawyer attempted to put forward a gay panic defense, arguing that McKinney was driven to temporary insanity by alleged sexual advances by Shepard."
	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 . 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.
			:That is a pretty clear causal relationship between the killing and the victim's sexual orientation. Your argument that there's no basis for this causal relationship is easily refuted. ] (]) 20:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
			::I said what I have to say and stand by it. Not going to go in circles or repeat. Wish you the best. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 21:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

			"He was killed because he was gay" is unsourced and '''not in the article'''. But that narrative was promoted and was and is still widely believed. It looks like more sources are starting to point all of that out. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 21:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
	== ] cite requests ==

			== Source to consider integrating in ==
	Sorry for those I just trounced on. I saw all of those {{tl\|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).

			https://www.thefp.com/p/the-story-of-matthew-shepards-murder-92b ] (]) 20:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
	Unhappy.... --] 00:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

			: Looks like a ]. I'd think it should be reasonable to go ahead and add it as a reference. ] (]) 16:17, 25 December 2024 (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 ] is an important guideline. -] 00:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

			== Requested move 22 December 2024 ==
	Okay, they're all cited. Whew! --] 08:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

			{{requested move/dated\|Murder of Matthew Shepard\|protected=Matthew Shepard}}
	== 20/20 ==

			] → {{no redirect\|Murder of Matthew Shepard}} – Per ] and ]. This is going to be controversial but still it should be done. He has no notability besides his murder. He became famous because he died and before that he was a complete unknown. People might say he has been notable in other things but that is only a consequence of being murdered. People should leave their emotional bias behind and look at the facts. Another option is to split an article called "Murder of Matthew Shepard” about the death itself while the notability and legacy will remain in the main article. ] (]) 08:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	More needs to be said about the issues raised by the 20/20 investigation..-- LKS 5/13/06
			:'''Oppose'''. I think Bearcat said it best under ] above, but particularly: {{tq\|his has been proposed before, but failed for exactly this reason — it's not solely a question of whether he became notable by doing something or by having something done to him, in and of itself, but a question of where the reliable sources do or don't enable us to place the balance of content. And the sources do enable us to write a lot more about Matthew Shepard as a person than we can about most other murder victims, and his name is much more instantly and sustainably recognizable to the general public than the names of most other murder victims are.}}--] (]) 16:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::One additional key point, is that ] says a victim of a crime should have their own article if {{tq\|"The victim... consistent with ], had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role. ].''']}}. The guideline uses Shepard as ''the'' example of when in-depth and ongoing works about a victim of crime warrant an independent biography. Coverage of Shepard has continued over the 15 years since this biography was added to that part of the guideline, so I don't see any compelling argument that it has gone from being the exemplar to it not even applying.--] (]) 21:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:'''Oppose'''. There are numerous cultural depictions of the person, so many that a separate article was created. Many of these depictions are about the person, not the murder. This subject is not only known in connection with a criminal event, but for many other things that his life inspired. For that, I don't believe ] applies. Given these depictions and other elements of his legacy, I believe that Matthew Shepard is more widely known that the murder itself, and thus per ], the article should be named after the person. ] (]) 21:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::'''Comment''' As it was deemed helpful and appropriate in the previous move request, I've alerted ]. ] (]) 21:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:'''Support'''. There are cases where people with a far more compelling case to a biography-structured article were moved to event based ones. Every single article, every single book that has ever been published about Shephard is about or as a result of him being killed. While I believe there are other reasons for an event article to be focused on a person (for example, IMO if a person was notable prior to being murdered, the article should always be biographically focused, or if it's exceptionally complicated, or if there's some other misc reason) none apply here. Every single thing his life inspired was a result of him being murdered. The reason we can write more about him as a person is because of the motive for the murder and his personal life were very intertwined - and this doesn't actually seem like an exceptional amount of biographical information for a murder victim. I have seen ones with far more that were event based. ] (]) 20:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:'''Support'''. The notable portion of the article is the murder. Makes sense for the article to be about the murder. ] (]) 19:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:'''Cautious support''' provided the article isn't eviscerated because of the move. It should be slanted to be about the tragic and unpleasant murder, but the biographical details are important, as is the aftermath. I've always felt it strange that this was about Matthew the person, not the death, but it was also such a major event that this was probably inevitable. I think sufficient time has elapsed to allow this change. 🇺🇦 ] ] 🇺🇦 23:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:'''Question'''. This article has a sub-article, ]. If this article is moved as proposed, what would happen to that article? Would it be similarly rescoped to ]? It wouldn’t make sense to have an article covering cultural descriptions of someone not notable enough to have a stand-alone biography.--] (]) 18:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			::That article already seems to be about depictions of his murder. ] (]) 22:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Many of the depictions focus on the murder, some focus on both his life and the murder, and some focus on his life, so wouldn’t fit if the scope of the article were narrowed to his murder.--] (]) 00:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::If it was moved his life would be a subtopic, so I see no reason it could not be included. Victims and killers are obviously highly interrelated to the crime itself. ] (]) 00:48, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			:'''Oppose''' per ]. ] (]) 11:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			:'''Weakly oppose, but support eventual split'''. I think there is enough information about both Shepard and his murder to support two separate articles under ] and ]. This has been done for a few other homicide victims who became posthumously notable—] (] and ] (]) come to mind—and I think it would be a wise step here if anyone wants to ever bring this article to ] or ]. A clearer delineation between Shepard and his killing would both present information better to readers and avoid reducing the man to the circumstances of his death, when there's a lot to say about both his life and legacy. But that can't really be done till someone takes the time to do the expansion. So for now this should stay one article, and I think it's kind of arbitrary whether it's a bio with a lot of event focus or an event with a lot of bio focus, but with that in mind, let's stick to the ''status quo''. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 19:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			::That seems like a good plan for the article, as there is a lot more content available in reliable sources on both topics than is currently in the article. ] (]) is another article example where that approach works well.--] (]) 15:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			* '''Support''' - once you remove the murder and aftermath (BLP1E) what would be left would likely fail a AfD for GNG reasons (regardless of reliable sources). On the other hand, say he was notable, but simply not discovered by Misplaced Pages yet (eg an article created), and the murder is what brought more attention to him. For example, say that he made some sort of important discovery in college or otherwise notable who would have a BLP article, prior to his murder, then I would oppose this proposal. However, this article is largely about (ie WEIGHT) about the murder and response, with generally biographical/historical information about the individual, all of which is not notable in itself. This is further supported by the fact that none of the sources predate the murder. About the only other reason per 1E that would make sense is if this was considered a “major event”, instead of a minor one, and herein lies the problem, those who are personally involved in these types of events or issues (hate crimes, victims, LGBT, etc) feel like this was certainly major, and those who are disconnected from it do not feel this way. While there was coverage by 20/20 and some laws were enacted as a response, I would argue that it doesn’t automatically make it a major event. In other words, every person who was the subject of a 20/20 article and/or cause for legislation, does not automatically make it meet GNG for an article (effectively reverse-WAX) ] ] 16:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:@]: If your reasoning here is based on the assumption that Shepard's death is only a major event in the eyes of queer people, that's simply incorrect, and kind of astonishingly so, like saying that the ] or ] wasn't a major event. Shepard's murder is probably the most infamous and politically influential hate crime since the 1960s in the U.S. That's not just influence in the queer community; it's influence everywhere. It was part of my high school's American history curriculum. I appreciate that this is a good-faith misunderstanding, but it really frustrates me when someone comes to a discussion about a topic they apparently don't know anything about, and then uses the fact they know nothing about it as evidence that it is not notable/significant/important. It's okay to not know things (that's what Misplaced Pages is for after all!), but it's not fair to other editors or our readers to ask for decisions to be made on the basis of you not knowing about something. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 17:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::I actually astonished that you chose to respond that way. I might understand that behavior if you were responding to someone who did not cite policy and guidelines, didn’t reference the articles, or threw out transphobic no sense or was a newer contributor to the community.
			*::Now you can disagree with what I said, but it is very uncivil to lob such accusations and to further state that someone who has contributed to many RMs is just coming into this blindly.
			*::It is interesting that you seems to focus on last item on a list to presume that was encompassing my entire position on the matter: {{tq\| hate crimes, victims, LGBT, etc}}. Now perhaps you equate me saying “hate crime” with him being gay but let me assure you that to a large number of people, hate is not isolated to sexual orientation. May I proffer that you are reading that backwards. My point was since Matthew was likely targeted, regardless of the reason, is going to appear a bigger deal to those who follow such things because of their own experiences and biases. (Eg people who have been targeted by ANY form of hate crime.) As someone who has personally been criminally targeted (multiple times) and has been legally found to be a victim of a certain type of discrimination, I most certainly see other people who are victimized in similar realms as a bigger deal than most people would. As would other people in my position. As I presume you do… because it is natural. While we strive to be NPOV we cannot deny that we have a POV that impacts our perceptions. It’s a lot like when we look at PIA issues are to those involved people who live in that part of the world are hugely significant to them, but to the large percentage of the world they aren’t even a blip on the radar. I’m not saying that a murder is a small event, but rather the large scale significance of an issue is often inflated by that community (whatever the type of community… race, gender, geographical, political, etc). For example take ] which was a murder your probably not familiar with but absolutely shook that San Francisco Bay Area that led to the three strikes law in multiple states. It was a massive deal to a bunch of people but realistically, while infamous to many, not actually significant to most. That is not to devalue the person, or undermine the heinousness of the crime, but rather to apply proper weight to naming. And I shouldn’t have to point out that in both my example and yours, ] rarely is compelling for RMs. ] ] 19:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::@]: Indeed you are an experienced contributor, which is why I was giving you the chance to say, "Oh, wow, I clearly misjudged the importance of this event, my bad" but I guess if you want to double down on this argument that, by knowing <em>less</em> about this, you are in a <em>better</em> position to assess its importance, I mean... You do you, I guess? If I'd been looking for a fight, I could have talked more about your weird insinuation that everyone who thinks it's notable is biased because they're queer and/or have been victims of crimes, which I honestly don't know what to say to other than "wtf", but good to double down on that too I guess.{{pb}}], and that's true of all of us, newbies or old-timers, 1 edit or 100,000. I commented on this not to attack you as a person, but to make clear to the closer that you were not arguing from a place of competence in the subject, but rather your own misunderstanding of the significance of a watershed event in both LGBTQ history and the history of hate crime laws. I think your response actually reframes your argument in a significantly less charitable light than I had—one that borders on dismissing others' views based on queerness and/or assumed life experiences—so, I think I've said all I need to. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 20:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:Notablity is derived from his life receiving signficant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, not by him having achieved some specific accomplishment that we deem important. Per ], {{tq\|However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified.}} There is a quarter century of sustained coverage of both Shepard as an individual and the murder, so if that guidance doesn't apply here, it doesn't apply anywhere.
			*:As for whether the murder is a major event, I think it clearly is. Decades later, it continues to receive significant attention and discussion in scholarly sources. We have several articles related to Shepard and his murder, and sources available to signficantly expand the ones we have.--] (]) 22:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:Returning to the topic at hand... First to be clear, what happened to Matthew is tragic; hate of any individual is something we should not culturally permit and it would seem quite appropriate that one of the persons convicted of perpetrating this crime was denied a reduced sentence just this year. However, not withstand that, we are not here for sentimentality sake, there are other venues for that. In this case, it is about ]. Here is just a small fraction of the research I performed PRIOR to initially commenting on this RM after ''nearly 40 minutes of research''. (READ: this wasn't just throwing biased uninformed opinion into the air). Also to be abundantly clear ALL references to "notable" is specifically narrowly defined as ] and not do otherwise convey any meaning of "value" (or suggest lack there of) to any individual.
			*:The following examples demonstrate that "Murder of..." is not only COMMONNAME, but also ''established precedent'' on WP for naming such articles:
			: The ] - we find other other victim, ] also with the prefix of Murder.
			: ] of those in the US who are named victims with articles: 4 were previously notable (politicians, etc), 24 of them have death or killing titles, leaving ''only 4'' otherwise not overtly notable people who are listed with just their names instead of with a prefix.
			: Looking at every single person I found (that has a WP article) contains Murder in their AT except for Matthew and ].
			: Per ] just about every reference to Matthew is in reference to his death what other people have done in his namesake. Per ] we use COMMONNAME before following the flowchart.
			: Looking at Google Trends compared to other notable murders: George Floyd over 5x the GTrends score - they are not equitable and massively more ngrams
			:* Also just because it was recently brought up there is also an equally staggering difference with King & Till versus Shephard as well.
			: The in popular culture section of this article, and the linked main article, shows the vast majority of the references are regarding hate crimes, his murder, and related topics - not his life or him as a person.
			*:Now also to be clear:
			: There is unquestionably lots of reliable sources and the notability of Matthew (eg it SNOW paases ] and ])
			: Furthermore it is ''not questionable'' that he is among the list of top ten or so most notable, impactful people in the categories of LGBT hate crimes/murders/etc.
			: Rather the question is if this should follow a ] style ]; as per {{section link\|Misplaced Pages:Naming_conventions_(people)\|Descriptive_titles}} & ].
			: Furthermore if we couldn't find consensus on COMMONNAME, then it would seem like ] would also support this move.
			*:We do keep BLP1E articles that pass the test, which this clearly does, but lets honestly call ] and without this one event there is nothing noteworthy here. His legacy and impact is more about the ''works of others in his name'', but always in a harkening back to that one event. ] ] 00:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::] only applies to living people; ] and ] are the relevant guidelines, which state an independent biography is warranted where there is a large role in a well-documented historic event, with significance indicated by persistent coverage in secondary sources. The ] biography has been listed in ] as the example of where an independent biography is warranted for the past fifteen years.
			*::Google Trends shows how much people are searching for a term; it is not a meaningful metric for coverage in reliable sources, which is relevant to the guidelines. Looking at , it is clear that George Floyd is in a class of his own. Coverage of Shepard is lower than, but in the same order of magnitude as, comparable individuals from recent history, and higher than others specifically mentioned in ] as warranting a standalone biography.
			*::I agree that this decision is governed by ]. Both sides are making arguments grounded in their reading and application of the guidelines. We can ] that differences of opinion are due to different interpretations, rather than being motivated by personal involvement or sentiment.--] (]) 21:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

	== ] ==		== Subsequent Reporting ==

			Michael-Zero pointed out on my talk page that several of the sources in the ''Book of Matt'' subsection are in fact responses to the 20/20 piece, and pre-date the ''Book of Matt'' by several years. While Jimenez was the producer of the 20/20 segment, the sources do not mention Jimenez, and so can't be used as citations for a sentence about reactions to his views, or framed as a response to a book that came out years later. I have moved the earlier sources into the 20/20 subsection, and added detail for what they say.
	Several months ago, to accommodate Spiny Norman, I split the category Hate crimes. It is now ] which is for articles that discuss the TOPIC of hate crime, and there is ] (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". -- ] 00:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

			In reviewing these sources, I think the ''Subsequent reporting'' section should also cover JoAnn Wypijewski’s 1999 ''Harper’s'' piece, as the secondary sources (especially O'Donnell) treat that as a major piece of subsequent journalism, in addition to the 20/20 report and the book.--] (]) 19:57, 26 December 2024 (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 ] 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). --] 21:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 21:27, 31 December 2024

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Matthew Shepard article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 31 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Matthew Shepard. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Matthew Shepard at the Reference desk.

This

level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

LGBTQ+ studies: Person

	LGBTQ portal This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
	This article is supported by the LGBTQ+ Person task force.
	This article has had a peer review which is now archived.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Crime and Criminal Biography Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Wyoming Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Wyoming (assessed as Low-importance).

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 8, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed

Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 5, 2004, October 6, 2004, October 6, 2009, October 6, 2010, October 6, 2013, October 6, 2018, and October 6, 2023.

Archives

Index

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Requested move 12 October 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved: no consensus to do so, and proposer verges on withdrawall of the proposition. (non-admin closure) Kevin McE (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Matthew Shepard → Murder of Matthew Shepard – WP:VICTIM: Shepard was not a notable person, he was the victim of a crime. The crime is what is notable, and the information about Shepard is background. HandsomeFella (talk) 07:26, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

For reference, such a proposal occurred here ten years ago, as included in this archive and its subsequent section. —ADavidB 09:35, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Oppose. There is a lot of material out there now that focuses on Shepard himself and his life, not just his death. I also oppose for similar reasons we have an article titled "Emmett Till" rather than "Murder of Emmett Till." On a side note: I'll alert WP:LGBT to this move request. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Oppose Plenty of sources document Matthew Shepard for who he was. His memory has gained heroic standing and lots of sources focus on him as representative of gay men in a certain historic era. His biography is unlike the cases to which Misplaced Pages editors usually apply WP:VICTIM. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Comment: Ok, I didn't know this. HandsomeFella (talk) 11:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Support per WP:VICTIM. His murder is what is notable. If he had simply died in a car accident instead of being murdered, he would have never met Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Nor would his parents likely have attained notability under such a situation. Would the same logic suggest we prefix their article titles with "Murder victim parent"? —ADavidB 06:23, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

However, they have done notable things since. Matthew, unfortunately, never got the chance. --Khajidha (talk) 18:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Oppose: While WP:VICTIM, which is being cited as support for renaming, included a section on article titles when it was a proposed guideline, it no longer does. If Shepard's notability is truly questioned per the current guideline, the article content should be considered for a merge with another article (or made a sub-article to it due to size), instead of being given simply a "murder of" naming prefix. —ADavidB 07:57, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Support - Matthew Shepard was not notable before being killed, his notability is solely as a murder victim. And I would also support a move for Emmett Till on the same grounds. --Khajidha (talk) 18:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. It's often true that for people who are notable only for having been murdered, an event article about the murder is more appropriate than a biographical article about the person. However, there can be exceptions in certain circumstances — and Matthew Shepard, a person whose murder turned him into an international icon of human rights, who 20 years after his death is still more household-name hyperfamous than virtually any other not-already-notable-in-life murder victim in the entire history of human death, is legitimately one of those special circumstances. There's been a lot written in those intervening 20 years about his life before his murder, far, far more than most other murder victims have ever seen. And this has been proposed before, but failed for exactly this reason — it's not solely a question of whether he became notable by doing something or by having something done to him, in and of itself, but a question of where the reliable sources do or don't enable us to place the balance of content. And the sources do enable us to write a lot more about Matthew Shepard as a person than we can about most other murder victims, and his name is much more instantly and sustainably recognizable to the general public than the names of most other murder victims are.
Matthew Shepard is a special case who can't simply be treated the same way as most others, because for one reason or another his notability as an article topic transcended the circumstances of how it was initially established in the first place — very few other murder victims can honestly claim to have become enduringly megafamous symbols of human rights in the way that Shepard has. Out of all the gaybashing deaths that happened before Matthew Shepard's, for whatever reason his was the one that made the world stop and really look at the fact that people were getting killed for being gay — his was the gaybashing death that changed history in a much deeper way than any other gaybashing death ever had before. That's why he's special: he transcended the circumstances of his death to become the ultimate symbol of the fact that nobody else should ever die this way again. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. per Bearcat and also the fact that the Britannica , lists him under biography, so we're not establishing precedent here, it's just common sense. GuzzyG (talk) 03:00, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. per Bearcat. MS's notability was triggered by his murder, and if this discussion was taking in the immediate aftermath of the murder then "Murder of MS" would be the appropriate title. But 2 decades, his life has been written about at least as much as his death. We can write a reliably-sourced encyclopedic article about his life, and we already have one. So no need to narrow the scope. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

His murder had nothing to do with the fact that he was gay

He was killed during a robbery because he was a drug dealer 2600:8805:C08:7100:91F9:6E98:A1B8:C1CE (talk) 10:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

This view is already included in the article's "Subsequent reporting" section. —ADavidB 11:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Not really. Most of the article implies otherwise. And that is only mentioned described as an allegation by one person. North8000 (talk) 12:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The "emperor had no clothes " statement is that there is no basis for the the widely accepted and broadly asserted Confirmation bias meme that it was because he was gay. The big story here is how widely it was accepted as fact (per Confirmation bias) despite having no basis. North8000 (talk) 00:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

These people create martyrs out of victims, they’re silly and low intelligence. 75.169.129.47 (talk) 23:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Curious: Who are "these people?" 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Folks: Talk pages are a place to discuss changes to articles, not a platform for personal views on a topic.

The theory that this incident was about a drug deal is mentioned in the article and covered in the book promoting that theory. There's significant criticism of that book's theory.

I question the neutrality of an experienced Misplaced Pages editor would say "there is no basis for the the widely accepted and broadly asserted Confirmation bias meme that it was because he was gay." That assertion is easily refuted by a cursory read of the article. For example, the killer's defense asserted that he killed Shepard because he was gay while under a state of temporary insanity. Furthermore, the various reliable sources cited in the article present that his sexuality was related to his murder.

I sense that people have strong feelings about this and related topics, but I recommend stepping back and keeping WP:ADVOCACY and WP:NOTABOUTYOU in mind. Davidwbaker (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

My statement was about the widely accepted meme that the murder was because he was gay. Not that it was unrelated. For example, that is how they lured him. "Related" is not "because". Your added "because" was not in the article. The only place where because was mentioned was a statement by the girlfriend which was later recanted. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Just one example from the article: "McKinney's lawyer attempted to put forward a gay panic defense, arguing that McKinney was driven to temporary insanity by alleged sexual advances by Shepard."

That is a pretty clear causal relationship between the killing and the victim's sexual orientation. Your argument that there's no basis for this causal relationship is easily refuted. Davidwbaker (talk) 20:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I said what I have to say and stand by it. Not going to go in circles or repeat. Wish you the best. North8000 (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

"He was killed because he was gay" is unsourced and not in the article. But that narrative was promoted and was and is still widely believed. It looks like more sources are starting to point all of that out. North8000 (talk) 21:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Source to consider integrating in

https://www.thefp.com/p/the-story-of-matthew-shepards-murder-92b Pengortm (talk) 20:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Looks like a reliable source. I'd think it should be reasonable to go ahead and add it as a reference. Michael-Zero (talk) 16:17, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 22 December 2024

It has been proposed in this section that Matthew Shepard be renamed and moved to Murder of Matthew Shepard.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Matthew Shepard → Murder of Matthew Shepard – Per WP:DEATHS and WP:ONEEVENT. This is going to be controversial but still it should be done. He has no notability besides his murder. He became famous because he died and before that he was a complete unknown. People might say he has been notable in other things but that is only a consequence of being murdered. People should leave their emotional bias behind and look at the facts. Another option is to split an article called "Murder of Matthew Shepard” about the death itself while the notability and legacy will remain in the main article. Theparties (talk) 08:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. I think Bearcat said it best under #Requested move 12 October 2018 above, but particularly: his has been proposed before, but failed for exactly this reason — it's not solely a question of whether he became notable by doing something or by having something done to him, in and of itself, but a question of where the reliable sources do or don't enable us to place the balance of content. And the sources do enable us to write a lot more about Matthew Shepard as a person than we can about most other murder victims, and his name is much more instantly and sustainably recognizable to the general public than the names of most other murder victims are.--Trystan (talk) 16:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

One additional key point, is that WP:VICTIM says a victim of a crime should have their own article if "The victim... consistent with Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons#Subjects notable only for one event, had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role. . The guideline uses Shepard as the example of when in-depth and ongoing works about a victim of crime warrant an independent biography. Coverage of Shepard has continued over the 15 years since this biography was added to that part of the guideline, so I don't see any compelling argument that it has gone from being the exemplar to it not even applying.--Trystan (talk) 21:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. There are numerous cultural depictions of the person, so many that a separate article was created. Many of these depictions are about the person, not the murder. This subject is not only known in connection with a criminal event, but for many other things that his life inspired. For that, I don't believe WP:VICTIM applies. Given these depictions and other elements of his legacy, I believe that Matthew Shepard is more widely known that the murder itself, and thus per WP:ONEEVENT, the article should be named after the person. Davidwbaker (talk) 21:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment As it was deemed helpful and appropriate in the previous move request, I've alerted WP:LGBT. Davidwbaker (talk) 21:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Support. There are cases where people with a far more compelling case to a biography-structured article were moved to event based ones. Every single article, every single book that has ever been published about Shephard is about or as a result of him being killed. While I believe there are other reasons for an event article to be focused on a person (for example, IMO if a person was notable prior to being murdered, the article should always be biographically focused, or if it's exceptionally complicated, or if there's some other misc reason) none apply here. Every single thing his life inspired was a result of him being murdered. The reason we can write more about him as a person is because of the motive for the murder and his personal life were very intertwined - and this doesn't actually seem like an exceptional amount of biographical information for a murder victim. I have seen ones with far more that were event based. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Support. The notable portion of the article is the murder. Makes sense for the article to be about the murder. Michael-Zero (talk) 19:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Cautious support provided the article isn't eviscerated because of the move. It should be slanted to be about the tragic and unpleasant murder, but the biographical details are important, as is the aftermath. I've always felt it strange that this was about Matthew the person, not the death, but it was also such a major event that this was probably inevitable. I think sufficient time has elapsed to allow this change. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Faddle 🇺🇦 23:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Question. This article has a sub-article, Cultural depictions of Matthew Shepard. If this article is moved as proposed, what would happen to that article? Would it be similarly rescoped to Cultural depictions of the murder of Matthew Shepard? It wouldn’t make sense to have an article covering cultural descriptions of someone not notable enough to have a stand-alone biography.--Trystan (talk) 18:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

That article already seems to be about depictions of his murder. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Many of the depictions focus on the murder, some focus on both his life and the murder, and some focus on his life, so wouldn’t fit if the scope of the article were narrowed to his murder.--Trystan (talk) 00:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

If it was moved his life would be a subtopic, so I see no reason it could not be included. Victims and killers are obviously highly interrelated to the crime itself. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:48, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per Davidwbaker. KmartEmployeeTor (talk) 11:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Weakly oppose, but support eventual split. I think there is enough information about both Shepard and his murder to support two separate articles under WP:N and WP:NOPAGE. This has been done for a few other homicide victims who became posthumously notable—George Floyd (murder of) and Trayvon Martin (killing of) come to mind—and I think it would be a wise step here if anyone wants to ever bring this article to GA or FA. A clearer delineation between Shepard and his killing would both present information better to readers and avoid reducing the man to the circumstances of his death, when there's a lot to say about both his life and legacy. But that can't really be done till someone takes the time to do the expansion. So for now this should stay one article, and I think it's kind of arbitrary whether it's a bio with a lot of event focus or an event with a lot of bio focus, but with that in mind, let's stick to the status quo. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 19:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

That seems like a good plan for the article, as there is a lot more content available in reliable sources on both topics than is currently in the article. Breonna Taylor (Killing of) is another article example where that approach works well.--Trystan (talk) 15:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Support - once you remove the murder and aftermath (BLP1E) what would be left would likely fail a AfD for GNG reasons (regardless of reliable sources). On the other hand, say he was notable, but simply not discovered by Misplaced Pages yet (eg an article created), and the murder is what brought more attention to him. For example, say that he made some sort of important discovery in college or otherwise notable who would have a BLP article, prior to his murder, then I would oppose this proposal. However, this article is largely about (ie WEIGHT) about the murder and response, with generally biographical/historical information about the individual, all of which is not notable in itself. This is further supported by the fact that none of the sources predate the murder. About the only other reason per 1E that would make sense is if this was considered a “major event”, instead of a minor one, and herein lies the problem, those who are personally involved in these types of events or issues (hate crimes, victims, LGBT, etc) feel like this was certainly major, and those who are disconnected from it do not feel this way. While there was coverage by 20/20 and some laws were enacted as a response, I would argue that it doesn’t automatically make it a major event. In other words, every person who was the subject of a 20/20 article and/or cause for legislation, does not automatically make it meet GNG for an article (effectively reverse-WAX) TiggerJay (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
@Tiggerjay: If your reasoning here is based on the assumption that Shepard's death is only a major event in the eyes of queer people, that's simply incorrect, and kind of astonishingly so, like saying that the beating of Rodney King or lynching of Emmett Till wasn't a major event. Shepard's murder is probably the most infamous and politically influential hate crime since the 1960s in the U.S. That's not just influence in the queer community; it's influence everywhere. It was part of my high school's American history curriculum. I appreciate that this is a good-faith misunderstanding, but it really frustrates me when someone comes to a discussion about a topic they apparently don't know anything about, and then uses the fact they know nothing about it as evidence that it is not notable/significant/important. It's okay to not know things (that's what Misplaced Pages is for after all!), but it's not fair to other editors or our readers to ask for decisions to be made on the basis of you not knowing about something. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 17:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
I actually astonished that you chose to respond that way. I might understand that behavior if you were responding to someone who did not cite policy and guidelines, didn’t reference the articles, or threw out transphobic no sense or was a newer contributor to the community.

Now you can disagree with what I said, but it is very uncivil to lob such accusations and to further state that someone who has contributed to many RMs is just coming into this blindly.

It is interesting that you seems to focus on last item on a list to presume that was encompassing my entire position on the matter: hate crimes, victims, LGBT, etc. Now perhaps you equate me saying “hate crime” with him being gay but let me assure you that to a large number of people, hate is not isolated to sexual orientation. May I proffer that you are reading that backwards. My point was since Matthew was likely targeted, regardless of the reason, is going to appear a bigger deal to those who follow such things because of their own experiences and biases. (Eg people who have been targeted by ANY form of hate crime.) As someone who has personally been criminally targeted (multiple times) and has been legally found to be a victim of a certain type of discrimination, I most certainly see other people who are victimized in similar realms as a bigger deal than most people would. As would other people in my position. As I presume you do… because it is natural. While we strive to be NPOV we cannot deny that we have a POV that impacts our perceptions. It’s a lot like when we look at PIA issues are to those involved people who live in that part of the world are hugely significant to them, but to the large percentage of the world they aren’t even a blip on the radar. I’m not saying that a murder is a small event, but rather the large scale significance of an issue is often inflated by that community (whatever the type of community… race, gender, geographical, political, etc). For example take Polly Klass which was a murder your probably not familiar with but absolutely shook that San Francisco Bay Area that led to the three strikes law in multiple states. It was a massive deal to a bunch of people but realistically, while infamous to many, not actually significant to most. That is not to devalue the person, or undermine the heinousness of the crime, but rather to apply proper weight to naming. And I shouldn’t have to point out that in both my example and yours, WP:WAX rarely is compelling for RMs. TiggerJay (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
@Tiggerjay: Indeed you are an experienced contributor, which is why I was giving you the chance to say, "Oh, wow, I clearly misjudged the importance of this event, my bad" but I guess if you want to double down on this argument that, by knowing less about this, you are in a better position to assess its importance, I mean... You do you, I guess? If I'd been looking for a fight, I could have talked more about your weird insinuation that everyone who thinks it's notable is biased because they're queer and/or have been victims of crimes, which I honestly don't know what to say to other than "wtf", but good to double down on that too I guess.We all have our own competences and lacks thereof, and that's true of all of us, newbies or old-timers, 1 edit or 100,000. I commented on this not to attack you as a person, but to make clear to the closer that you were not arguing from a place of competence in the subject, but rather your own misunderstanding of the significance of a watershed event in both LGBTQ history and the history of hate crime laws. I think your response actually reframes your argument in a significantly less charitable light than I had—one that borders on dismissing others' views based on queerness and/or assumed life experiences—so, I think I've said all I need to. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 20:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Notablity is derived from his life receiving signficant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, not by him having achieved some specific accomplishment that we deem important. Per WP:1E, However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. There is a quarter century of sustained coverage of both Shepard as an individual and the murder, so if that guidance doesn't apply here, it doesn't apply anywhere.

As for whether the murder is a major event, I think it clearly is. Decades later, it continues to receive significant attention and discussion in scholarly sources. We have several articles related to Shepard and his murder, and sources available to signficantly expand the ones we have.--Trystan (talk) 22:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Returning to the topic at hand... First to be clear, what happened to Matthew is tragic; hate of any individual is something we should not culturally permit and it would seem quite appropriate that one of the persons convicted of perpetrating this crime was denied a reduced sentence just this year. However, not withstand that, we are not here for sentimentality sake, there are other venues for that. In this case, it is about WP:PG. Here is just a small fraction of the research I performed PRIOR to initially commenting on this RM after nearly 40 minutes of research. (READ: this wasn't just throwing biased uninformed opinion into the air). Also to be abundantly clear ALL references to "notable" is specifically narrowly defined as WP:N and not do otherwise convey any meaning of "value" (or suggest lack there of) to any individual.
The following examples demonstrate that "Murder of..." is not only COMMONNAME, but also established precedent on WP for naming such articles:
- The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act - we find other other victim, James Byrd Jr. also with the prefix of Murder.
- List of acts of violence against LGBTQ people of those in the US who are named victims with articles: 4 were previously notable (politicians, etc), 24 of them have death or killing titles, leaving only 4 otherwise not overtly notable people who are listed with just their names instead of with a prefix.
- Looking at advocate.com: 12 Crimes That Changed the LGBT World every single person I found (that has a WP article) contains Murder in their AT except for Matthew and Brandon Teena.
- Per WP:COMMONNAME just about every reference to Matthew is in reference to his death what other people have done in his namesake. Per WP:DEATH we use COMMONNAME before following the flowchart.
- Looking at Google Trends compared to other notable murders: George Floyd over 5x the GTrends score - they are not equitable and massively more ngrams
  - Also just because it was recently brought up there is also an equally staggering difference with King & Till versus Shephard as well.
- The in popular culture section of this article, and the linked main article, shows the vast majority of the references are regarding hate crimes, his murder, and related topics - not his life or him as a person.
Now also to be clear:
- There is unquestionably lots of reliable sources and the notability of Matthew (eg it SNOW paases WP:VICTIM and WP:BLP1E)
- Furthermore it is not questionable that he is among the list of top ten or so most notable, impactful people in the categories of LGBT hate crimes/murders/etc.
- Rather the question is if this should follow a WP:BLP1E style WP:AT; as per Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (people) § Descriptive titles & WP:MURDERS.
- Furthermore if we couldn't find consensus on COMMONNAME, then it would seem like WP:DEATHS would also support this move.
We do keep BLP1E articles that pass the test, which this clearly does, but lets honestly call a spade a spade and without this one event there is nothing noteworthy here. His legacy and impact is more about the works of others in his name, but always in a harkening back to that one event. TiggerJay (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
WP:BLP1E only applies to living people; WP:VICTIM and WP:BIO1E are the relevant guidelines, which state an independent biography is warranted where there is a large role in a well-documented historic event, with significance indicated by persistent coverage in secondary sources. The Matthew Shepard biography has been listed in WP:VICTIM as the example of where an independent biography is warranted for the past fifteen years.

Google Trends shows how much people are searching for a term; it is not a meaningful metric for coverage in reliable sources, which is relevant to the guidelines. Looking at , it is clear that George Floyd is in a class of his own. Coverage of Shepard is lower than, but in the same order of magnitude as, comparable individuals from recent history, and higher than others specifically mentioned in WP:BIO1E as warranting a standalone biography.

I agree that this decision is governed by WP:PG. Both sides are making arguments grounded in their reading and application of the guidelines. We can WP:AGF that differences of opinion are due to different interpretations, rather than being motivated by personal involvement or sentiment.--Trystan (talk) 21:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Subsequent Reporting

Michael-Zero pointed out on my talk page that several of the sources in the Book of Matt subsection are in fact responses to the 20/20 piece, and pre-date the Book of Matt by several years. While Jimenez was the producer of the 20/20 segment, the sources do not mention Jimenez, and so can't be used as citations for a sentence about reactions to his views, or framed as a response to a book that came out years later. I have moved the earlier sources into the 20/20 subsection, and added detail for what they say.

In reviewing these sources, I think the Subsequent reporting section should also cover JoAnn Wypijewski’s 1999 Harper’s piece, as the secondary sources (especially O'Donnell) treat that as a major piece of subsequent journalism, in addition to the 20/20 report and the book.--Trystan (talk) 19:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories: