Talk:Matthew Shepard/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Statements by those involved in the case

WP:DENY section by blocked sock

The lead currently has a statement by Henderson's girlfriend on the motive for the murder. I added what McKinney and Henderson (the perpetrators), Kristen Price (girlfriend of McKinney), and the prosecutor in the case said the motive was. It was reverted due to undo weight. However, undo weight is ignoring those previously mentioned whilst putting Henderson's girlfriend in the lead. Zaalbar (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC) This is the same issue as raised in the sections above. As this same report is already in the article it then comes down to should it also be injected into the lead, or is that WP:Undue? You do raise a good point why the "gay" statement is placed in the lead as is. I think it does seem strange but that is likely due to constant edit wars. I'll look a bit into the article history and see if a solution was already there and simply removed because someone didn't like it for some reason. There may be a case for doing a full RfC to try the put the 20/20 report to rest one way or another. It's already in the article but perhaps it's too much, or not enough. I've cleaned up a bit of the lead and simply attributed to what mainstream sources stated without stating, in Wikipedia's voice, that he was or wasn't killed because of him being gay or any other reason but just that it was widely reported he was - and that is tied to the hate crimes legislation. I think that should do it but we can go further if needed. Insomesia (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC) The report doesn't need to be mentioned, just what those involved in the case said. I also don't agree with your removal of the statement by Henderson's girlfriend. I think you simply did that so you wouldn't be forced to conform to WP:UNDUE and add that several others involved said it wasn't due to his sexuality. Regardless, it was also reported in the media that it was due to desperate drug users turning violent so you're edit has just re-directed the weight problem to reports in the media rather than statements by those involved. First we should add the other widely reported motive. I also think the statements by those involved too. I'd prefer to leave out media coverage in the lead and just have statements by those involved but it can contain both if you want. Zaalbar (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC) The lead is supposed to be a summary of the contents of the article. The exact details of individual statements by the people involved is much too specific information for the lead (and in fact analysing individual statements too far, anywhere in the article, puts us into the terrain of WP:NOR). - htonl (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC) I would add that I support Insomnesia's edits to the lead. You will note that nowhere in the article does it state in Wikipedia's voice that it was an anti-gay hate crime. The lead now states that it was widely reported as such, which is of course true. It is correct to state that in the lead because it is the factor that gave the crime massive public attention and hence encyclopaedic notability. The "aftermath" section devotes two paragraphs to the alternative views including the ABC report. - htonl (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict) The general consensus view is that it was an anti-gay hate crime (even if robbery was also involved). It is therefore correct that the lead should not devote more text to the alternative view. I concede that the sentence in question, as it stands, is badly worded and would be improved. Note that the girlfriend's statement was not actually the only evidence; for example, there is McKinney's own statement that he taunted Shepard, "You're going to get jacked. It's Gay Awareness Week.". And there's the fact that his lawyers used the "gay panic" defence. Now, let's look at that ABC article. What does it have? Discarding the self-serving after-the-fact statements by the murderers and their girlfriends, in which they basically claim that they lied at the time of the investigation, we are left with what the prosecutor says. Notice that he explains the brutality of the beating, and the fact that it ended up being fatal, as being caused by McKinney's use of meth - but he doesn't say anything about the motive that led to the beating in the first place. Then there's the claim that Shepard knew McKinney, which as far as I can tell doesn't change anything about the motive. Finally there's the claim that McKinney was bisexual (on the flimsy evidence of his once being in an MMF three-way) - this also changes nothing; it's quite well-established that some homophobes are so because of internal issues with their own sexuality. - htonl (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC) I didn't add the exact details of individual statements or an analysis of them. It made a small paragraph in the lead and was a good summary of the most important aspect of the article (WP:LEAD). It was also reported under a variety of other motives (the source used for the statement that it was widely reported as because Shepard was gay is a news article that doesn't make that claim) so as I said before, the lead now needs to mention those. The statement that I added has less text than the gay-motivated view with the gay panic defence part there. The prosecutor said the murder was driven by drugs and one of the lead investigators also said it wasn't because he was gay but because they wanted drugs and money. So in summary, the lead needs to also state that media coverage offered other possibilities and/or the conflicting statements by those involved in the case. Zaalbar (talk) 22:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Where's the synthesis and fabrication?

WP:DENY section from blocked sock

Basically just what the title says. Zaalbar (talk) 20:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC) You reverted (twice) to an inferior version of this sentence: ABC 20/20 ran a story in 2004 suggesting that Shepard had been HIV positive and quoting claims by McKinney, Henderson, Kristen Price, the prosecutor and a lead investigator of the case that the murder had not been motivated by Shepard's sexuality, but rather was a robbery gone violent amongst drug users, suggesting that Shepard was a heavy methamphetamine user. Besides the fact it is a run-on sentence, the statement " suggesting that Shepard was a heavy methamphetamine user" is synthesis, sensationalistic and not the least bit encyclopedic. That is why it was removed the first time, so please do not try to reintroduce it without gaining consensus on this talk page. - MrX 21:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC) It's not synthesis, sensationalistic or non-encyclopedic. It's just a report of what the source says; exactly what a paragraph describing a source's allegations is supposed to do. You're going to have to be more specific on what your problem with it is, as your accusations are vague and seemingly unfounded. Zaalbar (talk) 21:35, 25 December 2012 (UTC) Also, you're the one making the change so it's not my job to get consensus. Zaalbar (talk) 21:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC) It's synthesis because your sentence suggests that "McKinney, Henderson, Kristen Price, the prosecutor and a lead investigator of the case" are all making the case that Shepard was involved in amphetamine use, which is clearly not the case at all. Which part of the source are you actually using for this claim, anyway? Black Kite (talk) 21:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC) That can be easily fixed without removing sourced content. At the end of page 4 and top of page 5. Zaalbar (talk) 21:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC) A piece of hearsay from a self-admitted drug user and friend of one of the killers? Black Kite (talk) 22:04, 25 December 2012 (UTC) The first person mentioned said he saw Shepard taking drugs. The bartender said she was friendly with Shepard and that she suspected "dope" was the reason, or money. Another woman said she was in a limo with those in the drug scene - Shepard and others. Also, a friend of Shepard called the police and alleged the drug scene was involved. The report doesn't reveal any hearsay from self-admitted drug users or friends of the killers claiming that Shepard took drugs. Zaalbar (talk) 22:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC) Bopp, the first-mentioned, is described as "one of McKinney's friends and drug associates at the time" (Page 2). The second person only says that she suspected "dope might be involved" (she doesn't say in what way, she could be suggesting the McKinney was meth'd up when he killed Shepard), and the third only mentions that Shepard and McKinney knew each other. Black Kite (talk) 22:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC) There's no hearsay from Bopp though, just a first-hand account. The second person is referring to what McKinney was hoping to rob from him - "It's either money or dope, yeah. He'd be the perfect target especially because Aaron knew him." The third account seems to be referring to the drug scene because of the follow-up paragraph: As word spread of the attack on Shepard, other people who knew him also suspected the drug scene might somehow be involved. The drugs allegation is a significant element of the report and obviously belongs in the paragraph describing the report. Zaalbar (talk) 22:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC) I don't think it does. There's not a single reliable source for the claim that was made in the article, and there are also people in the same source saying that they were sure drugs were not involved. We can't base such a claim on that. Black Kite (talk) 22:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC) There would need to be very strong, corroborating sources for anything approaching "...Shepard was a heavy methamphetamine user". It can't just be suggested, hinted or implied, and statements from the murderers lack all credibility, even if attributed. The ABC article does even make the claim about Matthew Shepard that you seem so hellbent on inserting into this article. - MrX 23:04, 25 December 2012 (UTC) "It's either money or dope, yeah." Where "or" implies a set of mutually exclusive options. Given the fact that one of the murderers is quoted, in the same article, as saying "McKinney told "20/20" Shepard was well dressed and assumed he had a lot of cash." the logical choice would be money (not that the opinions of anyone quoted in the article are a reliable source for anything other than their own opinions. None of which carry much, if any, weight). Regardless, the edit was a fabrication created by cherry-picking the source with the intent of pushing a very specific POV. This is not appropriate and should stop. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC) The summary of the 20/20 report is paragraph 3 (out of 9) of section 5 (out of 10). The drugs element of the report is on pages 4 and 5 (out of 6) and has statements by several witnesses to support the claim. It clearly belongs in the paragraph which is a summary of the report. If nobody here can see that then WP:ORN will have to be the next step and I don't see how they could disagree with its inclusion. Zaalbar (talk) 14:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC) Not a single one of those statements (even if they were reliable sources, which is doubtful) actually says "Shepard was a heavy methamphetamine user.". There's your original research, right there. Black Kite (talk) 15:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC) I'm not advocating for those exact words, just a summary of the drug allegations. Not all witnesses reported methamphetamine so just drugs in general will be fine. Zaalbar (talk) 15:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC) And again, there's your problem right there - how are you going to phrase something "supported" by such vague statements from anonymous or dubious individuals (per what ArtifexMayhem wrote above) whilst ignoring the suggestions from the same source that drugs were not involved? Quite apart from synthesis, I'd suggest you'd be sailing fairly close to WP:UNDUE as well. Black Kite (talk) 15:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC) The rest of the article doesn't mention Shepard's possible drug addiction so we don't need to mention in that paragraph that one person involved in the case that was interviewed doesn't think it was drugs. It couldn't be undue because it's a tiny part of the article - "paragraph 3 (out of 9) of section 5 (out of 10)". Zaalbar (talk) 15:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The route to the discussion archive

I know the extra box is a tautology (though it was always there, albeit in a different form), but it took me ages to find the route to the talk page archives in the main big banner header, so much that I only noticed that route after making a diligent search. I have altered the 'stand aside box' to reflect the route, too, and to include an archive search facility as in the main banners.

My rationale is to make it as easy as possible for all interested parties to find prior discussions. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Trans* issues? Why?

Matthew Shepard was not involved in the Trans* community, and his death had nothing to do with his perceived gender orientation. He was a gay man that died from a hate crime. That is all. We do not need editorials and Trans* activists piggybacking on the tragic death of a young man.

He lived and died as a gay man. There is no honor in using this man's death as a soap box for LGBT rights. He was a GAY MAN. He was NOT a lesbian. He was NOT transgendered. He was NOT bisexual. He was a GAY MAN. He's allowed to be gay. Let him rest in peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fartboss (talk • contribs) 14:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Uh, the only reference to trans issues in this article is in the description of the Matthew Shepard Foundation's mission, which makes reference to LGBT youth. What on earth are you complaining about? - htonl (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I imagine we will have now to do this of all the other letters in L, G, B and T (which we have just had. Ok, we know he was G, we know he was not L, no idea if he was B, and this is the sole mention of T. Suggest we hat this bizarre thread and collapse it? Fiddle Faddle 17:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

A classic case of a solution in search of a problem. "G" is a subset of "LGBT"; therefore, Mr. Shepard was part of the larger LGBT group. Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 20:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't want to revert the deletion due to the other unexplored assertions in it, but it did bring out the gorilla in the living room, including in the mostly-here-stifled CBS report which pointed out that there never was really any basis to saying that it was an sexual-orientation-based hate crime. Yet the media ran with that when they were fed it. North8000 (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hate Crime Hoax

Allegedly this was actually a "homophobic" hate crime hoax http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/14/The-Matthew-Shepard-Story-is-a-Lie --197.228.62.189 (talk) 15:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Alternative theories are another question, but it's become pretty clear that there was ZERO basis for the "because he was gay" narrative. It looks like the source of it was that one of his friends hypothesized it to the media, and the media and the activists ran with it. And the closest thing to "because he was gay" in the facts of the entire series of events was that the killer unsuccessfully tried a "gay panic" defense. BTW, a close read of the ABC story shows it to just providing a lot of straightforward information on the course of events. I don't see any "theories" (creative or otherwise) in there as those seeking to disparage the report have implied. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that we need to work in more of the available straightforward information regarding the series of events. North8000 (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Fortunately, Wikipedia articles are based on the preponderance of information available from reliable sources. Fringe theories and personal opinions carry zero weight (and that's still zero, even in lowercase). Rivertorch (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree. And that reinforces my main point. North8000 (talk) 13:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it contradicts your main point (assuming your main point is the one with the shouted word). But I'm not going to bicker over it. Rivertorch (talk) 04:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mean "zero" as shouting, just meant it as emphasis / non-hedging statement. And of course, written that non-hedging way, it would take only one instance of real basis for that narrative to prove my statement wrong. There is material that the "because he was gay" narrative was carried by the media and activists, but there is nothing in the article nor the sources about any basis for that narrative. And in fact, there is coverage the starting point/source of it was opining by a friend to the media. However, there are unsourced statements in the article that imply the "because he was gay" narrative, and substantial sourced material about the basic sequence of events and legal proceedings has been left out. That's what I had in mind in the the later part of my post agreeing on going by reliable sources. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Meet helpful wikimarkup glyphs '', which render italics for emphasis. Boldface is also available, as is underlining for the retro-minded among us.

You've made your personal opinion on the motivations of Mr. Shepard's murderers abundantly clear on this page long before this thread began. Whatever I may think of your opinion, I'll cheerfully concede that you're entitled to it. But no one is entitled to change the article so that it places undue weight on such an opinion, which appears to be what you're proposing, and I fail to see the point of even entertaining the idea of doing so. Rivertorch (talk) 14:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

That's not accurate. I've actually expressed no opinion of the motivations of the murderers, and no opinion on the reason for the murder. The only opinion regarding this that I've expressed is that there is nothing in the article or the sources to support the "murdered because he was gay" narrative. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

"there is nothing in the article or the sources to support the "murdered because he was gay" narrative". That's absurd.

All we can do is simply present a collection of facts in proportion to their weight in reliable sources, and let readers come to their own conclusion. If the facts lead readers to the conclusion that he was murdered because he was gay, then he likely was.- MrX 17:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The first cited source includes some support for the belief by some that Shepard was murdered "because he was gay". —ADavidB 17:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

@MrX, that is of course the answer. I think that the area most lacking is coverage of the events leading to the murder and the murder itself. Incredibly, the article has only about three sentences on that. North8000 (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that that could be expanded, but I would hope that we would leave out gratuitous details.- MrX 18:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Should we setup an article about the murder itself? That would be inline with other incidents of this scale and may alleviate some concerns about having conspiracy theories on the victim's article. Plus the theories have very little to do with Matthew himself and more to do with the public aftermath surrounding his murder. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 18:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

@Varnent No strong opinion on that, but my first thought is not. I think an extra paragraph would be enough. @MrX, agree, and I guess that is what I really meant anyway. Specifically on what happened in the last hours before the moment of the murder itself. North8000 (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

And what, praytell, are our sources for that? Please don't say the name Jimenez. Rivertorch (talk) 03:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

HIV Status

There seems to be an IP based push to feature the gentlemen's HIV status. I certainly support its factual inclusion in the article insofar as it is referenced, but I most assuredly oppose featuring it in the lead. I wonder whether the IP editors have realised, yet, that being HIV+ is simply very unfortunate, and not a defining feature of anyone on the planet. Fiddle Faddle 11:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree. North8000 (talk) 12:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Shepard's HIV status is already mentioned in the article in the one section where it is relevant. I thought that inserting a gratuitous mention of it in the way the IP did today looked malicious, but A.ing G.F. I checked the edits from a very similar IP two days ago and decided it was probably mere cluelessness. Whatever the reason, reversion was the proper response. Thanks to those who handled it. Rivertorch (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Post Trial Media Attention

The following sentences are in the above section:

This book has, however, been criticized by culture critic Alyssa Rosenberg as being poorly sourced. Police officials interviewed after the book's publication have also disputed the claims made in the book. Dave O'Malley said that Jimenez's claims that Shepard was "a methamphetamine kingpin [] is almost humorous. Someone that would buy into that certainly would believe almost anything they read." Rob Debree, lead sheriff's investigator at the time, said that the book contains "factual errors and lies", and said that Jimenez's claim that Shepard was a drug dealer is "truly laughable.

I'm not commenting on the topic or the book, but usually when the author of an article is called out in the text its someone who is somewhat universally known and thus it gives weight to the opinion. I've never heard of Ms. Rosenberg and a quick Google search shows that she's no more special than any other columnist in 100's of newspapers/magazines. Also the entire sentence seems to be oddly placed and it and the following sentences are worded in order to give it more prominence in the para than the sheriff's (who would clearly know more about the subject than a generally uninformed third party). Suggest rewriting section to state:

Police officials interviewed after the book's publication disputed the claims made in the book. Dave O'Malley said that Jimenez's claims that Shepard was "a methamphetamine kingpin [] is almost humorous. Someone that would buy into that certainly would believe almost anything they read." Rob Debree, lead sheriff's investigator at the time, said that the book contains "factual errors and lies" and said that Jimenez's claim that Shepard was a drug dealer was "truly laughable.[59] This book has also been criticized by the media as being poorly sourced.[64]

I made some minor chronological and grammatical corrections as well. I would have just performed the edit, but the page appears to be somewhat controversial (judging from the Talk page) so I thought I'd just post my suggested edit first. Ckruschke (talk) 15:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

I agree that the Rosenberg criticism can probably be replaced with a much better, more robust reference than what we have. The Advocate actually had a pretty good criticism of the book that might be more appropriate. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that there is far too much fixation on aspects about something being potentially "wrong" with Shepard, including focusing on that aspect of any book. He is just a human being that got killed by a vicious criminal that was on (or coming off of) a drug binge. The gorilla in the living room, and that covered in the ABC news report (and presumably the books) is that the whole "because he was gay" aspect got launched and accepted with no basis. It is an indictment of the involved activists and the media, not of Shepherd. North8000 (talk) 23:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's keep in mind that this talk page is not a forum for spouting our personal opinions about the motivation(s) of the murderers (or of anything else). You've chimed in with your personal opinion on that point umpteen times. Could you maybe give it a rest, pretty please? I agree with Ckruschke's relevant comments about the article. (There have been several edits since then, including from me. Sorry, I missed this discussion when it appeared the other day.) Rivertorch (talk) 15:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that both of my points are germane, and are not just opinions. And the first one is new. This idea that there might have been something "wrong" with Shepard is weak and a minor sidebar/distraction, probably never should get into the article, and I think that that is the area where we need to "give it a rest". North8000 (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Can we focus the discussion on the thread issue? If anyone wants to discuss an off-topic issue, please let them start a new thread. I'm not commenting on the content or the issue - just trying to rewrite one paragraph that's poorly written. Rosenberg's review can stay as far as I'm concerned, but I just don't think she should be listed by name. If someone has a "better" quote, I'm happy to put it in. Ckruschke (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruscke

It really isn't off topic. What I'm saying that the criticism selected for inclusion (centered around other things that Shepherd may have been or done) is off of the topic of the central premise of the news report and the book which is simply a lack of basis for the publicized/accepted narrative. But either way, just take this as a thought; you did good work there and there's no need to press this issue. I think that this is slowly working itself out in the sources and there's no hurry. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The Book of Matt

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Book introduced with corresponding critiques. Sportfan5000 (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

---

Not WP:FRINGE. Notability per second-party discussion (citation is actually third-party; second-party would be paywalled book review). Reliable as "book published by respected publishing house". WhiskeyJuvenile (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that we need a two stage discussion. First is the stage to build consensus for or against the fitness of this element for inclusion, a discussion that must be held on the technical and policy merits. Once that consensus is reached there may be a need of the optional second stage, which is to do with how it ought to be included. This is only relevant if it has technical merit for inclusion. The first stage of the discussion must be held correctly whatever our personal prejudices for or against. Fiddle Faddle 18:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree. Obviously, I do think that this is technically suitable for discussion. I'm happy to discuss "how" once there's consensus as to its technical suitability. WhiskeyJuvenile (talk) 18:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Is it technically correct to include this element

That the book is now out, and is getting independent reviews, alleviates prior concerns. Some possibly helpful links are also presented. Sportfan5000 (talk) 17:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is the stage where we discuss, purely on technical and policy lines, whether this book is suitable for inclusion in the article. It is not the stage to discuss how it might be included. That will muddy the waters. For this discussion we require a simple consensus, to include or not to include. May I suggest a simple format, prefaced by the emboldened words Include or Exclude, followed by the technical and/or policy rationale? Emotion and personal preference has no place here. Fiddle Faddle 19:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Comment I have not yet made my own mind up. For me the technical discussion pivots around the point of the book being cited in WP:RS. I am unsure of the status of The Jewish Daily Forward, and would find it easier to reach a conclusion with a more mainstream discussion of the book. At present I see discussions in RS about the book as far more relevant than the book itself. I am unconcerned with whether it is a fringe theory or a unique position. That can be handled when and if we discuss stage 2, how to include the material (if consensus in stage 1 says it must be included). At present I tend towards inclusion only if the JDF can be shown to me to be RS, otherwise I am firmly against, unless, of course, other RS sources come to light. I see the burden to be upon those who wish to include the material to prove their sources. Fiddle Faddle 19:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Further research shows me that JDF is, itself, reliable (0.9 probability) as a source. However, as with all such sources, the portion of the organ the article is in has importance. I can;t state this categorically at present, but it seems to me that the article in question comes from the Forum section. This is by virtue of the highlighting at the head of the article. This leads me to the question, "How much of the JDF might be considered a reliable source?" DOes this forum carry the same weight of reliability as, for example, the blog portion of the New York Times? Alternatively, is it simply a forum put together with "difficult questions" in order to stimulate online conversation? Fiddle Faddle 19:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC) The Forward Forum is the name of the Forward's Op-ed page (i.e., part of their print edition as well) https://forward.com/contributoragreements/ . It should be afforded as much RS weight with respect to the Forward itself as the NYT's Op-ed page is with respect to the NYT's reporting itself WhiskeyJuvenile (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC) I fear that does not assuage my doubts. Fiddle Faddle 19:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Include. Initially, I Agree with the format. As to the merits: I do not believe this is WP:FRINGE. [1] shows enough reliable sources, I believe, as well as "a respected publishing house". I believe that it is possible to include while satisfying WP:NPOV (and I believe that my contribution did so), as its inclusion can be written in a way that does not disparage the effects that, e.g., the Laramie Project has had on LBGT issues. In other words, that Shepard may not have been killed because he was gay does not mean that his death did not galvanize proponents of LGBT acceptance. I believe that it satisfies WP:V, although admittedly the book has yet to be released. However, enough material about the book itself has, at this point, been released such that I believe that the reliability of the substance of the mere inclusion can be judged at the time of this vote for inclusion. Obviously satisfies WP:NOR WhiskeyJuvenile (talk) 19:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC) I'm having some problems with the book as a source per se. Reputable publishers have published in the past and will publish in the future, books which are highly unreliable as sources. I do not find that the book itself is WP:RS. We must concentrate on the sources which discuss the book. I am not persuaded yet that there is sufficient discussion of the book in RS to justify its inclusion. I have stated, above, my objection to the JDF and my need for better sources. I'd like to see those, very much in the mainstream, before suggesting inclusion. The publisher's own site may name folk, but I need to see those quotes in RS. Fiddle Faddle 19:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC) I cited http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/09/11/reexamining-the-murder-of-matthew-shepard/ in my own inclusion, which, I guess, also turns on whether you think Andrew Sullivan's (group) blog is an RS. I'd note that it appears as though it has been cited as a reference in other articles, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2009_Iranian_election_protests#cite_ref-87 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skull-A-Day#cite_ref-9 (where it is described as "major online media"), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_interrogation_techniques#cite_ref-Versch.C3.A4rfte_Vernehmung_127-0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_homicide_accusations#cite_ref-16 etc. WhiskeyJuvenile (talk) 19:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC) I'm not yet persuaded that Sullivan is RS. His deployment in other articles is interesting, but one article here holds no precedent for another. Fiddle Faddle 19:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Exclude. There are multiple issues here. One is that the book has yet to be published, let alone reviewed in multiple mainstream sources. Will it be lauded? pilloried? ignored? held up as an epitome of brilliant investigative journalism? discredited as a load of innuendo-laden hogwash? We don't know yet, and it's unlikely we will know for at least several weeks. WP:RECENT provides guidance on this point, and proceeding with extreme caution cannot hurt. Second, as it stands now, the opinion allegedly expressed in the book is indeed fringe, in the extreme. A plethora of reliable sources report the motivations driving Mr. Shepard's murderers, and to date only one nominally reliable source has disagreed with the basic premise that homophobia was the principal factor. (That source, the 20/20 hack job, is discussed in the article, as is the fact that it has been effectively refuted.) Along comes a new source claiming something wildly different from the others, and we cannot simply add it to the article; neither this new source nor the fringe theory it allegedly puts forward have been shown to be noteworthy. Op-ed pieces and essays by bloggers and columnists, however notable (and Sullivan is nothing if not notable), are not sufficient on their own to support adding this type of content, as we cannot be assured that there has been sufficient editorial oversight and fact checking, let alone any attempt made to present more than one viewpoint. I also object to the edit summary used in the edit that initially added the content: "New revelations re: motive for murder". The word "revelation" implies that a heretofore undisclosed fact or reality has come to light about the murder, and there is no evidence that that is the case. A claim is not a revelation, and there's no use pretending that it is. Finally, I'd like to point out—and not for the first time—that even if drugs played a role in what happened (and there is absolutely nothing new about that claim) it doesn't preclude homophobia's being a contributing factor or even the main factor. If we are to avoid original research, we would do well to keep that in mind regardless of how this shakes out. Rivertorch (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC) I'd break this down into separate issues: I do not believe the book is fringe, but rather minority, at least per WP:FRINGE. I think the distinguishing factor, again, isn't how many sources take each position, but rather the reliability of the sources on either side. I think one caution flag that must be raised in favor of inclusion, though, is the absence, so far as I've been able to tell, of any writing rebutting the thesis of the book. However, this privileges a past understanding (which was at least probably driven from the palpable anti-gay animus that the "gay panic" defense raised, and even were it conclusively proven that Shepard were killed solely over a dispute over drug sales, the role that homophobia played in the killing, and the public reaction to it, would still be relevant due to the social development that existed at the immediate time after the killing) over a current one. Whether there's sufficient RS to justify inclusion at this time. I believe there is. I strongly disagree with the stance that an op-ed hasn't been afforded editorial oversight or fact-checking (and, per the Forward's standards, requires, at least, them to be "well-argued"). Failing this, I'd hope that this issue is at least revisited after the publication of the book itself. Nevertheless, I do not think that the article should be set-in-stone, but should, at least, reflect the understanding of the events from a NPOV standpoint, which, I do believe, at least give some credence to the theory that the drug trade was, at least, involved in the killing. I do not believe that there is a requirement per RS that the sources themselves exhibit NPOV, only that the article derived from the sources exhibits NPOV. I do not believe that my edits, in any way, detracted from what clearly was a public understanding that the killing was motivated by anti-gay animus. I would, though, point out that your arguments about notability of the book's theory is self-refuting insofar as you concede Sullivan's notability. I'll concede the point regarding the edit summary, but the edit summary does not appear in the article itself. Lastly, although I agree with your final point regarding homophobia and original research (i.e., it's possible to perform same-sex sexual activity while harboring anti-gay animus, and I'll concede the point that there's no source to discount homophobia entirely), I do think that how to present this information is best left to a later discussion regarding how to include should it be included. Sorry this is somewhat poorly written, but I'm rushing this off and don't have time to proof-read. WhiskeyJuvenile (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Exclude per my own doubts expressed above, and per Rivertorch, who has helped me clarify the status of OpEds (etc) in my mind. Whether the entire organ is notable or not, OpEds are, in my view, not. A fuller set of reviews in RS may lead me to alter my opinion, but it is, at present, set in stone. Fiddle Faddle 20:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Is there an existing consensus about op-eds vs. reporting in a newspaper with respect to WP:RS (i.e., whether the reliability of a newspaper generally ought to be imputed to op-eds published by said newspaper)? If not, I think this is an issue that goes beyond this article, and ought to be resolved elsewhere. WhiskeyJuvenile (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC) On a re-reading of WP:RS, I'll change my vote to Exclude pending further review or publication of the book itself such that it can be judged on its own merits. WhiskeyJuvenile (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC) I'd just throw out, though, that notability is not a standard by which the content of an article is to be judged per WP:IMPORTANCE, but rather WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. For the purposes of this discussion (again, whether reported claims made by the book should be included), I believe that only WP:NPOV matters, and specifically, whether the view (i.e., that the killing was drug-trade related) has been expressed by a reliable source. Obviously WP:V is satisfied insofar as its verifiable that those to whom the view was attributed said it, and WP:NOR is satisfied on its face. The above statement is merely a reflection that, upon further consideration, the WP:RS element of WP:NPOV has not, in my view, been satisfied yet. WhiskeyJuvenile (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Funnily enough, with respect to above-discussion regarding Sullivan, he just posted a comment from someone who said, "The research on the relationship between male (closeted) bisexuality and anti-gay attitudes and anti-gay violence is limited but nevertheless compelling. At least one study is I believe referenced in the Forrest Sawyer documentary on anti-gay violence. Research volunteers had sensors attached to their penises and were shown heterosexual as well as homosexual pornography. My recollection is that there was a substantive correlation between bisexual arousal and anti-gay affect (as represented by their responses to questions about homosexuality and gay people). The gratuitous brutality of the torture and murder is more consistent with anti-gay violence than most drug-related violence – at least in this country. These things should be acknowledged first and last." Even if the motive for the attack were reasonably shown to be a dispute over drug sales or the like, the manner in which the attack was carried out does carry a tinge of anti-gay animus. However, the passage I just quoted makes it all the more important to wait until the book is published before its inclusion. This issue, though, must, in my mind, be addressed even if the material is to be included in the future. WhiskeyJuvenile (talk) 20:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC) Wrong discussion The policy is on whether or not the sourcing is suitable to support the included material, it is not about excluding sources from use. The small piece of the material which I restored is the portion also supported by the ABC news report. I don't know about the other items and did not restore those. North8000 (talk) 20:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC) And your restoration was premature and your wording a huge fail re WP:NPOV. Let's please try to respect WP:BURDEN and resolve this on the talk page first, and avoid being overly bold with an article that's been stable for quite some while. Rivertorch (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Although the CBS report is well-established RS (insofar as it is clearly reporting activity performed by a journalistic organ), the reports on the content of The Book of Matt have no indicia of reliability at the present, at least until the book is published, in my view. This is a separate issue from the 20/20 report, which clearly should be included in the article. WhiskeyJuvenile (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC) No argument about the book, it is about a straightforward statement supported by both the ABC report and the book. North8000 (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC) As I said a ways up the page, the 20/20 piece (ABC, not CBS) is already included in the article. It has been there for some time, and the current version is rather carefully written and well sourced. Afaik, there is no "issue" there. Rivertorch (talk) 20:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC) It is horrendously written by Wikipedia standards.....I assume that you mean it is carefully written with respect to trying to minimize the inclusion of the ABC News report and disparage it and what it said.  :-) North8000 (talk) 22:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Oh, I see. Well, so much for my attention to those two sentences, which state precisely and dispassionately what the report said and the reactions to it. I was so concerned about getting it right that I took the extraordinary step of privately contacting two uninvolved and disinterested editors I particularly trust when it comes to identifying non-neutral wording and original research; neither saw a problem with it, and no one has registered any objection in the three months since my addition—except you, just now. I must say I find the "horrendously written" description a bit rich coming from someone who just added content amounting to an endorsement of a book not yet in circulation, along with an affirmation of the author's methods—in Wikipedia's voice, no less. Rivertorch (talk) 02:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC) I won't get further into the big problems with the wording because I'm not up for that conversation at the moment. But on the latter I only (re) added the low key portion that is also supported by the ABC news report. I was in the process of adding the ABC news report as a reference when someone had already immediately deleted it. North8000 (talk) 12:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC) For the record, what you added was this: In 2013, author Stephen Jimenez published the book "The Book of Matt: Hidden Truths About the Murder of Matthew Shepard" which supports the conclusion, based on more than a decade of intensive research, that the Shepard murder was less a hate crime than a drug trade crime. <ref>http://forward.com/articles/183494/what-if-matthew-shepards-murder-wasnt-an-anti-gay/?p=all#ixzz2ebPpJ9S5</ref> I don't see any way of parsing that sentence to make it acceptable, regardless of what citations it carries. Rivertorch (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC) Comment This subthread has gone off at a tangent. While you are each making debating points to each other these should be under another heading and outside this discussion. Fiddle Faddle 15:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC) ExcludeInclude (at this point, but I will research further and may change my mind) - I'm concerned that the book represents a minority viewpoint and is UNDUE for this biography, specifically, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." The secondary sources lack weight and seem to accept the author's theory at face value without any kind of critical analysis. - MrX 22:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Update: The book is getting a fair amount of press including HuffPo, Out.com, The Advocate and a number of other news sources and blogs. I don't see how we can omit this content, but it needs to be brief (at this point) and carefully written so as not to mislead our readers into believing that it represents a new phase in the criminal investigation, when in fact it is a theory of an investigative journalist. - MrX 18:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC) Include Without detail, the source is notable and reliable. How it will be incorporated and what will be incorporated is the question. I don't see how there can be such a broad "Exclude" without seeing what it contains and whether it conflicts or is supported by other sources. --DHeyward (talk) 00:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC) Include, although I'd say wait for the book to be published so that it can be directly evaluated and sourced. Previous citations of the UNDUE and FRINGE policies are relevant; however, they don't justify excluding a minority point of view -- they just limit how much of the article should be devoted to it. A relevant example can be found in the article on Jesus, which includes a small section exploring the theory that Jesus as a man never existed; that theory is rejected by almost all scholars today, and the theory and its rebuttal make up only about 7% of the total Jesus article, but it is included nonetheless (and there is a link to the full article on the theory). I think a similarly-small section devoted to the allegations in the book, probably at the end of the article, is also justified (and should also have a link to a separate article on the book itself, for those wishing to learn more about the book, its allegations, and the response to it from book critics and the gay community). Another point worth making is that it's unwise to classify something as "fringe" or "unreliable" simply because it's new. Just because there is a generally-accepted version of events, does not mean new information cannot come to light. Time will tell if information from Mr. Jimenez's book gains much acceptance and deserves a more prominent place in the article, but excluding it based on its nascence is not appropriate.DoctorEric (talk) 03:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC) It has been my experience that "nascence" is an excellent reason to exclude content. What's the hurry? My preference would be to wait and let the dust settle, allow time for various secondary sources to get their act together, and then see what may be appropriate to include and figure out how best to include it. At the moment, all we could really say is that the originator of the much-refuted 20/20 segment has now written a book making the same allegations he made on 20/20, and lots of people are really pissed off. Is that encyclopedic? No. It's a current event, and while we inevitably do cover some really big current events on Wikipedia, the more we take a wait-and-see approach on these things, the better we can cover them. There's a parallel with our articles on science and medicine: we don't report the results of studies, no matter how much they're in the news, until they've been published in peer-reviewed journals or, in some cases, summarized by secondary sources that put them into context. In any event, it's worth noting that even the editor who originally added the content at issue now favors excluding it for now. Is waiting and getting it right such a bad idea? Rivertorch (talk) 04:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC) Rivertorch, either way, in one respect both sources are both just pointing out the glaringly obvious reality which is that there was no basis for the promulgated story that he was killed because of his sexual orientation. Even in this article there is nothing supporting that claim. An we should not have a double standard; the last sentence in the 20/20 paragraph makes an unsourced implication that such exists (it's in as a premise, not the operative clause in the description of allegations by the activists; the allegations are sourced) yet you seem to be advocating a platinum standard for a statement otherwise. North8000 (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC) We're getting closer to where I'd vote Include. WhiskeyJuvenile (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC) That is, we're starting to get named sources aside from the author of the book who are capable of being independently tracked down to confirm their story. WhiskeyJuvenile (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC) I agree in principle with your point, Rivertorch, that there is no rush to include mention of the book, but with a couple of caveats. The first and most serious question is this: If we don't include a mention of the book when it is officially released, how do we decide when/if to do so? Do we wait for reviews to come in? If so, which reviews do we listen to? I ask because, as with any politically-charged subject, many people have taken sides before the evidence is presented -- this will be even more true since the legacy of the "poster child" for bias crime legislation is at stake. I can't imagine the book will be accurately portrayed by either the left-leaning NYT or the right-leaning Breitbart. As far as precedent goes, you gave an example about scientific articles, saying "we don't report the results of studies, no matter how much they're in the news, until they've been published in peer-reviewed journals or, in some cases, summarized by secondary sources that put them into context." That may be the principle, but it isn't always the practice; I looked up the first recent, media-popularized medical study that came to my mind (the one claiming a link between omega-3 fatty acids and prostate cancer), and sure enough, the study was put into to the omega-3 article immediately after its release, despite the scientific community as a whole being dubious, to put it kindly. Thus, I'm inclined to say wait until it has been published, and perhaps a week longer, to see if compelling evidence surfaces showing that the book is fundamentally wrong (not merely criticisms of the book by those who dislike or disagree with the author's conclusions). And I stick by my earlier suggestion that, at least for now, we keep the paragraph addressing the book's allegations brief, while linking to a separate, new article about the book where the allegations, the evidence behind them, and the rebuttals can all be developed in more depth. DoctorEric (talk) 22:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC) It's fairly clear that the book will receive enough attention to make it noteworthy for mention in the article; it probably already has received enough attention to make inclusion inevitable. I don't suppose there's any precise measure of when to include it, but doing so before the official publication date seems wrong to me. As an encyclopedia, it is our mandate to cover what happens, not to participate in its happening, and as one of the top web sites we shouldn't kid ourselves that our premature mention of a book won't affect its buzz or even its advance sales. I think your premise about accurate portrayals in book reviews is faulty, to say the least. You're right, of course, about the principle versus the practice on medical articles, but that's largely a function of the ratio of articles to established editors; it's impossible to keep premature mentions of studies out of all articles, but it's perfectly possible to keep them out of well-watched articles. I think I agree with your last sentence. The book appears to already meet WP:NB, and any detailed discussion of it belongs in a dedicated article (and anyone striving to keep that article neutral, given what's already been attempted in this one, has my deepest sympathy). Rivertorch (talk) 11:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC) That the book itself merits an article remains to be seen, but I agree that it is likely. I think the publication date itself is the threshold for that, otherwise WP:NOTYET applies. I would like to see more than knee jerk reviews as sources before being wholly in favour of the arrticle on it being started. Fiddle Faddle 11:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC) Comment Seeing all the folk changing their minds reminds me that there is no rush about anything on WIkipedia. If the eventual decision is to include the book, something that seems increasingly likely, waiting until after its release date will do no harm at all. Among the various sources LGBTQNation should be included if and when it is included. The book is, broadly, a self justification by the author of his TV show 20.20. Even so any write up needs to reflect what is reported about it, not what is in it. I am not yet persuaded of the pressing need to include it, though will bow to opinion to include it after the publication date. Fiddle Faddle 18:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC) Agree that there is no rush, and waiting until it's release date would be fine. My comments were related to other items, albeit reinforced by what is apparently in the book. North8000 (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC) I'd like to say specifically what I think I've only hinted at before: it is necessary, if this book is to be included, to write its inclusion in such a manner that does not detract from the social reaction to the killing: specifically, that the aftermath and reaction to the killing led, in some part, to what we see today as increased acceptance of homosexuals. Even if it were objectively proven that there was no anti-gay bias whatsoever present in the killings (and I don't think that that could be proven given what we know), the fact that "gay panic" was raised as a defense does mean that the outcry is valid, and any writeup must take that into account. WhiskeyJuvenile (talk) 12:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC) (added later) You can never prove a negative, doubly so when it involves an individual's motivaiton. I think that what WILL be shown is that there was no basis for the story that he was killed because he was gay. Actually, "pointed out" is a better than "shown", as, if you look through this article, you will see that there is no basis for that claim. In the end I think it will be seen that it's a very interesting story about the activists and the media. And about how a baseless urban legend can still bring about good changes. North8000 (talk) 13:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC) Content (from the New York Times), supporting that Shepard's murder was due to his sexuality, was in the article, but was removed – perhaps by one who didn't want it known. "During a pre-trial hearing, a Laramie police officer testified that the violence against Shepard was due to how the attacker '[felt] about gays', per an interview of the attacker's girlfriend who said she received that explanation." [2] —ADavidB 16:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC) I think that what is in the source that you linked should go (back) in. It doesn't support the farther-reaching statement that you just made, but does contain relevant material in that respect. North8000 (talk) 17:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC) The challenge is that, even if one has a profound personal distaste for the topic, one can only report what is said about it by others, devoid of spin. Your thoughts do militate towards creating an article for the book itself in due time, though that will give it some sort of publicity for itself. It seems to me that the book is fancruft for the TV show, which had enough crap about it anyway. Fiddle Faddle 13:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC) Include with caveats: The book is getting way too much attention from WP:RS sources to keep any mention of it from the article without risking the appearance of bias. That said, until the book comes out and is properly reviewed I would suggest that its place in the article should be small and the manner in which it is introduced needs to be handled carefully. Once the book is out and we get a clearer picture we can adjust the degree of attention the book gets according to its merit. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC) I still think it's appropriate to wait to include until its publication (four more days). WhiskeyJuvenile (talk) 14:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC) And, furthermore, here's something that should temper the way in which it is included WhiskeyJuvenile (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC) link of the url alluded to just above Rivertorch (talk) 08:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC) Exclude I have watched the coverage of this book and am confident that this book could be classified as opinion at best and complete fabrications when being honest. This article I think does a nice job of outlining just some of the problems with the book. People involved with the case have also released statements disputing the book. At best its inclusion should be in its own section as a "this highly disputed version of events is an alternative set of events" tone - and NOT woven into the other parts of the text. I recognize the controversy around the book gives it notability - but I would almost prefer it get its own article than add garbage to this page and encourage more behavior like this book. Every couple of years someone offers a crazy version of events around Matthew Shepard that are eventually dismissed as just a politically motivated attack. This has happened on TV and ran rampant before the recent US hate crimes law was passed. Perhaps that whole craziness would be worth mentioning as a whole. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 13:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC) Much of what you say may be true, but I can't agree with you about how to proceed. The writer of the book isn't just "someone"; it's the same person who was responsible for the 20/20 piece. So it makes sense, in terms of logic and flow and in terms of avoiding giving either book or TV program undue weight, to discuss the two in the same section. Tthe article certainly needs to mention the critical response to the book, but it might be better to wait a bit to provide time for a wider variety of the most authoritative sources to have spoken. Rivertorch (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC) I can appreciate that logic. However, I think the whole story of the book from 20/20 to the criticism of it belongs in an article about the book or perhaps the author in a section talking about his work. However, I am less worried about these details than the hopefully unlikely event that someone uses the book as a citation for a rewriting of the facts of the article - so I am fine with what the consensus seems to be producing. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 23:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC) References

How Do We Introduce This to the Article?

Book has been introduced at Matthew Shepard#Post-trial media attention. Also a few sources regarding his HIV status are presented, and were introduced into the article. Sportfan5000 (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
OK, the book is out. It has gotten extensive coverage in WP:RS sources. How do we work it into the article? For now I am simply entering a couple of sentences. I don't see anything that merits more than that at this time. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC) I don't think we should say "The work stirred significant controversy" unless that is what sources say. Also, it probably should not be put in the middle of the Public reaction and aftermath section. A chronological placement would seem to make more sense. - MrX 03:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC) "A book, [title, by author] has been published by the producer of the 20/20 documentary which reinforces that documentary's different view on the motives leading to Shepard's murder." Cite a couple of the more authoritative sources, give the ISBN in the usual manner, and leave it at that. If massive controversy appears later, document that for what it is and only when it happens. Fiddle Faddle 08:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC) More or less, yes. The context is important, and the current phrasing—"reviving claims"—should be adjusted to make clear that the claims are being revived by the same person who made them in the first place. While I'd usually support the chronological approach, as MrX suggests, I wonder if it couldn't be done more elegantly and concisely by appending it to the passage about the 20/20 piece. I agree that the phrase "significant controversy" shouldn't be used unless the sources directly support it. Rivertorch (talk) 10:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC) It belongs with the 20/20 piece. I support inclusion there, and only there. Fiddle Faddle 10:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC) Well now there's a book and a news special which point out that there was no basis for the saying that he was killed due to his sexual orientation. Lets try really hard to minimize, downplay and disparage both of them. Squeeze them together, make them real short, make a book and an ABC news story over a decade apart seem like one, give a lot a space to people who disparage them, hang some negative adjectives on them. And up-play the the baseless and sourceless legend that it was due to his sexual orientation. North8000 (talk) 10:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC) Or lets be neutral. Ah wait, was that irony? Fiddle Faddle 10:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC) Yes it was pointing out some pretty significant issues in a whimiscal way. Probably the worst article I've ever seen regarding propping up a baseless and sourceless assertion / urban legend, and burying the sourced material that points that out or says otherwise. North8000 (talk) 11:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC) Your point is well taken. The book is a minority view (today, for sure) and thus should be recorded as such, and placed in context. Its import should neither be minimised nor exaggerated. As time passes it will have more, less or the same significance as, for example, my suggestion above, and our recording of it will need to reflect that then, too. Our duty is flat, neutral reporting. It would be just as much WP:SYNTH/WP:POV to minimise it as to exaggerate it. Since there are two (or more) schools of thought over this book and its impact we must be careful about the way we record it. Fiddle Faddle 12:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC) I was actually more concerned about how the ABC news report was deprecated and denigrated in this article, but of course the publishing of the book is relevant to the conversation. What the article really needs is a few straightforward sentences summarizing the core statements of the ABC news report and a few straightforward sentences summarizing the cores statements of the book. Both attributed. And these sources/statements should not be saddled with any more criticism of them or added negative adjectives than the other sources in the article. North8000 (talk) 12:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC) I see that you wish to raise the topic of the ABC report as well. That is perfectly fine assuming no consensus over it was reached previously, or, where such was reached, where there is an appetite to revisit it. I have not checked. However, I ask you to separate that element from this element in discussions. Here were are discussing only the book. Prior consensus apart, there is no issue about opening a further discussion about ABC. If you opt to do that I ask you to set the scene very clearly for the discussion, perhaps using the model we have used for the book. It is included That is a given, but you appear to wish to discuss how it should be included, and the discussion should be so framed. I think we most definitely need to come to consensus, and probably soon, over the book, though, without distraction. There is plenty of time, after all, for the other item. It is there, despite not being in the form you wish. Fiddle Faddle 17:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC) There's no rush. The section on the book can evolve as more become familiar with it. But omission of the main assertion that I assume is in it (an assertion that the murder was not due to sexual orientation) seems to be a glaring omission. North8000 (talk) 18:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC) Perhaps you would like to suggest a form of words which neither gives undue weight to this concept, nor ignores it. It remains, certainly currently, a minority view, and thus should remain so in the article, certainly for the present. I see clearly that you feel my proposal is lacking, but it is just a proposal, thus for discussion and consensus. You, as am I, are bound by whatever consensus emerges. We may seek to influence it. For my part I will not resist an explicit statement about the different view the book puts forward, but I will resist overemphasis. Fiddle Faddle 19:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC) I'm going to say this much and then step away for a while, because I have other fish to fry today. FiddleFaddle is correct: discussion of our coverage of the 20/20 piece does not belong in this discussion. Actually, I'll go further and say that repeatedly casting vague, POV-laden aspersions on the article's supposed deficiencies in discussing 20/20 is an unproductive way to participate in any discussion. If someone has a problem with the wording, opening a separate discussion and explaining in neutral terms the perceived problem would be the mature thing to do, I do believe. I also think that this discussion would benefit if users would check their fringe opinions about Mr. Shepard's murderers' motivations at the door. This talk page is not a forum. Rivertorch (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC) First for both of them we should clarify the distinction between pointing out that there was little or no basis for the "they did it because he was gay" story (which is a pretty straightforward) and proposing a different reason, which is what is in your "fringe opinion" mis-statement of what I was saying. If that was an honest misunderstanding fine, but if not it was very uncivil. I haven't read the book. But if it is saying such, then good wording might be "asserts that there was little or no basis for saying that he was murdered because he was gay". North8000 (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC) The treatment of the ABC news report in this article needs editing / repair, but I am not up for that at the moment. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC) Let me see if this works: "A book, [title, by author] has been published by the producer of the 20/20 documentary which reinforces that documentary's different view on the motives leading to Shepard's murder, asserting that there was little or no basis for saying that he was murdered because he was gay" Before we discuss whether or not that is appropriate, may I ask North8000 if that phrasing meets their needs? If it does then we have a basis for discussion. If t meets only their needs and no-one else's then we also have a basis for discussion, but that is a second question. Fiddle Faddle 22:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC) If an addition to what is already in there I think that that handles the most glaring omission. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC) I have tweaked the entry taking into consideration some of the suggestions above. I don't want to get into a debate on the veracity of the claims in the book. I don't think this is the place for that. But I do think that the views expressed in the book are held by enough people that they can't be dismissed as FRINGE. That said until we get more discussion from WP:RS sources of the book and its allegations I think we need to be restrained in how it is brought into the article. If it gains a great deal of coverage or there are some concurring views from other sources expressed we can, and should, expand the entry. For now, it's been entered into the article. Let's see how this plays out. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC) I have copyedited it—no major changes—and think what is there now is probably acceptable, at least in terms of WP:NPOV/due weight. I still think it would be better to have mention of the book immediately follow mention of 20/20, but then it puts the subsequent bit about the police chief out of context, which would require a more serious rewrite. Regarding the number of people believing something and its being a fringe viewpoint or not, I really don't know, but a vast number of people believe in all sorts of conspiracies that we make little or no mention of in all sorts of articles. (One example of many: 9/11 conspiracies rate exactly one sentence in the lengthy September 11 attacks article.) One more thing: while I'm not exactly known for being a BLP Nazi, I would note that it's not customary for Wikipedia articles to reprint allegations about the sexual activities of living persons (e.g., McKinney). It's not something I'm going to lose any sleep over, but it occurs to me that someone's being a murderer doesn't exempt them from the protection of the policy, and in most cases those supporting inclusion of that particular tidbit would be forced to run the gauntlet at WP:BLPN at the very least. Rivertorch (talk) 21:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC) Just to clarify, one might divide the 20/20 and book assertions into: "little or no evidence that it was due to sexual orientation" "was possibly/probably due to xyz" My comments relate to inclusion of #1. (and it is an "emperor has no clothes" statement......note that no basis for that "due to" is given in this article) I did not get involved in or don't particularly advocate anything regarding #2, and caution there sounds like a good idea. North8000 (talk) 21:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC) I support the general rule against referring to sexual activity of living persons. But in this case the reference is highly relevant as it casts doubt on the official version of events. -Ad Orientem (talk) I don't think it necessarily does, but my opinion on that is just my opinion and essentially irrelevant. Rivertorch (talk) 03:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC) I still debate, personally, if the source is credible enough on this topic to technically include at all. That was discussed after the 20/20 show, and it does not sound like the author did all the fact checking he claims to have done. However, I do agree his work has gained notoriety and a following of its own, and I agree that the wording offered and related revisions seems like the most appropriate way to address it (setting aside concerns of its inclusion at all). The 9/11 conspiracies seems like a fair example to me. Frankly, mentioning it is not something I will be missing any sleep for either - so long as the false info in the book is not used to change the facts presented in this article - which does not seem to be anyone's real interest from what I can see. I do think an article about the book would be the best place to expand more on this particular author's point of view on the subject - including the 20/20 work leading up to the book. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 23:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC) One addendum - I am not sure if "and reinforced claims" is as accurate as just "revived claims" - or maybe "revived and expanded upon claims" - which seems more accurate IMHO. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 04:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC) "Revived and expanded upon" seems at least equally accurate, possibly more accurate, and arguably more neutral. Rivertorch (talk) 05:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC) And in the absence of objections, I have changed the wording per your proposal. Rivertorch (talk) 05:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC) Off-topic comment The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. I would still be very careful about letting North8000 and his well-known anti-gay POV anywhere near editing this page unless there is consensus; he disrupted the talk page of Homophobia for a long time trying to get the article effectively deleted until he was threatened with sanctions, which he avoided by voluntarily withdrawing from the article. Just a warning. 86.130.6.61 (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC) Sorry here's the link - it was so disruptive it got its own ANI subpage!!! Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/North8000_Discussion. 86.130.6.61 (talk) 00:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC) Comments like the one you just made will not help matters if an intractable dispute arises on this page. If you're going to mention an editor's conduct at another talk page (and I wish you wouldn't—it's contrary to guidelines, and for good reason), why not at the very least log in and keep it all aboveboard? If you remember the discussion you've linked to, you'll be well aware that there are editors present here who participated in it. Rivertorch (talk) 05:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC) As long as that section is being updated - it might be worth correcting the HIV mention. It implies that the 20/20 report was the first time Matthew's HIV status was discussed - "aired a controversial report suggesting that Shepard had been HIV positive". The family, and indeed even The Laramie Project (written well before the 20/20 segment) talk about him living with HIV. It was fairly well-known at the time - probably because the first responders involved were given HIV tests as a result. I am not sure what the best way to remove and possibly place it elsewhere might be, it seems slightly out of context in other areas, but folks are tweaking that section anyway..so.. Perhaps the best place would be in mentioning that Reggie Fluty, the deputy sheriff who discovered Matthew, learned that she might have contracted HIV from contact with Matthew's wounds, took AZT for about six months, and is currently HIV negative. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 03:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC) Let me know if this edit seems like an unreasonable solution to this particular problem with that section. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 04:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC) Good catch. I had somehow missed the chronology. Your edit isn't at all unreasonable, but I think it's more detailed than is necessary. Rivertorch (talk) 05:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC) I've trimmed it a little but still think it interferes with the flow of the article. Rivertorch (talk) 05:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC) I agree about the flow - but also think the information is relevant to the incident and individual. Perhaps a subsection about his status? That seems a little odd too since other aspects of his life (for example I suspect being a rape victim had a profound impact as well). I suspect if we ponder it a bit a solution will reveal itself. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 05:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC) Yes, that happens sometimes. I'm happy to wait and see. Rivertorch (talk) 06:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Media Matters rebuttal

Media Matters material reworked, and critical commentary on the book referenced directly to underlying sources. Sportfan5000 (talk) 17:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I've removed the bit about the rebuttal by Media Matters, which was added a little while ago. While the passage, as it ended up, was neutrally worded on its surface, I think it introduced NPOV problems nonetheless. For one thing, the claims made in the book have already been rebutted by multiple organizations and individuals, so I question whether it's a good idea to single out one organization, especially one that, however meticulous its work may be, sometimes tends to be an ideological lightning rod. I also would note that the author's central claims aren't new ones and had already been rebutted on multiple occasions by various entities, and I can't help wonder if mentioning one or more individual rebuttals isn't essentially akin to damning the rebutters—who are a large and diverse lot—with faint praise. Rivertorch (talk) 04:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC) Removing it is probably the first choice - the sectional started out as "thoroughly debunked" and then "debunked" and finally, my change to rebuttal was simply to be careful on a very sensitive subject. As I noted, I think the best option would be to integrate any new factual material that may be contained in that rebuttal (the material, of course, that is reliably sourced and relevant and not simply the writer's assertion) within the main body of the biography. After all, declaring an opinion piece to have "thoroughly debunked" part of the biography is quite WP:NPOVCoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC) I included a sentence regarding its sourcing (citing http://thinkprogress.org/alyssa/2013/10/18/2802871/book-matt-prove-size-stephen-jimenezs-ego/), that should let people judge for themselves the reliability of the book. I think it's a much better criticism (of the book critic variety rather than the "no, you're wrong" variety) than that offered by Media Matters, as it takes the form of a book review. WhiskeyJuvenile (talk) 03:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC) Personally, I could endorse that as a more neutral link than the previous one, but still with issues - have you run into a review by a more general organization? Perhaps a large publication or at least a site that's more dedicated towards book reviews rather than from a political advocacy group (I'm having trouble finding much as it's been flooded on political sites of various stripes)? In addition, there seems to be more of a mixed response to the book in question, so if we're going to address the critical response to this book here, we run into WP:UNDUE issues if we only search out rebuttals rather than expressing all significant viewpoints. In honesty, I don't think we should be addressing critical response to the book, whether positive or negative, outside of an article on the book (which doesn't exist) - while I didn't add the mention of the book, I assume it's there simply to represent that there is a significant differing viewpoint rather than to evaluate, in this context, whether or not the book is to be believed.CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 20:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC) I don't think that there's a requirement that sources themselves exhibit NPOV. Having said that, some indicia of reliability/verifiability is helpful in contextual icing the inclusion of the book. Indeed, in my view, the reliability issues raised by Rosenberg are, in my view, almost enough to make the book WP:FRINGE, but nevertheless (even having been the person originally suggesting inclusion) I'd defer to consensus with regards to inclusion, but some information pertaining to reliability is, in my view, warranted. WhiskeyJuvenile (talk) 02:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC) That's not quite what I was trying to argue (maybe I'm making it unclear). *We* are prevented from NPOV. I would also find it inappropriate if we *enhanced* the strength of the book by linking it to a favorable review. I believe that links to criticism/support for the book would be more important if the article was about the book and would not include any such here. But if it is to be included, FRINGE demands that we "summarize significant opinions with representation in proportion to their prominence" not that we decide for ourselves if the opinion of the source is correct or not. I don't think it helps the article one bit and if we start bringing in positions from heavily politicized groups on both sides, we just make a mess without enhancing the encyclopedia nature of the article.CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict) I also take issue with the added sentence. My reasons are similar to those I expressed in my 8 October post about an earlier addition. Rephrasing slightly, I think the sentence is accurate but incomplete—the book has been criticized on various grounds, not just its sourcing—and thus is potentially misleading. CoffeeCrumbs makes a valid point also about undue weight. My guess is that either the book will be a flash in the pan and quickly forgotten except among those with certain political agendas or else it (and/or its author) will receive a lengthy critique in a reliable source at some point before long. Either way, I think we'd do better to remove the sentence in the meanwhile, but I'm not going to take the lead in trying to make that happen. Rivertorch (talk) 02:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC) I agree. I believe the sentence should be removed until such time we have something that can really be usable there. That being said, I've already changed or reverted variants a couple of times, so someone else will have to do it as I do not have any desire to start an edit war. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC) I believe the two links in the sentence before are favorable reviews? In any event, I think that the Rosenberg piece is of equal weight to the two sources cited in the previous sentence. My concern, however, is that if the Rosenberg piece isn't adequate to support the sentence I included, then on retrospect, I'm not sure whether the book itself should be included for the same WP:RS issues. In any event, I'll obviously defer to consensus. WhiskeyJuvenile (talk) 12:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Which is to say that if a single sentence pointing to criticism (and, hell, I'd be okay if someone wanted to rewrite the sentence to say merely "The book has been criticized.") shouldn't be included for fear of undue weight, I don't see any way to include the book itself without the inclusion itself lending undue weight. I do, however, agree that any rebuttal to the book itself is inappropriate for inclusion in the article (noting that I don't think that the Rosenberg piece is, in fact, a rebuttal), merely making a citation to a statement that basically says "Jimenez's conclusions are contentious" better contextualizes the inclusion of the book on this article in the first place. If the book is to be included, I do think that it's fair to place it here: "Matthew Shepard" from an encyclopedaeic standpoint is larger than his biography, and it is certainly possible that this book is significant with respect to evolving social response to his killing. However, 'some' mention of it's contentiousness is warranted, with appropriate sourcing.WhiskeyJuvenile (talk) 12:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC) I could definitely support referencing that it's a contentious book, worded so that we're not getting our opinions into the mix. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC) There are plenty of good references we can use for it that aren't Media Matters, as well. I'm opposed to using Media Matters in any context on this. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Well, I didn't say "another dumb book pushed by professional asshole Andrew Sullivan, who popularized the racist piece of shit book The Bell Curve", nor "Stephen Jimenez, who somehow made the book all about himself" (which is sourced by the title of the link I used!), so I'm fairly sure that "the book was criticized as being poorly sourced" is NPOV. WhiskeyJuvenile (talk) 20:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inclusion of fringe viewpoints in the lede

I wish you hadn't re-added this content, North8000. While there is a minor issue to do with the wording, the main problem is undue weight. It's not a major component of the article (nor should it be, POV-pushing to the contrary notwithstanding), and it should not be mentioned in the lede. Rivertorch (talk) 14:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

And I reverted the re-addition; it's not lead material at all, which should be clear to anyone with a good understanding of WP:Lead. Flyer22 (talk) 15:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily endorsing the lede as edited by North, but I also believe that proper weight needs to be given to the documented information and questions that Jimenez offers in the book as well. He isn't the only one stating it, after all, and neither Jimenez nor Andrew Sullivan (who has been talking about this issue for years are fringe players. This isn't the president's birth certificate here, this is a serious journalistic effort that has been endorsed by other serious journalists, and deserves the proper weight. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The viewpoint is one that has largely been promulgated by one journalist who has a conflict of interest. It was been refuted by a wide range of individuals with abundant knowledge of the case, including the relevant law enforcement authorities. Whether you consider it fringe or not, it is a viewpoint shared by few people with any connection with the case. As such, we are giving it undue weight by noting it in the lede, which is supposed merely to introduce the topic and summarize the major points in the body of the article. Rivertorch (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what conflict of interest he has, but I think the book handles what you're saying very well in regards to who holds what viewpoint. Proper weight needs to be given to what the evidence offers, after all, which doesn't diminish the popular sentiment. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Its been covered by 20/20, the advocate, the book, the prosecutor, etc. Its covered in the article, One sentence in the lead is not WP:UNDUE, and is quite in line with WP:NPOV which states that all viewpoints should be included. As the lede should serve as a mini-article it is entirely appropriate to have a one line sentence saying that there are alternate points of view. Describing this as WP:FRINGE is ludicrous, this is not science. That we as editors may disagree with the opinions described is not a reason to exclude or hide them.Gaijin42 (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Gaijin. I'm also not aware that an editor can simply remove material from an article with a wave of the hand and a declaration that it is "fringe" or based on an unstated "conflict of interest". The issue's been covered by a multitude of mainstream news organizations, including NPR, The Guardian, ABC News, Huffington Post, etc. Cloonmore (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually it's the reverse.....the "because he was gay" theory is the one that it is unsourced. The view of questioning/doubting the "because he was gay" theory is the sourced one. North8000 (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the lead should summarize the article, and given that this topic is covered in a fairly lengthy section, it should be summarized with a sentence in the lead. However, the proposed wording, with its use of scare quotes and vaguely ominous "since been called into question" is not the right way to do so.

There are a few other aspects also missing from the lead: we bring up "the trial" without mentioning any arrests, and there is no summary of the Legacy or Popular Culture sections either.--Trystan (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I have some serious editorial concerns about embracing every last goshdarned thing in the lead section. This section is meant to be a simple, basic summary of the article, not an all embracing rehash of the article. Were the article to contain the details of a putative ingrowing toenail this would not be relevant to the lead. The journalistic revelations are just that until proven otherwise, and they thus have a place in the article as journalistic revelations, but they do not merit top billing unless and until these revelations turn into cold hard facts.

I'm not entirely sure what is going on here. The young gentleman was homosexual. He was beaten to death. The world considered this to be a hate crime because of his sexuality and the USA created legislation based upon that. If it is proven that this crime was other than a hate crime the world will ignore that proof, and will do so because, for the world, this chapter is closed. Wikipedia is not a soapbox and it must not be used as such.

It is faintly amusing that attempts appear to be being made, here and elsewhere, to discredit the victim of a crime. Oddly, it is pleasant to see that those who wish to change the emphasis the world sees are sweeping his homosexuality aside. I almost welcome that as true equal rights. However, Wikipedia deals with the real world.

In summary, keep the material in the article, give it the correct weight, a weight that may alter over time, but it really does not belong in the lead until there is substantially more evidence for it. It would be a poor editorial decision to place it there. Fiddle Faddle 07:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Except, of course, that it's not "every last goshdarned thing" that we're discussing but a noteworthy issue that's been well covered by major media outlets and journalists and that goes to the heart of the very narrative that makes the subject notable in the first place. I have no idea how that "discredits the victim" or why anyone should care if it did (although I wasn't aware that Shepard had expressed any views on the matter). It's the very definition of a prominent controversy, to be included per WP:LEAD. It may, of course, discredit a myth, but I'll leave to others with their crystal balls any claim to know what "the world" will think (but again, why should we care?) Cloonmore (talk) 15:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

"I wasn't aware that Shepard had expressed any views on the matter". What praytell does that mean, I'd like to know. Or maybe I wouldn't like to know. Rivertorch (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It was a response to the suggestion that to discuss an investigation into the motives of his murderers is somehow to "discredit the victiim"? How praytell would that be so, and why should we care? Did the victim offer his viewpoint? Did he make a statement before he died, which an alternate narrative might discredit? Please enlighten us.Cloonmore (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, you have misunderstood me, so perhaps I had better clarify. MS became, quite by accident, but because of the horror of good people about the circumstances of his murder, the poster child for Gay Hate Crime. WHat it appears that Jimenez et al are seeking to do is to destroy the poster child status by removing his homosexuality as a murder motive and replacing it by a dreary drug related motive. Thi is what I mean by my use of the word 'discredit'.

I am minded of those who deny the holocaust, who seek to show the manifold reasons why it never happened, despite prima facie evidence that it did. We record such material, of course we do, but we do not weave them throughout the article on the holocaust. Such people are important to record, and so are the Gay Hate Crime Poster Child deniers. I just do not feel that the lead segment of the article is the right place to record them. And no, I haven't looked at the holocaust article. I suppose I should, but articles here do not set a precedent for others. I use it to illustrate my thinking, not what is present.

Whether folk like it or not, MS's death created the climate for hate crime legislation. I dislike such legislation. Murder is murder. Others like it. Fiddle Faddle 17:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Certainly you're not claiming that the book is closed on any further examination of the motives behind Shepard's death? This isn't close to Holocaust revisionism, this is more about trying to find the truth for those like Jiminez. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

There is a difference between someone trying to make a name for himself and cash out of postulating a hypothesis and then going to great lengths to make it stick, and properly established and referenced facts. Are we sure the poor boy wasn't abducted by aliens and the whole thing is not a myth. More seriously, WP:NOTNEWS applies. There is no deadline and matters will not be clarified by our writing about them. Our speculations are irrelevant. We should wait and see. Fiddle Faddle 17:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

So now we've entered the realm of pure fantasy, which i guess was fairly predictable. As soon as one starts tossing around comparisons to Holocaust deniers, you know that the arguments against including the material in the lead are getting mighty slim, and that the editor has pretty well walled himself off from further reasoned discsussion of the material.Cloonmore (talk) 17:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I very much dislike your attempt to marginalise me by your attempt to win banal debating points. It isn't clever. It is, simply, offensive. Whatever you may feel, I and others remain part of building a consensus, and we all have to abide by it. I remain opposed to this material in the lead. Fiddle Faddle 17:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Surely you have evidence for such a "cash out" hypothesis, I assume? That's a pretty strong attack on that journalist. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Cloonmore, in the case of Mr. Shepard, the evidence that he was tortured and murdered due to his attackers' homophobic motives was compelling enough that his name was attached to a landmark piece of legislation that ultimately became law. It's unsurprising that some people question whether it was a hate crime; people question everything, and frequently, if they're loud enough and insistent enough, they get airtime on major media outlets. This article reflects the mainstream view about Mr. Shepard's appalling end, as reflected in literally innumerable reliable sources. The alternative viewpoint articulated by a journalist with a conflict of interest is mentioned in the article, as it should be (because it has received enough sustained attention that it's noteworthy), but by placing it in the lede its credibility is elevated way beyond what it deserves. The hate crime law passed, Mr. Shepard is a cultural icon, and the victors write history. The article must reflect that. On a side note, your flippant remarks (e.g., "did the victim offer his viewpoint?") could legitimately be viewed as belittling the crime that ended Mr. Shepard's life, and I wish you'd please refrain. Rivertorch (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

What is this alleged conflict of interest? Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Rivertorch, what's the conflict of interest? Perhaps it should be explicated in the article. As for "belittling the crime," please refrain from such scurrilous pronouncements and read my comment above about the specious suggestion that MS would be "discredited" were an alternate motivation for the crime be put forth. This page isn't about martyrdom; it's about facts, and a prominent controversy belongs in the article and the lead. And please direct me to the WP:VICTORS WRITE HISTORY protocol. I can't seem to locate it. Cloonmore (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

We appear to be talking past one another. You entirely missed every one of my points, at any rate. As for the conflict of interest, I think you'll find it was discussed in a previous discussion. (Have you read the threads before these last few, including the archives and the hatted material?) There's a lot of dead-horse-beating going on here, and I'd much prefer not to add to it. Rivertorch (talk) 07:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Rivertorch, I've looked back in the archives as well as everything on this page. A conflict of interest claim does not appear to have been substantiated. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

For various reasons that should be obvious enough, I am not going to go down that road. If we could try to focus on the pivotal issue of due weight, it is possible this discussion might lead to some sort of rough consensus. It's doubtful, but it's possible. Rivertorch (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I think we went off / were sent off on a tangent. The new material was added to the lead rather than the article, and then the discussion went to whether or not it should go in the lead. It really needs to go into the article, not the lead. North8000 (talk) 15:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you're confusing this thread with its predecessor. I initially made that mistake but quickly corrected it. As you can see from the first post in this section, we are talking about the lede here; there are already two paragraphs on Jimenez's television piece and book in the body of the article. Rivertorch (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:People with HIV/AIDS

@Shakehandsman: @Obiwankenobi: This category was boldly added and subsequently removed. I think it is worth including; as it did get significant coverage in secondary sources and was a plot point in The Laramie Project (noting that Fluty had to go on post-exposure prophylaxis). VQuakr (talk) 05:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

We're in the process of creating a guideline for when medical conditions can be added to articles - you can see it at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality#Adding_another_group_of_people_to_this_guideline. Do reliable sources regularly describe him as having HIV, e.g. do they say "Matthew Shepard, a HIV+ victim of homophobic violence and ..."? Since few people knew, this wasn't a part of his public life in the way it would be for someone like Magic Johnson. There are probably a great many people who have HIV, but even if they have disclosed their status (or in the case of Shepard, if it is discovered after they have died), it doesn't necessarily make it defining. It seems like it was more of a post-mortem impact for the nurse.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with VQuakr completely. Also it's certainly more important than some other categories used, for example the Catawba College alumni one (and I'm not necessarily proposing to delete that).--Shakehandsman (talk) 08:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of this category. It is not a defining characteristic of the subject. In fact, I don't think the category should even exist.- MrX 11:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

If you don't think it should exist then you're more than welcome to attempt to have it deleted (presumably along with every other category concerning people with life threatening conditions). However, at present such categories are widely used and accepted, and therefore such an argument isn't really relevant here.--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Matthew Shepard#Post-trial media attention

The entire Matthew Shepard#Post-trial media attention section needs to be re-addressed I believe. Everything is essentially about Jimenez's contentious, rejected, disputed, poorly sourced, tabloid journalism. I think we are misrepresenting it.

He might have some valid points, as are echoed in reliable sources, that too much emphasis may be laid on Shepard being gay, that drugs may have been somehow involved, and likely a some other points. But his new idea, while initially exciting to the New York Times Magazine in 2004, inspired them to commission an in-depth article, ultimately was undone by Jimenez's own reporting and writing skills, "it didn't get to the level of being a complete and publishable story." Media Matters notes that "Jimenez's argument is tainted by its reliance on wild extrapolation, questionable and often inconsistent sources, theories that critics of his work are engaged in a "cover-up" of politically sensitive truths, and the dismissal of any evidence that runs contrary to his central thesis.""Former NYT Editor Rebuts Stephen Jimenez's Claim About Matthew Shepard Story".

The rejected reporting became the basis for ABC's 20/20 report that he coproduced later that year. Which was "criticized by journalists, media scholars, LGBT advocacy group GLAAD, and Shepard's family -- sparked a furor, especially in light of an email indicating that Jimenez had already made up his mind about the case before he and his ABC colleagues began reporting the story."

Seven years later, marking a decade of reporting and research into the life and death of Matthew Shepard by Jimenez, the book is published with similar research and writing problems. Alyssa Rosenberg's critique is quite damning,"‘The Book Of Matt’ Doesn’t Prove Anything, Other Than The Size Of Stephen Jimenez’s Ego"

The Book Of Matt isn’t really about Shepard at all. Rather, it’s an exceptionally shoddy attempt to prove that Shepard was killed because he was a major methamphetamine distributor who Aaron McKinney, one of the two men convicted in his death, intended to rob to pay drug debts and to feed his own habit. And most distastefully, it’s an opportunity for Jimenez to portray himself as a hero who’s stood up to political correctness.

She notes the poor sourcing is laid out in the preface:

Though this is a work of nonfiction journalism, I have occasionally employed methods that are slightly less stringent to re-create the dialogue of characters — words I did not personally hear; nor could the characters themselves recall every word exactly from memory,” he explains. “But my intention throughout has been to remain faithful to the actual characters and events as they really happened.” This is a dubious practice to employ at all, but Jimenez compounds the problem by not distinguishing which quotations are manufactured from recollections, which are paraphrases recounted by sources, and which were spoken directly to him.

I think the section should be recast solely about Jimenez as all the content is attributed to him. Alternatively we could do a survey and look at what would actually be a fair summation of post-trial media attention, which has been immense, and mostly echoes what the rest of the article states, as opposed to be devoted to recasting events as more scandalous than tragic. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, first, that 20/20 ran it and multiple journalists were involved is important. That many were critical of the report is one thing, and it should be acknowledged if attached to solid and/or reliable sources (The Advocate, GLAAD yes, Media Matters and ThinkProgress no). Jimenez's journalism has received a lot of press over a long period of time, is endorsed by other journalists (such as Andrew Sullivan), and deserves a place in this section. You are probably right that "post-trial media attention" is the wrong header, but trying to position it as "contentious, rejected, disputed, poorly sourced, tabloid journalism" is dishonest as well. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It is contentious, rejected, disputed, poorly sourced, but I suppose tabloid journalism could be argued although sensationalizing a crime story is at the very heart of tabloid journalism. My main point is that we are likely running afoul of NPOV by not clearly linking these episodes as one man's 10-year effort to recast the murders. That his research rejects facts that don't align with his beliefs, his sourcing is poor, he exploits pretty much all the subjects, and his main points are pretty much rejected. The sourcing is there, but our structure is, perhaps unintentionally, misleading. I'm open to the best ways to address these issues. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It's contentious and rejected in some circles, disputed in others, but not poorly sourced at all. It was sourced well enough to be on a top news magazine program, and the book was published by a reputable third party publisher. We are running afoul of NPOV by not including these noteworthy claims that are accepted by many other journalists and have gotten significant attention outside of his own universe. This isn't some conspiracy theory. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Sportfan, let me ask you a question that goes right to the heart of this. Taking your last post as an example, where "recast" implies conflict with a mainstream view.....what is that putative mainstream view, and what is the sourcing for it? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Are you sure you're quite familiar with the relevant policy? We would be running afoul of an integral part of it—due weight—by placing this content in the lede. It is already covered in the article, more extensively than I believe it deserves, but what's there now is a result of compromise that a number of disagreeing editors have lived with for a while now. Rivertorch (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thargor Orlando, I didn't suggest it was a conspiracy theory, but in case I presented it poorly, let me try again. Everything in that section is solely about Jimenez yet we call it "Post-trial media attention," which is inherently false. We can rework the content to encapsulate Jimenez's efforts, and present it as such, which I think is the best way to go. Or, we can do an honest overview of all the post-trial media attention which corresponds mostly to what the rest of the article is about. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

North8000, you seem to have some point to make that likely is on a topic other than this one. I suggest you start a thread specific to whatever change you want. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Rivertorch, your comment might be for Thargor Orlando, but to be clear I would oppose adding any of this to the lead, until we get it handled well in the article. As Jimenez's views have been discredited on a number of fronts, most troubling being his ability to accurately source exceptional claims, since he started on this a decade ago, I think we should exercise caution in giving him more credibility than is due. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Quite right. Discussion is now running in two different sections, and it's getting hard to keep track of who said what, but I agree with much of what you've said, including the last. Rivertorch (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It deserves a line in the lead as a credible, well-covered point of view on the crime, and I do agree that the header is wrong. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

My post was to cut through the haze of the wording in this thread.....the implication that some unsourced, unsourcable unstated view is the "mainstream" view. By simply asking those who are implying that what exactly is the putative "mainstream" view, and what is the sourcing for it? North8000 (talk) 21:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thargor Orlando, I think his credibility has been questioned, but i need more information to know if this is a skills issue, a POV inherency flaw, something else that's compromising his research, or something else entirely. North8000, this section is specifically on how we are misrepresenting Jimenez's work, and seeing a NPOV way forward. If you're suggesting in some way that his attack and death were not widely reported as a hate crime tied his being gay? You would need to take that up with hundreds if not thousands of media sources who are apparently all in on the same conspiracy. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Quit the insulting "conspiracy" crap; I never said anything about a "conspiracy", and it didn't take a conspiracy for that narrative to spread. That aside, how about showing just ONE quality reliable source that makes the "because he was gay" assertion?North8000 (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Well we found your point, please start a new thread if you wish to further discussion of it. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Some have questioned his credibility, sure. They're not sources we'd want to use in an encyclopedia article, however. As for Jimenez's credentials, he was employed by ABC, is called a journalist in pretty much every story about this... I don't see where there's a real credibility issue here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Well the New York Time Magazine is a pretty heavy hitter here. There are others as well but I guess i'll have to go looking for the best ways to approach this. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Media Matters is not a very good source for such a claim. As it is, it's the quote of one person involved, not the position of the Times. Thargor Orlando (talk) 04:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It fits a narrative that unfolds elsewhere. To me it's a piece of the puzzle of this story. I'm more inclined to accept the facts as stated, he was commissioned to write a piece, and those involved dispute the facts as presented by Jimenez, and Jimenez's story ultimately did not run, but was the basis for his co-produced 20/20 piece. I'll look into it more but so far no one has suggested that we instead switch the section to what the title suggests it is, so I'll keep along the idea that we need to sort out how to present it NPOV, and not as Wikipedia endorsed as summarizing all post-event media coverage. Sportfan5000 (talk) 04:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

MOS:LEAD

MOS:LEAD suggests, with respect to relative emphasis: "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. This is true for both the lead and the body of the article. If there is a difference in emphasis between the two, editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy." There seems to be such a discrepancy here, with a fairly lengthy section not reflected in the lead. The question is whether there is not enough emphasis on the material in the lead, or too much in the article. I'm rather leaning toward the latter. As of the current version, we spend, by my count, 260 words talking about the motivation of the murderers in a general sense:

• The second paragraph of the lead (this material is not in the body, but should be, per MOS:LEAD: "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text.")
• The second and third paragraphs of "Arrests and trial"
• The first paragraph of "Hate crime legislation"

By contrast, we spend 471 words talking specifically about Jimenez's theories of the murderers' motivation, making it the second longest section in the article. While relative emphasis can't be completely reduced to a matter of word count, that is way out of whack.--Trystan (talk) 06:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

There appears to be a campaign at present to puff up Jimenez, including an attempt today by an editor with a username implying they are the publisher of Jiminez's book. You are correct that it is way out of whack. The Jimenez ordure should be stripped right down. The article is not a platform for the Jimenez soapbox. It is a minor controversy being pumped up for what appear to be promotional reasons. Fiddle Faddle 21:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I just learned what "ordure" means. Fiddle Faddle: that is disgusting and you should be ashamed to have employed it here. There were other, more judicious words or terms you could have employed. Quis separabit? 00:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I disagree and I have serious questions regarding the attempt by certain editors to delete or obscure text -- based on a published book by a gay author, which has not been subject to any civil lawsuit regarding accuracy -- to push a preferred, politically correct and expedient narrative of the Shephard tragedy. Indeed the decision above to censor any references to Jimenez's book at all were rejected as Not WP:FRINGE. Notability per second-party discussion (citation is actually third-party; second-party would be paywalled book review). Reliable as "book published by respected publishing house". As a gay man myself (voluntarily non-practising), I am well aware of those who have been killed or injured in "gay bashing" and I can only imagine that in the hinterlands (unlike NYC, where I live), it is likely far worse and underreported. But scholarship is scholarship. Nonetheless, the material I inserted in the lede regarding Jimenez's book was at the end of the lede and made clear that it is not widely disseminated or accepted, thus there is no question of proportionality. Nonetheless, my edit was unilaterally deleted by another editor (Rivertorch) who refers to editorial battles over the more publicly available, accepted by default, dissemination of the narrative and circumstances of Shephard's death as "Mr. Shepard is a cultural icon, and the victors write history", on which wording, when challenged, he refused to either retract or defend (maybe he works in Washington, DC) and this causes me to question whether AGF can apply here. Rivertorch demands talkpage consensus for my edit to remain in the lede (his most recent deletion), likely because it is improbable for such consensus to be reached. I see no "victors" in this case, but I do sense an effort at censorship, which causes me as much concern as misinformation or bias, and which should be wholly unacceptable in this online encyclopaedia. There should and can be no "sacred cows" on Wikipedia. Yours, Quis separabit? 14:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Rms125, I'm with you in spirit; there is a severe censorship problem at this article. But IMO in the lead I would lean more towards the items where Jimenez is pointing out the obvious in the rest of the data and history (i.e no basis for the "because he was gay" narrative and how that narrative got created) and actual coverage of the history, rather than other assertions made primarily by Jimenez which are based on information not already obvious in the other data and history. North8000 (talk) 14:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

North: If there has been a censorship problem with this article then another DR needs to be opened. But I am relatively new to the Shephard article and you know the trends better than I do. Quis separabit? 14:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that what will really clarify it is when someone starts adding the more straightforward info / observations from the ABC news report and the Jimenez book and see if people are finding creative ways to knock that out. If so, then I think we need an RFC or DR. That is what I was recommending that you do. I don't think that the type of more arguable stuff that you were starting with (e.g. "least one of Shepard's killers had been a former occasional sex partner") in the lead is the kind of stuff that would sort that out; actually I would oppose that being in the lead. The censored part of the ABC news report is really an indictment of the activists and the media, not of Shepard.North8000 (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, I wasn't trying to be salacious with "[A]t least one of Shepard's killers had been a former occasional sex partner". I took that just as one of the main components of Jimenez's book, as I could best discern. Thanks for the advice. Quis separabit? 15:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that Sportfan5000 was indefinitely blocked as an abusive sockpuppet a while ago. Not sure if he was part of the "censorship" issue. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think tossing around allegations of censorship is warranted. As I noted at the start of this section, we spend far more time talking about the Jimenez theories than we spend on material about motivation that is much more widely covered. What is more, the content that speaks to motivation generally is much more conservatively written, simply reporting what was said by various parties before and during the trial. Even if Jimenez's conspiracy theory is correct, this is not the place to right great wrongs by giving it undue weight.--Trystan (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

What "conspiracy theory"? North8000 (talk) 18:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The book indicates it is exposing a "cover-up" and "tangled web of secrets". Its subtitle is, "Hidden Truths About the Murder of Matthew Shepard". I don't think "conspiracy theory" is an unfair description based on the book's own self-characterization.-Trystan (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't require a conspiracy. It just requires activists doing what activists do and the media (in this case) being ripe to be led by them and carry the narrative generated by them. North8000 (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

This Talk page is for discussing changes to the article, not generalizations about Jimenez. He's been recognized by enough other sources and reviewers you cannot purge from the article every last thing that may be cited to Jimenez as bogus or invented. Anything cited to Jimenez accordingly needs to be dealt with on a case by case basis. Is that PARTICULAR thing cited to Jimenez doubtful or not? The same standard applied to other sources should be applied to Jimenez. I suggest everyone get back on topic and address what specific claim in the article they dispute and why they think it should be removed, or what exactly they want to add to the article, instead of going on about what bloggers and Media Matters have to say about Jimenez and his presumed politics, etc.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Rob Debree

@Trystan has, in my opinion, obscured a number of issues, with "testimony was given..." being just the first example. The lede was previously quite clear about who testified about what, something that is important when testimony is being recanted, etc. That's now that's been obscured as "testimony was given..." I could add a "who?" tag to this passive construction like Trystan has added a "clarify" tag elsewhere except for the fact I believe that instead of adding this sort of tag one should edit so as to resolve what the tag calls for. If nothing else, raise the issue on the Talk page. By removing "the testifying officer told an interviewer 'Matthew Shepard’s sexual preference or sexual orientation certainly wasn’t the motive in the homicide...'" from the lede we are left with a lede that does NOT accurately summarize the article as it misleadingly suggests that there is no dispute Shepard's orientation was the motive in the homicide.
I invite Trystan to explain deletion of a reference to Debree talking about how he became politically active, giving the late "liberal lion" Sen. Ted Kennedy a shout-out while talking about this case and saying he had "become extremely sensitized as to the issues of gays". The relevance of noting Depree's "extreme sensitization" should be obvious given Detective Ben Fritzen's view that that those "closely involved with investigating the case.... Initially agreed [this wasn't a hate crime but] as time went on, some became politically involved". If Trystan wants to make an issue out of WP:BLP in this article about a deceased person, may I ask whether making the accused, who are both very much alive, out as greater homophobes than the evidence warrants or warranted is not of equal WP:BLP concern. It ought to be left to the reader to decide what to make, if anything, of Debree's "extreme sensitization" instead of suppressing this well sourced information, just as we endeavour to present fairly the accused's anti-gay statements, their reliability, and their context.
It's also quite clear from the Bay Area Reporter that Debree asserted that one of Jimenez' supposed "factual errors or lies" was that someone shot through Rerucha's windows, but after the Bay Area Reporter contacted Rerucha, "Rerucha maintains the incident happened," indicating that Debree's charge against Jimenez is not substantiated, at least on this point. "None of that is clear in the article" is simply not true. Debree stated that Jimenez had lied in his book, the Bay St Reporter then fact-checked and found that Jimenez had not. This is only "unclear" if one is trying to be obtuse.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

You linked to the wrong Bay Area Reporter article. Is this one you meant to link to? It says

"Rob DeBree, who was the lead sheriff's investigator when Shepard was killed and is now undersheriff, said "not once did [Jimenez] ever speak with me," and he didn't try." (Jimenez said he made multiple attempts to interview DeBree, but DeBree wasn't available.)

DeBree said the book includes "factual errors and lies," including a statement about someone shooting through Rerucha's window. Rerucha maintains the incident happened. DeBree also said the notion that Shepard was a drug dealer was "truly laughable." "

As to the edit that was recently reverted. I agree with the reversion. You can't selectively take information from a primary source and use it in the way that you did. I also agree with removing the McKinney girlfriend content from the lead. It's not at all significant.- MrX 14:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, I believe it's no mystery what that excerpt is saying. If one is going to deem DeBree a reliable source, one should not cherry pick his claims (or elements from the Bay Area Reporter piece) without noting where they didn't check out. When he is being granted the opportunity to call someone else a liar in Wikipedia, readers are entitled to know more about who is making the accusation. I would dispute that I took anything "selectively"; it's representative of the general point of view expressed over an extended period of time. If one does not like this one can always remove from the article Debree's unsubstantiated charge that Jimenez is a liar.
The bigger problem remains removing from the lede the one investigating officer's clear statement that homophobia was not the motive. The facts removed from the lede are very much significant as evidenced by the several articles that have come out in the last year or two that have called reader attention to work that indicates that this is not the hate crime the media made it out to be. Obscuring this in the lede renders it misleading and biased.--Brian Dell (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I was trying to get the lead away from its former format of duelling quotes (there are dozens of people connected to the case that could be quoted on their views) and instead neutrally summarize the main points that are repeated throughout multiple reliable sources. The statements to police, testimony, and trial arguments were nuanced and conflicting, so a summary is necessarily broad, but the detail is supplied in the article. For the most part, with respect to the killers’ motivation, we are appropriately very conservative and restrict ourselves to neutrally reporting on what was said in court (the main exception being the Jimenez material, which is much more anecdotal).

I don’t think the current lead really suggests that Shepard's sexual orientation was the motivator (I removed the oversimplification "... it was widely reported that Shepard was targeted because he was gay"). Price's testimony is described as recanted and the gay panic defence is contrary to the robbery-based premeditation argued by the prosecutor. No one is quoted as saying it was a hate crime, so there is no basis for pulling in a quote specifically to refute that.

The suggestion you are implying, that DeBree's sensitivity to gay issues makes his criticisms of Jimenez unreliable, is wholly inappropriate on many levels, primarily as WP:OR and a WP:BLP violation.

I added the “clarification needed” tag because the relevance of the event being discussed is not clear in the article. Presumably it happened near the time of the trial, or is associated with this case for other reasons? Clarifying that would go a long way to making this bit more explicable. The BAR source doesn't support "Jimenez made that up," just that its accuracy was disputed.

This is a lot of different issues to try to address in one section; it would probably be easiest to focus on one and split off the others into separate sections if they require further discussion.--Trystan (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

You admit to "conflicting" yet this is now far less obvious from the lede than before you edited the lede, is it not? In my view that renders the lede less neutral, not more. I should think a "very conservative" lede would not be citing a website that called for donations to an activism campaign, sold associated T-shirts and wristbands, and "event highlight[ed]" the "Democratic National Convention Cocktail Reception" without at least using intext attribution and/or indicating somehow that what's cited is controversial/disputed.

I think you need to explain some more just why some sort of "exception" needs to be made for "the Jimenez material". You seem to be of the view that Jimenez' supposed INsensitivity to gay issues makes him somehow unreliable. If there's something that renders Jimenez unreliable, then spell that out for the reader explicitly instead of deciding on the reader's behalf about this award-winning, favourably reviewed book. Tell readers his book is "anecdotal" or a "conspiracy theory" (to use your other description of the book) if that's your objection and cite that (so readers can see that MediaMatters attribution or whatever it is and see where it is coming from). In another thread on this Talk page I called for Jimenez to be assessed on a case by case basis like other sources (instead of continuing to make generalizations like you do here) and you did not reply to dispute that (hence my assumption that you are not, in fact, all that interested in dividing up this discussion by thread topic). What ought to apply here is Wikipedia's RS policy, not your own policy which contends that "what was said in court" somehow has special status. What was said in court by a witness who elsewhere gets his facts wrong or a witness who later recants is, in fact, less reliable than what was said to Jimenez by a reliable witness. The lede continues to suggest that there is no controversy about the media reporting that that matthewshepard.org-cited bit refers to, and that's misleading and inaccurate.

Re what's "wholly inappropriate", double standards are what's most inappropriate here. See WP:NPOV. Until I came along, the article had Debree calling Jimenez a liar without noting that the source from which this was taken had promptly turned around and pointed out that when Debree got specific about what was not true, the party it happened to said it was true (i.e. the BAR checked with the person Jimenez said it happened to and that person backed up Jimenez). If it isn't a WP:BLP violation to have a third party call Jimenez a liar when that contention is contradicted by the same reporter reporting the third party's liar charge then what is (a liar charge without citation might at least have the benefit of being uncontradicted!)? No one is now calling Debree a liar aside from whatever a neutral presentation of what his own statements and statements by Rerucha to Jimenez imply. Pointing out Debree's views about gay issues is appropriate when his view is provided as an un-editorialized quote and when another investigating officer (and the prosecutor) makes an issue out of it by complaining of the politicization. Debree is in no way being misrepresented to the reader here if a representative quote of his is provided to the reader. Again, if you don't like the reader hearing more about Debree then stop having Wikipedia uncritically repeat Debree's (contradicted and disputed) remarks suggesting Jimenez is a liar and the accused is a gay hater. Of course, if you remove Debree's claims in and out of court from this case, you are left with very little with which to contend that this was primarily a hate crime.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

You attribute to me views I do not hold and responsibility for parts of the article I haven’t closely reviewed. I have expressed my opinion on the appropriateness of including the DeBree sensitivity quote, and will leave it at that for this section of the talk page.--Trystan (talk) 19:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Yet my edits, as opposed to the article, are apparently your priority for "close review." You are denying that you called Jimenez' book a "conspiracy theory"? I see a parallel here between Debree calling Jimenez a liar and your POV about Jimenez and whether readers should be more informed about where Debree's POV is coming from. On Wikipedia we often say something like "conservative critic Mr X said..." or "Democratic Party operative Ms Y disputed..." such that it is not some sort of injustice to give that sort of background, especially when there's been charges of politically motivated claims and the party whose background is at issue is accusing a third party of telling "lies". Here, no political label or secondary interpretation is being given, simply an accurately rendered quote.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The Laramie Project

I think The Laramie Project deserves significant prominence in this article, but it doesn't appear at all. Am I missing something? Rks13 (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

It's mentioned in a related article Cultural depictions of Matthew Shepard#The Laramie Project (2000). The focus of this biographical article is the person, much more so than the cultural legacy that followed his life.- MrX 21:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Confused about the judgement. A double life sentence?

The convicted each received a double life sentence? At first I thought the way it was worded was just confused (i.e., the two (together) received two life sentences). But it is later written that each of them got consecutive life sentences. I can understand that if a person murders two people he might get a life sentence for each murder, but how in the world does one person get two consecutive life sentences for one murder? I have never ever heard of such a thing. Shouldn't that be explained in the article? __209.179.42.140 (talk) 15:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

It is entirely possible for one murder to result in multiple charges and multiple convictions, if the incident technically comprised more than one distinct crime. McKinney, for example, was charged with several separate crimes arising from the Shepard incident, including robbery, kidnapping, first-degree felony and second-degree murder. Bearcat (talk) 15:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Matthew Shepard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606223846/http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/1999/11/06/witness/index.html to http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/1999/11/06/witness/index.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://homes.thedailycamera.com/extra/shepard/29bshep.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070630023857/https://vic.pvhs.org/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/PVHS/PVHS_DOCUMENT_MGMT2/NEWS_REPOSITORY/MATTHEW%20SHEPARD%20MEDICAL%20UPDATE.PDF to https://vic.pvhs.org/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/PVHS/PVHS_DOCUMENT_MGMT2/NEWS_REPOSITORY/MATTHEW%20SHEPARD%20MEDICAL%20UPDATE.PDF
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629023522/http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/provisions.asp to http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/provisions.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Matthew Shepard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160320051930/http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=7dfd5ad0-e31b-44e8-9513-8abcf02654c6&sponsor= to http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=7dfd5ad0-e31b-44e8-9513-8abcf02654c6&sponsor=
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110715195945/http://m.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/oct/03/10-years-later-matthew-shepard-hasnt-been-forgotte/ to http://m.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/oct/03/10-years-later-matthew-shepard-hasnt-been-forgotte

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

McKinney and Henderson

Neither McKinney nor Henderson were students at the time of the crime. They worked as roofers and at fast-food joints. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.2.3.148 (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Source? According to this one, they were unemployed. —ADavidB 02:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

neutrality dispute

I find it quite remarkable that another editor contends that even just a few words that some readers might conclude suggests something about Rob Debree's gay activism (or potential for such) is "undue weight" and therefore has to be deleted while the article goes on at length about how McKinney and Henderson may have been motivated by their view of gays. If neutrality is to be respected, then either the material that disputes the prosecutor's take that crime was motivated by "greed and violence" (as opposed to the victim's sexual orientation) gets cut back and speculation about anyone's motivation is reined in OR we are even-handed and all the info about how "anti" gay the accused may have been may be at least partially offset with at least some info about how their accuser(s) may have been "pro"-gay (when that info is before us). Explain to me why Debree felt it necessary to give a shout out to the late "liberal lion" Sen. Ted Kennedy when talking about this case if that sort of thing is irrelevant. Debree obviously thought it relevant. Respecting the reader means letting the reader decide what, if anything, to make of Debree's statement that he had "become extremely sensitized as to the issues of gays". Deleting that remark while keeping Debree's accusations that the work of an award winning investigative journalist who dived into this case (and is a living person) constitutes "lies" is not informing the reader, it's leading the reader by the nose to the conclusion that the deleting Wikipedia editor(s) want to lead the reader to. There is an easy solution to this and that's tell the whole story instead of pretending that only some could possibly have an agenda. There is no POV pushing involved in letting Debree talk about himself on Wikipedia for one sentence, a sentence that is representative, by the way. There is POV pushing to suppress that, however, and to have "alternate theories" follow "hate crime legislation" as if the "hate crime" take, primarily advocated for by people with no connection to the actual case, is the accepted mainstream view and the view of the prosecutor and a testifying officer (and the journo who has investigated the facts more than any other) is to be reduced to "alternative theory" status.--Brian Dell (talk)

You seem to be trying to relitigate the criminal case. There is almost no reason to rely only on a primary source for any piece of information in this article. The murder, trial, and aftermath were extensively covered by many reputable secondary sources. The mainstream view is that the murder was a hate crime. Other theories simply do not have the same prominence backed by reliable sources, so they get less coverage per WP:DUE. We do not need to delve into the politics of DeBree, unless you can find a some good sources that tie his politics to his testimony. Also, I think we are giving more than fair treatment to Jiminez' theories.- MrX 13:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not relying on a primary source (since when does a primary source feature an interview with a historian and have a "producer"? not that primary sources cannot be used for quotes anyway) and no, that's not the mainstream view as of today per the Nation (the self-described "flagship of the left") story I linked to above in this section, the Guardian, The Advocate (which is a LGBT magazine by the way), etc and most importantly, the guy who actually litigated the case, the prosecutor. I'm not the guy trying to relitigate the actual verdict here, which was NOT a hate crime verdict. A serious media piece these days that talks about this case as its primary topic (as opposed to in passing) is most likely to note that the "hate crime" view is the dubious view.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Correct. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions about the case, but WP:NOR and WP:NPOV demand that the preponderance of mainstream reporting inform the tenor of the article. Complex criminal cases very often spark disagreement, sometimes even among the principal actors, but we don't get to provide added weight to a given theory (or, in some cases, even mention it) if it hasn't received adequate attention from, and been lent credence by, reliable sources. Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there is any equivalence between discussing the motivations of the murderers (as put forth at trial and widely reported on) and qualifying someone's criticism of a book with the disclaimer that he once said he was sensitive to gay issues.

I don't really see how the article could be read as promoting the view that this was unambiguously a hate crime. The Arrests and trial section in particular includes many theories, including the prosecutor's view that this was just a robbery, the gay panic version put forward by McKinney's lawyer and Price, the judge's rejection of that defence, and Price's recanting of her statements. While the article does naturally go on to discuss the hate crime bill named after Shepard, the description in that section is rather pointed in leaving the reader (well, this one, anyway) with the impression that the casting of this murder as a hate crime was rather questionable (which makes sense, flowing from the conflicting and changing views recounted in the previous section).--Trystan (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

And just why, exactly, is there no equivalence beyond your say so? If you want to keep everything limited to what was put forth at trial, and put forth as central as opposed to incidental, then the hate crime thesis would be dialled back to being purely incidental. In any case, there is considerable material devoted to others' opinions about Jimenez and his motivations, while a single sentence by Debree himself is being suppressed. That's not neutral even if it's proper to be unbalanced with respect to the motivations of the accused versus accusers. If the material about Debree is out, then cut back the attacks on Jimenez, in particular the ones that don't provide any evidence Jimenez did not report this case accurately.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh my goodness. The hate crime "thesis", as you put it, cannot be dialed back because it's the number-one noteworthy aspect of this case, as indicated by the vast preponderance of sources. I trimmed and extensively revised this content several years ago, and while I haven't really been around much to keep track of subsequent changes, a quick look suggests that there may still be more weight given to alternative theories in general than there ought to be. However, the Jimenez book is undeniably noteworthy; it got extensive and sustained attention, so we have to include it. The attention it got included significant rebuttals, so we have to mention that, too. That's really what's at issue here: what's verifiably noteworthy and what isn't. Can you demonstrate that the changes you favor are in a similar vein? Can you point to multiple reliable, secondary sources to support them? Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 05:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• Given the above I am not sure I am seeing the version that inspired the tag, but from my read through I felt that the whole three paragraphs devoted to Jimenez is WP:undue. It could do with a trim. AIRcorn (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree, and I've made an attempt to cut it down. Some things to note... first, it's unnecessary to quote everyone involved at length; we can summarize the important views. Second, I feel it's WP:UNDUE to separate out the book and 20/20 special, since they're by the same person (we're effectively presenting Jimenez' views twice.) Since they all cover the same topic, I merged them and the criticism. If this seems like a drastic reduction in size, remember - in the trial section, we devote only a single paragraph to the official theories covered at trial, which is significantly less space than we give Jimenez' views even in my condensed account. Detailed back-and-forth on Jimenez' theories are more appropriately placed on the page for his book. --Aquillion (talk) 06:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I think that the problem also relates to wording. I think that the report, more so than solidly establishing other motives, pointed out that the "because he was gay" idea, while widely propagated, essentially had no basis. The article covers the facts of the case and so does not cover or claim otherwise, but the discussion of other criminal motives is listed as an "alternative theory". Alternative to what? North8000 (talk) 11:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Recent reverts.

I reverted several different changes to various parts of the article, so I thought I should explain each:

• Removing 'left to die' from the lead is a problem both because the lead has to summarize the article (which says the same thing) and because it's important to make it clear what happened as early as possible - leaving the fact that it was a murder until the next sentence isn't ideal.
• Changing 'perpetrators' to 'persons of interest' is silly, since they were convicted, and serves only to make the lead more confusing - again, it just needs to provide a quick summary.
• The other two are more minor, but splitting the sentence off to "Shepard was tied to a fence and left to die" is a weird passive-voice way of putting it (like it just magically happened); I think the old wording reads better. Along the same lines, "Shepard remained tied to the fence and was in a coma 18 hours after the attack when he was discovered..." is a bit of a run-on sentence and reads weirdly.

I feel very strongly about the first two; the others aren't really as important, and those bits could probably stand to be reworded in general (the awkwardness of the rewrite is partially a result of the text trying to cram a huge amount of stuff into those sentences to begin with.) --Aquillion (talk) 01:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

For the second paragraph of the lead, I think both "perpetrators" and "persons of interest" are a bit awkward there. I would suggest just starting the sentence with their names. That way the paragraph provides a more coherent narrative.--Trystan (talk) 01:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

"Persons of interest" is jargon that shouldn't be used in an article unless it's wikilinked, if it must be used at all, but "perpetrators" seems fine to me. The reasoning behind that change—"In legal parlance, the latter is the correct terminology. The words "Perpetrators" is used after conviction."—was a bit odd. Wikipedia articles aren't written in legal parlance, and this article was written after the conviction. I made several reverts, too, and left many improvements alone. Like everything around here, it's a work in progress. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 03:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement error?

The statement early in the Murder section saying "McKinney and Henderson decided to give Shepard a ride home." seems to give a falsely neutral impression. All the evidence, including the testimony of the murderers & their accomplices, indicates that they did not actually intend to 'give him a ride home' but to assault and rob him. But the casual way this statement is worded serves to minimize that intent, and to deny the premeditation that the jury found. Clearly a biased wording that should be changed. T bonham (talk) 04:14, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Include Price's actions that resulted in her guilty plea

Following her testimony at McKinney's trial, Price pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of misdemeanor interference with a police officer.[37] The Article would be improved if this sentence takes the Reader into more detail. After several re-reads I get the idea that she was initially charged as an accessory after the fact, and so the conviction was the result of a plea arrangement, and I also get the idea that Price lied to the Police in one or both times Price is mentioned, but exactly which part was the lie (or both), etc... is unclear.Tym Whittier (talk) 03:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Any pics of Matt after the attack?

I couldn't find this online. Any pics of Matt?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.252.19 (talk) 23:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Why in blazes would you expect to find this? The kid was brutally injured and then died, why would any media outlet ever have published pictures of that? Bearcat (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)