Talk:Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act

Contradiction?

How can this article make this statement:

"According to FBI statistics, of the over 113,000 hate crimes since 1991, 55% were motivated by racial bias, 17% by religious bias, 14% sexual orientation bias, 14% ethnicity bias, and 1% disability bias."

That is, it already includes sexual orientation in the definition of a hate crime, yet the point of the Act *is* to include it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JohnJSal (talk • contribs) 20:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

The FBI statistics are just that at this point; unenforcable statistics. The Shepard Act would make them enforcable. --CWSensation 21:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That is correct. See Hate Crime Statistics Act, which requires the FBI to track this data. Fireplace 22:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

July portion unclear

That paragraph needs more details; it says Kennedy introduced an amendment that would add this bill as a rider to another bill but actually does not state weather it was actually added to the bill. (Introducing an amendment is not enough for the amendment to be added to the bill, it needs to be voted on; either voice vote or recorded.) Also another sentence is partually inaccurate, for instance, another possible outcome is that conference commitees on the underlaying bill could strip the rider from the base bill. (Weather or not the house version of the base bill includes it.) Jon 19:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I've fixed these. Fireplace 14:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move. Duja► 12:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

---

This should be moved to Matthew Shepard Act. It is the most common name. I had never heard this other name until I read this article. A.Z. 08:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. The name of the House bill is "Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007", the name of the Senate bill is "Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007". Google turns up twice as many hits for "Matthew Shepard Act" as "Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007". I don't have a strong opinion either way (maybe we should wait to see what the title is if/when it reaches Bush's desk). Fireplace 20:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the title when it reaches Bush's desk is that relevant. Often the so-called "official" names of things are different from what people actually call them. Wikipedia's naming conventions are that we should call things by their common name. This is one of Wikipedia's guidelines that I completely agree with. A.Z. 20:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The name of the act

I don't see Matthew Shepard's name anywhere on the original act or the one that was just passed by the house. Is there anything "official" that calls this the Matthew Shepard Act? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 02:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"This Act may be cited as the `Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007'." Source: [1] This name was officially included in the Senate version of 2007. Informally, most or all versions of the legislation have been known, both within and outside Congress, as the Matthew Shepard Act. This will almost certainly continue to be the case when it is signed into law. Rivertorch (talk) 04:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Do any of the current bills use Shepard's name? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 00:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure and don't have time to research it now. But it has been the common name for any such bill since shortly after Shepard's murder, and it's where people will look first when they come to WP. Why? Do you think the article should be renamed, with a redirect from the current name? Rivertorch (talk) 03:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it should be renamed. In reading the article, there is no explanation of how the old and new bills compare (are they identicle?) and the new bill does not have his name. I'm just looking for information to help fix the odd way the article reads. The opening paragraph references the old bill, and there is no discussion about how the new bills are related to the old one. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 04:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right. The lede should probably say something like "The Matthew Shepard Act is the name given to a series of bills..." and so on, with a history section, etc. Maybe I can give it some time this weekend. Rivertorch (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hate crime status (recent edits)

IP editor 208.38.59.163 has twice removed wording describing Matthew Shepard's murder as a hate crime (the first time without explanation or even an edit summary). The old text read,

This act is named for a gay American student, Matthew Shepard, 
who was tortured and murdered in a 1998 hate crime near Laramie, Wyoming.

The current text reads,

This act is named for a gay American student, Matthew Shepard, 
who was tortured and murdered in 1998 near Laramie, Wyoming.

This article is about a proposed law (almost certainly about to become law) dealing with hate crimes. Matthew Shepard's murder was a hate crime. The connection is very important to the article, is it not? I have no idea what the issue is regarding these deletions, but let's have some discussion before going any further. Rivertorch (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Good new wording, Sam. Resolved, from my point of view. Rivertorch (talk) 04:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Pedophiles

There are also some conservatives that have claimed that the legislators attempted to give pedophiles unwarranted protection by classifying pederasty as a sexual orientation. [2] [3] ADM (talk) 05:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Was or is?

"The Matthew Shepard Act (officially, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 or LLEHCPA), H.R. 1592 was a proposed federal bill"

"On April 29, 2009, the House passed the act, designated H.R. 1913, by a vote of 249 to 175."

So is it law or not? The article starts off suggesting that it is not, but then states that it was passed. This is confusing for people not familiar with how the system works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.94.193 (talk) 07:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It still has to pass the Senate now. If it does, then it has to be signed into law by the President. If it doesn't pass the Senate, it's dead. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 08:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Category of article - biasing the premise of the article?

The article masthead states its "Part of a series on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) rights" but this is an understatement and is biased. There are many, many voices out there who suggest that "hate crimes" legislation(s) - as advanced by this bill - have a bias which impinge on free speech, in particular, religious speech. For example, the commonly stated doctrine of "sin" (from Bible text history, the word translates as "to miss the mark") advances the concept that deviating from God's intention (as understood from a practiced faith perspective) is "sinful". Now whether or not one accepts this doctrine as valid, is irrelevant to the free speech aspect of this debate. That's because what is relevant is that significant numbers of people detest being informed about "sinful" activities and resent those (such as radio/tv preachers) who use Bible-based teaching or other faith references to elucidate lists of sinful activity. This is a crux of the free speech/"hate" debate in that some people of faith fear that there's an attempted movement underway to frame the debate in such a way that religious discussions about "sin" are deemed Ipso facto "hate".

Part of this debate stems form the muddled etymology history of the word sin which lends the word to two very different meanings. It's an entirely different meaning to tell someone "you are missing the mark" than to tell someone "you are doing evil" or "your life behavior is evil".

The problem with legislating against the usage of nuance-infused, religiously significant words is that too much leeway is given to those who claim offense in the definition of what it to be prohibited. For example, the predominant central tenant of the Christian faith the that people are inherent sinners in need of a savior. What comes of those who practice this faith if public usage of the word "sin" is made illegal?

My reading of the text of this law suggests that a radio preacher who upsets someone by broadcasting a message of "the Bible says homosexual behavior is sinful" could be at risk of being prosecuted [4]. Suffice it to say, if this is true - that such a prosecution is possible, then the category for this article is too one-sided. This subject matter of this article transcends categories from being only relevant as a "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) rights" related article to also being a "free speech" and "religious freedom" related article and therefore should be additionally or re-categorized.

Please discuss.

216.153.214.89 (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

First, please try to understand that your reading of the text and my reading of the text, however insightful our respective readings may be, are beside the point here. We're here to build articles using reliable sources, not to discuss the etymology of "sin" or the potential effects of proposed legislation. However, a few brief points. Your reading of the text of the bill—it's not a law yet—apparently wasn't very careful. First, there is nothing in the bill that would enable a scenario such as the one you described. In fact, the bill contains specific provisions to ensure that free speech and religious freedom aren't compromised. It's also worth noting that the bill seeks to expand to other minorities protections that have been on the books for many years and have caused no threat at all to free speech or freedom (religious or otherwise). While it is true that opponents of the bill have raised concerns similar to the ones you're presenting here, they have provided no coherent evidence that their concerns are warranted; it seems to be either a stalking horse situation or perhaps borderline paranoia—a fringe theory, in any case. The article does touch on this. Unless you can provide evidence from a reliable source that the bill has any bearing on free speech or religious freedom, it wouldn't be advisable to add the categories you propose. Rivertorch (talk) 05:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. First of all, it's biased and inappropriate to label mainstream preachers/teachers/leaders and their supporters [5] [6] [7] [8] as "fringe". Secondly, the text of the proposed law [9] make it very clear that people who use a "channel" (see 2Bii) are liable to scrutiny under this law. If they intended to exempt religious, political and/or talk radio type commentators, they would have expressly done so. Also, it's bad law to begin with [10] [11] [12]. If you don't think the words "channel" is aimed at non-PC people on radio and TV, you are just mistaken. That said, I don't have a dog in this fight as I think people should speak the truth in love and leave condemnation of sin to God. Still, the word "channel" in the text makes clear that radio/TV is a target under this law. All that's needed to prosecute a radio preacher or Rush Limbaugh for that matter would be a totem-pole allegation of "incitement" and if you don't understand that, well I guess you just don't understand how creeping statism works. [13] But in any case, the point I rightly make is that the masthead of this article solely frames this a "gay rights" type of issue, and omits the "free speech" and "religious freedom" categories [14] [15]. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 06:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, you may consider Pat Robertson's network and a Republican Party blog to be reliable sources, but there is widespread consensus here that they are not. (Neither are opinion pieces at Salon, for that matter.) Regarding the "masthead", I don't think it represents an attempt to frame any issue in any way—it's merely an infobox that shows the article is associated with Wikipedia's LGBT portal. I could be wrong. About the rest of your post, I think your interpretation of "channel" is a novel one, but what I think and what you think about that are irrelevant. This is not a forum for discussing what the bill would or wouldn't do. It is not a forum for discussing the meaning of "incitement" or "sin" or "creeping statism". It is not a forum at all. Please read the warning box at the top of this page and, if necessary, follow the link to the policy page that says, "Please do not use Wikipedia for . . . personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the consensus of experts)." Rivertorch (talk) 07:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

River, in my reply to you, I posted links to the following sources (in order)

mydesert.com (Palm Springs News)

usatoday.com

cbn.com

opencongress.org

onenewsnow.com

rutherford.org

salon.com

humanevents.com

christianpost.com

foxnews.com

but you responded by mischaracterizing my sources. I'm sorry you've chosen that approach. I've raised a valid point and at least 50% of my sources are not easily impeached. Frankly, USA today and Salon.com can't be dismissed as cranks or lumped in with the Pat Robertson bogeyman (it would appear that anytime one refers to CBN.com once gets dimsissed as "Pat Robertson"...). I am trying to start a dialog, not a fight. If you want a fight, please direct your comments elsewhere as I am only interested in truth and accuracy, peacefully pursued and properly supported. Now, as to your concern that my point about "channel" is a "novel" way of looking at it: I think not and I am reaonsably sure that "channel" in the common vernacular refers to TV and Radio "channels" more than anything else. And in light of the fact that a number of sources I've linked to are expressing alarm about restrictions on speech, I see no conflation here. Indeed, most often, the largest arena wherein free-speech conflicts take place is the mass media and of the mass-media, only TV and Radio use the term "channel". That said, it would seem that in absence of alternative views regarding the intent of the word "channel" in the bill, there is no great offense in attemptting to start a discussion on that. I invite you to offer a reliable source that makes an alternative rationale as to why that word is in there. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 05:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

One can find Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources at WP:RS. Please notice that "Self-published sources are largely not acceptable." --Dr.enh (talk) 20:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Thanks. I've already responded - a number of my sources are fine - see above. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 05:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope, nearly all your sources are problematic, and I did not mischaracterize them. Strangely enough, the one that's closest to being a reliable source for the purposes of this article—the FOX News one—directly contradicts the main thrust of your off-topic arguments above, as well as going over ground that is already adequately summarized in the article. But the Christian Broadcasting Network isn't a reliable source (whoever has nominal control of it at the moment), and neither are the American Family Association (parent of onenewsnow), the Rutherford Institute, the Christian Post, and Human Events; they are ideologically-oriented institutions, several of them with a long history of hostility toward sexual minorities. Blogs are almost never reliable sources, and the one you linked to is an openly partisan one.

You say you want a dialog, yet you continue to ignore that any dialog needs to relate directly to improving the article and not to discussing the meaning of the Matthew Shepard Act. No one here cares what you think "channel" refers to, okay? Please take it to a blog or discussion board somewhere. I don't want a fight either, but I also don't want to waste my time. Since my good faith is now wearing thin, I'll leave it to others to deal with this if you choose to continue the thread. If you do, would you mind indenting properly so that others can follow the discussion more easily? (Guidance is available at Wikipedia:Talk_pages#Formatting if you need it). Thanks! Rivertorch (talk) 06:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

River, I take it at face value that you are trying, but since you keep missing things, let me point this out to you from the USA Today (the largest selling daily newspaper in USA and definately NOT FRINGE) link (see above):

"In addition, a number of Christian conservatives have raised fears that pastors would be prosecuted for inciting hate crimes if they had preached against homosexuality, despite assurances that the law only targets physical violence."

So then, do you deny that freedom of speech and freedom of religion are both implicated by that quote? And, since no one is currently advancing the notion that word-police are going to enter into churches to monitor, certaintly then the issue at hand is public communication - such as TV and Radio "channels". In any case, why you choose to react so violently to this suggestion, is your own business. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

111th Congress graphics

Could someone please clarify in the caption what the graphics show? Are the the votes on H.R. 1913 and on the amendment to S. 1390? --Dr.enh (talk) 02:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I did, and they are exactly the votes detailed in the text. Ssahsahnatye (talk) 03:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Dr.enh (talk) 03:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

House Votes to Expand Definition of Hate Crimes

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/09/us/politics/09hate.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss Westknife (talk) 03:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Servicemen

Apparently, one of the Republican amendments to the bill was successful and added a new federal offense: conspiring to assault a U.S. serviceman or his immediate family member. This has been glossed over for the more sexy and controversial sexual orientation and gender identity additions in most news reports, but like gender and disability, should be covered here, as well as the process that brought this amendment. Ssahsahnatye (talk) 00:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Can the bill text be used as a source for that? --Dr.enh (talk) 02:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it may be necessary even though primary sources are discouraged. Finding the Senate amendments are easy, but an account of the more recent reconciled Senate-House bill is harder. Ssahsahnatye (talk) 03:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Current and former members of the US Armed Service already enjoyed anti-discrimination (→ acts of bias, hate, etc.) protections under Title 18, Chapter 13 along with other similar existing statues, but basically only for crimes that equated to state misdemeanors. The new section expands the degrees of the crime covered, the penalties as well as to include property of and family relations to the individual designated as Servicemen.

This was not the case for those victims of equititable crimes selected/targeted because of their actual or perceived gender-related characteristicsbe (their gender identity - § 249(c)(4)) until now. 68.237.235.127 (talk) 03:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Exact wording of this legislation should be included in article

To clarify the exact subject matters, wouldn't it be prudent to include the texts of the House and Senate versions compared to the final version signed into Law? This would make the article more informative and avoid many ambiguities which exist. Bill Wickens —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billwickens (talk • contribs) 09:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

If you mean the entire texts, that would be hugely unwieldy. Ideally, any significant differences between the versions would be noted in the article. Rivertorch (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

See External Links. --Dr.enh (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The differences between the House and Senate versions, the points made & rejected from each and the final action taken (what was adopted or rejected in Conference) are almost always found in the Conference Report provided to both chambers to vote on. (Repts. are linked in the Legislative History section way at the bottom of the NDAA for FY 2010's "front page"). Fair warning - if you think navigating the Act is a pain - the Conference Report has the entire bill text PLUS all the explanatory statements so don't be surprised. 68.237.235.127 (talk) 03:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Truth of motivation claim

This article, http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=277685&page=1, from ABC News' 20/20 show, has clear evidence from multiple sources, including the killers, that the attack was motivated by drugs and robbery, not because Shepard was gay, and that the hate motivation was assumed by the friends of Matthew Shepard. Is there any later, better evidence than this that contradicts? Otherwise, the "Origin" section needs to be modified for accuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by QuilaBird (talk • contribs) 01:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Rep. Virginia Foxx's parroting this vicious canard on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives is still fresh in the memory. Read this, then consider why every nonpartisan retelling of the story does not make such bold claims as you do. Ssahsahnatye (talk) 02:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Knew he was gay doesn't mean killed him because he was gay. If a white guy beats a black clerk to death in a store robbery, is he guilty of a hate crime? He obviously knew the clerk was black. But the motivation was robbery, thus no hate crime.

I don't know about Foxx, I only know this report. The ABC 20/20 report is nonpartisan, certainly not a Fox News creation, but from a fairly neutral source. The large amount of specific evidence given in the report, far more than the generalized evidence given in your reference, is certainly enough to put into question the motivation, if not entirely debunk it. We are dangerously close to NPOV violation if only sources promoting a pro-gay POV are allowed. QuilaBird (talk) 18:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's hugely fringy. Even if it weren't, it would be beyond the appropriate scope of this article. Rivertorch (talk) 06:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Motivation is already in the article, and nobody has removed it on reasoning that it is beyond the scope of the article. In fact, motivation is the key issue behind hate crime laws in the first place. Does "Fringy" include statements from officers, the prosecutor and the guilty parties? They are fringe? QuilaBird (talk) 18:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Matter of fact, yes. Lots of infamous crimes have disputed details. In this case, those are noted in the Shepard article, where they are given (at least) due weight. It would be undue weight to repeat them here. Rivertorch (talk) 06:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not an important point to argue, because the Matthew Shepard Act is not all about Matthew Shepard. It is about the thousands of antigay hate crimes documented by the FBI every year that go unpunished even with states with hate crime laws because of the costs of prosecution. This is what this legislation redresses. The fact and existence of hate crimes is not at issue. This was established federally in 1969. By the way, this act is also named for James Byrd, murdered in another state with no hate crimes law. Do you want to "debunk" his death too? Ssahsahnatye (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

If the article isn't about Matthew Shepard, why is he named? The very foundation of the section, including what happened to Shepard as the motivation for the naming, is in jeopardy if a legitimately contested statement is put forth as fact. At the very least the statement about his death needs to be tempered with "possibly" given that the guilty parties and witnesses (girlfriend) have never been consistent in their statements about the crime, and there are contrary statements. By your response you appear to be a big supporter of the Act and are worried about the presence of hate crimes. Given that view, be careful of NPOV in leaving relevant facts out of the article or stating something disputed as fact. So far I've heard "fringe" which it's not, "not important" and "not relevant" which it is (factuality is always relevant), and "partisan" when facts aren't partisan. I'm modifying this unless someone can finally give me a good reason not to, which is what I asked for in the beginning.QuilaBird (talk) 19:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It's unneeded and undue here which is part of our NPOV policy. If you still want to to try propose specific wording to be included. The content does seem to be disputed in both accuracy and relevancy as noted above so you may wish to reconsider using your time to instead work on something more constructive. -- Banjeboi 02:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I ever suggested repeating any arguments, as those are outside of the scope. What I objected to was stating as fact in this article something that is disputed in another. There are two solutions, one of which is to do away with the offending statement in this article, which would make no sense, since Shepard's death is at the heart of the article. The other is what I suggested, adding a modifying word. I'll do that. I always thought striving for accuracy is about the most constructive thing one can do here.QuilaBird (talk) 02:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The alternate theory you keep alluding to—that Matthew Shepard was tortured, bound, and left to die in a robbery, not a hate crime—is dealt with in the Matthew Shepard article. It is a fringe theory, not held by the mainstream, and repeating it here or using weasel words to lend it credence would be undue weight. We have policies and guidelines, such as this one that provide some direction in situations such as this. I have reverted. Rivertorch (talk) 09:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverted back. One word is not undue weight to investigation done by mainstream non-biased media backed with statements from the parties. "Fringe" is something you use against facts you don't like. The simple fact is that the criminals and those around them gave inconsistent statements about their motivation throughout the investigation and trial. They are unreliable sources to an extreme degree, so anything they said cannot be trusted, whether it was robbery or hate. That I think it was about hate is irrelevant, the facts overrule. Thus the need to not use absolute wording for the motivation. And using Weasel was grossly inappropriate as source was given. Either the motivation has to go or it must be tempered to align with the facts.QuilaBird (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Please try to explain instead of simply reverting. This change, as shown above, was done after honest consideration here and in full light of all facts. I have eliminated WP:WEASEL and shown WP:UNDUE to be inapplicable. I do not want to discuss the issue here per WP:UNDUE, but in the interest of consistency one page on Wiki can't show disputed motive while another shows one motive as absolute. But I guess if the majority here would prefer to have Wikipedia be internally inconsistent in order to promote a POV, then who am I to keep reverting? That's the last time I'll do it. QuilaBird (talk) 22:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Explain? It's already been explained right above. I agree with Ssahsahnatye, Rivertorch and Benjiboi on this issue. WP:FRINGE applies here, in that the extremely low WP:WEIGHT of the commentator's opinion in the second 20-20 story doesn't compel editors to question the essentially unequivocal consensus of reliable sources on the issue of Shepard's killers' perception of his sexual orientation being a motivating factor in his murder. There's no need to use "possibly" or "probably" or "maybe" or "quite likely", etc., when the weight of reliable sources' conclusions on this issue is as overhwelming as it is on this issue.
..... As to WP procedure: The decisionmaking policy for the application of WP's core content policies to this situation or any other is WP:Consensus. Please respect existing consensus even if trying to change it, and please do not edit war-- I count four reverts by you in the last 24 hours and discern a general pattern of edit warring to try to force your interpretation upon the article. Please desist. ... Kenosis (talk) 23:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE is absolutely not applicable given the fact of contradictory statements of the murderers and their friends. Statements that support hate as the motivation are somehow trusted here, but other statements supporting other motives are not trusted and called Fringe. There is clear evidence of POV in that. You have broken WP:REVEXP in continuing an edit war to get this off the page, without an explanation in the summary or on this page, which was the reason for my undo. I'm not the one with a prior history of edit warring here. Weasel, Weight and Fringe don't apply, but I do accept WP:CONSENSUS if Wikipedia's editors overall wish the article to be inconsistent with the main Matthew Shepard article. Per my promise above, I will not change it again. I never expected a simple change intended to keep Wikipedia articles consistent to cause so much grief. Agenda wins over accuracy, I guess.QuilaBird (talk) 05:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

first transgender

The lead says "The Act is the first federal law to extend legal protections to transgender persons.". By omission, this implies that there was previous federal law to protect gay persons. I cannot find such a law. If no one else can, I think it should be revised to say it is the first LGBT civil rights law, something more widely repeated outside of transgender circles. Ssahsahnatye (talk) 19:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Good point. However, I do know one and only one such previous "federal legal protection" mentioning sexual orientation (but not gender identity). It's not much, but Clinton's Executive Order 13087 was his version of ENDA for federal employees. More to the point, so far as I have found, this is first federal law mentioning gender identity at all. Can we find some excellent refs for that? Ruodyssey (talk) 11:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• LGBT rights orgs did not claim at the time Shepard passed that it was the first LGBT rights law; I believe this is because of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act from 1990, which extended hate crimes reporting laws to cover gays and lesbians (but not the transgendered). Looking around I also find a bill passed in 2008 guaranteeing some limited employee benefit rights for same-sex couples. (Clinton's EO13087 on the other hand wouldn't have counted for these purposes because by the time Shepard passed President Obama had already amended that policy to cover transgender persons.) Awk (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• There is indeed such a federal law. It's much older than the Matthew Shepard Act. It's known as the Constitution of the United States. --Dekker451 (talk) 08:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

References

Crimes against women by sexist men included?

If so, not clear from this article even if it does say "gender." I know that there was discussion way back when about how doing so would land 90% of men committing crimes vs. women in prison since witnesses to them saying hateful things against women at some point in their history easily could be found. So it would be nice to clarify that point. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Wording?

"The murder of Matthew Shepard sent shockwaves throughout the gay community." This is improper wording; seems like hype style text copied from a popular "zine". A murder cannot send shockwaves. Incidentally, the murder did not only "alarm" people in the "gay" community, but many people including heterosexuals. I have removed the phrase from the article. -- Wolfpeaceful I'm Bisexually biased... get over it! 15:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

ADL was at the forefront to enact this hate law

Why is there no mention of the time and effort the ADL invested in helping to draft, lobby and bring this bill into law? The Fifth Column (talk) 17:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Information about the law as used

I was unable to determine from this page how to refer to the actual law. Digging through external links, it mostly seems to be 18 U.S.C. 249. However, there is also 18 U.S.C. 1389 (about attacks on servicemen for their service) passed under the same heading of "Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act". (There are some other shorter changes like § 280003(a) of Public Law 103-322; 108 Stat. 2096 and subsec.(b)(1) in 28 U.S.C. 534 note.)

Also, I was unable to determine whether this law had actually been used. It would be good to know whether the law had been used to prosecute anyone, and whether that led to any convictions. The first prosecution, and first conviction (if different) would be notable, as would the absence of any.

If someone knows the answers to either question, I appreciate it. 24.57.239.43 (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I took a look some time back and came up empty, I tried again today, and as near as I can tell, nobody has ever been prosecuted under it. While not a reliable enough source to use as a reference, that's implied by this source, and I suspect that it's accurate, or nearly enough so. I too think it's kinda strange that we don't have anything at all on this bill after it took effect. --joe decker^{talk to me} 20:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

See: Three Men Charged in Albuquerque, N.M., with Federal Hate Crimes Related to Assault of Disabled Navajo Man and Arkansas Men Charged with Federal Hate Crime Related to the Assault of Five Hispanic Men. I assume there would be greater interest in prosecutions for the new categories (gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability), and the first of those 2 involves "a 22-year-old man of Navajo descent who has a significant cognitive impairment.". The NM case is called the 1st case under the Act here. Also Man charged in Spokane bomb plot pleads not guilty to new charges. Just using this google search: "Hate Crimes Prevention Act" charged

I'll keep looking. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Found something: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard_and_James_Byrd,_Jr._Hate_Crimes_Prevention_Act#Effect

I renamed that to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard_and_James_Byrd,_Jr._Hate_Crimes_Prevention_Act#Enforcement

See also FBI investigation of SC beating could be first case under Shepard Act and Arrests Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! --joe decker^{talk to me} 21:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Source includes no information on an included statement

"He also claimed that it wouldn't help white people if they were victims of a hate crime.[23]"

I was curious what he said about that. So I read source 23. Not a word on it. 74.70.200.11 (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

And here I thought someone would find that important. A claim supported by a source with no applicable content. I'd edit it myself but I'm uncertain I'd do it right. I lack experience with Wikipedia. 74.67.53.104 (talk) 07:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for being patient. The English Wikipedia contains over 4 million articles but only a few thousand very active editors, so sometimes it takes a while for someone to respond. Each of us lacked experience once upon a time. The only way to gain experience is to dive in and do it, so please consider being bold and editing. If you always use edit summaries and explain the finer points on the talk page as necessary, you should do fine. In any event, I have removed the sentence immediately preceding the citation as possible synthesis; it's fairly clear that that was what the senator meant, but if he did actually say those words or their precise equivalent, there needs to be a source that says so. The sentence before that seems supported by the Guardian article, for which I've added the url. Rivertorch (talk) 09:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

In light of your response, I guess I wasn't patient. My lack of experience with Wikipedia showed in my being unaware of the relative scarcity of "general" editors. If you feel it's clear that's what the senator meant, I have no objection to it being left in. I didn't interpret the article content to imply that, but you probably know better than I do. Perhaps I was interpreting too literally? Either way, thanks for your efforts. (Tangentially I admit, now I'll have to go find some other source for the claim so I can better understand the position of the right winger I was having a debate with on YouTube. Feel free to delete this parenthetical comment if in fact it's so tangential it doesn't belong in the discussion section. x] ) Oh, cool. The preview shows I used colons correctly to make this an indented response to your response. 74.67.53.104 (talk) 13:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Getting talk-page indentations right is half the battle, so major props on that. Rivertorch (talk) 22:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

"double jeopardy"?

Four members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights wrote a letter stating their opposition to the bill, citing concerns of double jeopardy WHO? And yes, we do need to know. --98.246.156.76 (talk) 06:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Undue weight, extreme illogic, and whitewash

Per WP:Deny of blocked sock

I reverted this edit per WP:UNDUE, but it has been repeated with an edit summary that says, "the two perpetrators, girlfriend of one and the prosecutor in the case said it was not motivated by his sexuality". Let's exercise a little common sense and reason. No one gives a damn what the two perpetrators claim; they're murderers, and the fact that anyone here is giving the slightest credence to anything they say is patently absurd. Scarcely more confidence can be placed in what the girlfriend of one of the murderers' said; understandably, the loved ones of murderers will often say anything to cast their partners in a better light. So dismiss that as well. That leaves us with only the prosecutor's opinion, and while that opinion should not be suspect per se, we do not have enough context to allow that one person's opinion, expressed in one television program that was widely seen as a politically-motivated hatchet job, to create such a seismic shift in the article. From a WP policy perspective, it is violative of WP:NPOV because it gives undue weight to a fringe viewpoint; it's also beyond the proper scope of this article. But let's do another reality check: Matthew Shepard was beaten, then tortured, then lashed to a fence in subfreezing temperatures and left to die slowly and in agony. Is anyone here making the serious claim that the monsters who committed those acts did so during the commission of a robbery? This is utter bullshit, and I see now that there are similar shenanigans going on at related articles. Whitewash, anyone? Rivertorch (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC) According to the Matthew Shepard article the only evidence is from one of the girlfriend's stating that it was because how he "felt about gays". The other girlfriend, perps, and prosecutor state it was due to the drug addiction of the attackers. I didn't change the article to say the murder wasn't due to his sexuality, only that it may have been due to his sexuality. The motives are far from certain and so the article needed to be corrected. Zaalbar (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC) This article is about a law, not one of the two hate crimes whose victims lent their names to the law, and it is inappropriate for its content to be significantly influenced by a fringe view discussed in another article. I don't watch Matthew Shepard, but I see you have created an undue-weight problem there as well by placing this fringe viewpoint in the lede. Rivertorch (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC) It's far from fringe. I didn't place any viewpoint in the lead. I added what several people involved in the case said. It already had the statement of one of the girlfriends and therefore required what the other girlfriend, perps and prosecutor said. Zaalbar (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC) Ah, yes, we mustn't forget what convicted murderers have to say for themselves. One does occasionally run across a vicious, sociopathic gay-basher who cannot bear to tell a lie. Sort of like stopped clocks being right twice a day. I guess we'd better have more eyes on this. Rivertorch (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC) There's still no reason to believe that the murder had to be based on his sexuality. It's possible but not definite. Zaalbar (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC) No reason at all. Robbers routinely burn their victims with cigarettes and string them up on barbed-wire fences. My bad. And perhaps James Byrd's killers dragged him along the road in the hope of dislodging his wallet from his pocket. Oh, wait . . . Rivertorch (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC) I'm sure you know that not all brutal murders are due to the victim's sexuality, race, religion, etc. It might just be possible that the murderers of Shepard enjoyed violence. Zaalbar (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC) I have no doubt whatsoever they enjoyed violence. Rivertorch (talk) 20:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC) Yes, I should have phrased that better. It's possible that they committed the murder solely because they enjoyed violence, or for other reasons that were alleged in the case. Shepard's homosexuality may have been the motive but it's not certain, therefore this and other articles cannot state that it is. Zaalbar (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC) Lots of things are possible (see broken-clock analogy above), but WP articles aren't the proper venue for repeating fringe speculations and coatracking them across multiple articles. A lot of effort was expended in trying to defeat the legislation that is the topic of this article, but it became law in the end, and it bears the name it bears. It's a done deal; the losers don't get to (re)write the history. Somewhere in Wyoming, two violence-enjoying cretins remain incarcerated in the sort of place where violence happens everyday. Whether they enjoy being on the receiving end as well, I don't know and don't care. Rivertorch (talk) 21:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC) Lucky they aren't fringe speculations then. There's no re-writing of history. Homosexuality as the motive has always been a possibility and casting it as a certainty does not conform to the evidence or sources. Zaalbar (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC) Back to the article, its content, what the sources say, and and presenting them in the appropriate manner. Anything else may and should take place elsewhere and be removed from here if it continues. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC) All I want is for the article to say it may have been due to his sexuality, instead of definitely. That is appropriate based on the sources and evidence. If it keeps getting reverted then we'll need to have an RfC. Zaalbar (talk) 15:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC) But it doesn't say "definitely"; you're reading that into what's there. As innumerable reliable sources attest, the murder of Matthew Shepard is widely considered a hate crime—so much so that a major piece of federal legislation was named after the man, and the legislation is the subject of this article. That the prosecutor (never mind the murderers and their associates) has expressed doubts on that point is appropriate for mention in Matthew Shepard (although certainly not in the lede), but it is undue weight in this article. Rivertorch (talk) 18:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC) It says that it was due to him being gay. That's means the article is claiming it as a certainty. It's considered a hate crime by some and a murder not motivated by sexual orientation by others. The fact that so many key people involved consider it to be a crime motivated by drugs and money whilst evidence of being motivated by sexuality is based on the testimony of one of the girlfriends and the gay panic defence means that the motive is not a certainty. Claiming it is does not conform to the evidence and certainly not reliable sources. Zaalbar (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC) I'll try once more and then give up. There are not "so many key people involved" who consider it a non-hate crime; the claims of the murderers and their significant others count for exactly nothing, and your insistence on pretending otherwise doesn't make it otherwise. There is exactly one "key person" who considers it a non-hate crime, and there is exactly one (generally) reliable source that has seen fit to make an issue of it. Therefore, it is undue weight to be making the kinds of edits you've been making across this and other related articles. Undue weight is a WP:NPOV violation, and WP:NPOV is one of the three core policies governing article content. If you don't accept that, you're free to post to a relevant noticeboard or open a request for comment. Rivertorch (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC) (ec) It does not say that. It states that is what was widely reported. There is a difference. We do include minority opinions with due weight as was mentioned already above. Insomesia (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC) If they count for nothing then the evidence is reduced even more by ignoring Price's original story. I consider the prosecutor and one of the lead investigators to be key people involved and their opinion strengthens the other viable theory. This statement During the trial it was widely reported that Shepard was targeted because of he was gay. is sourced by this [16] which doesn't make that claim or even say that it was because he was gay. Saying that it was widely reported as the reason whilst offering no other possibility is misleading. I'll do an RfC later then. Zaalbar (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090520131111/http://www.iowapolitics.com:80/index.iml?Article=156914 to http://www.iowapolitics.com/index.iml?Article=156914

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)