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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: I think I've fixed these. Fireplace 14:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: July portion unclear

message: 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)
replies: text: "This Act may be cited as the `Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007'." Source:  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)
replies: text: Do any of the current bills use Shepard's name? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 00:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The name of the act 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hate crime status (recent edits) 

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

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Was or is?

message: 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)
replies: text: I did, and they are exactly the votes detailed in the text. Ssahsahnatye (talk) 03:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! --Dr.enh (talk) 03:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 111th Congress graphics

message: 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)
thread_title:  House Votes to Expand Definition of Hate Crimes 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: See External Links. --Dr.enh (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Exact wording of this legislation should be included in article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  first transgender 

message: 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)
thread_title: Crimes against women by sexist men included?

message: "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)
thread_title: Wording?

message: 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)
thread_title:  ADL was at the forefront to enact this hate law 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Getting talk-page indentations right is half the battle, so major props on that.  Rivertorch (talk) 22:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source includes no information on an included statement 

message: 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)
thread_title: "double jeopardy"?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I have no doubt whatsoever they enjoyed violence. Rivertorch (talk) 20:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: (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)
replies: text: 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  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)
thread_title:  Undue weight, extreme illogic, and whitewash 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified