Talk:Terroristic threat

Crime and Criminal Biography Stub‑class Low‑importance

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

Controversial v uncontroversial cases

If you're going to list controversies, also include Josh Pirrault: http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/02/second-teen-spends-months-in-jail-for-video-game-threat/

And a less-controversial example should be listed as well; including a discussion of the frequency of threats tied to intended action (assuming secondary sources can be found willing to estimate that). – SJ + 21:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Carter

This section did not once tie the subject to the topic of the article, just a billion source smear campaign. Try a rewrite here that ties the subject into the article in a way that indicates why, of all the terrorist threats ever issued, this is the most i important and only person to mention in the article, getting that info from reliable sources, also. --(AfadsBad (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]

How is this a smear campaign, and who's doing the smearing? It's a well-known tragic news story and it's definitely notable. --George100 (talk) 01:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then put it where it belongs, tie it into any article you put it in, and cite it propely, but don't just throw junk around, anywhere, about a person without tying it into the article. You said not one thing about "terrorist threat" in three sentences with a dozen citations. Want to talk about apricot yogurt in this article also? As if you didn't even know what article it was in. I see that you thought it was funny enough to link LOL in the edit summary. Ha ha. --(AfadsBad (talk) 01:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]

First off, Did you actually read my edits? The LOL and jk was QUOTING him. I did NOT think it was funny, nor would I ever use "LOL" in an edit summary in that way. The point being, HE used those terms in his post to indicate that he was joking about the threat.

Second off, you should have noticed, I didn't add those references the article, I used Reflinks to update them in this edit. So perhaps you should be careful about whom you are smearing? --George100 (talk) 01:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to care. Still, if you don't, and since you can't relate him to the topic and you idn't add the info to the article and whoever added it didn't relate it to the article there was nothing to discuss here. --(AfadsBad (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]

So you throw out ridiculous accusations and now you don't care? That's nice. --George100 (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Almost as nice as kidnapping and owning an accusation. You're welcome. --(AfadsBad (talk) 02:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]

"Kidnapping" and accusation? I have no idea what this even means. Your arguments are incoherent and nonsensical. --George100 (talk) 04:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a problem and it's mainly caused by a single edit, then the single edit would I think be this one, not made by either of you. It looks well intended but careless, and it results in references irrelevant to Carter being used to "source" material about Carter.

It's better to be very wary of discussing Carter as he's otherwise non-notable (I suppose), is a minor (if I understand correctly), and has been charged with but not found guilty of something that (in a society that IMHO is paranoid) is taken seriously.

It's certainly good manners to make certain that a given user was the person who perpetrated something before knocking them for perpetrating it, and to assume good faith. And, if you later find that you've made a misattribution or other mistake, then to (wo)man up and admit it.

Now, what's to be done about this article? I tentatively suggest some amalgam of the best of this old version (no mention of Carter) and the best of this recent version (good references). But I don't claim to be experienced or knowledgable about the treatment of this kind of material. -- Hoary (talk) 02:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]