This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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)
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))
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)
Link to my offending accusation, and I will strike it out.
Please note that the material you are suggesting be added back about Carter does not discuss a terrorist threat.
This article, however, is about "terroristic threat." Carter was the only person mentioned, without a clear explanation. He is a living person.
So, as suggested, if you bring a living individual into this article, the sources should indicate why he is notably connected to "terroristic threat," and this should be stated in the article, and, because he is a living person, and the only person mentioned in the article in connection with this, the citations should also include why and how, from the reliable sources, this kid is the most notable person associated with "terroristic threat" to such a degree that a brief article with only three sources merits an entire paragraph about him with so many sources, at least one of which isn't even about him.
And, yes, associating a minor with an article called "terroristic threat" without elaborating, and making him the only living person associated with the article is a smear campaign.
This is what BLP rules are designed to prevent, as in stop it before it happens, not adjust it afterwards to make sure the material stays in. ( AfadsBad ( talk) 05:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC))
What about Lady Gaga and her threat to kill Trump ? What about the female comedian who held up a bloody head of Trump? These are serious verbal threats of a sitting president. Why were they not arrested and charged? 2600:100C:B226:B55E:1865:6DA4:797E:D925 ( talk) 03:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
I would love some input on some of these changes. I think because this article has such a strong bias towards the United States maybe the article can be changed to just be what terroristic threat as a crime is in the US? I also think the example statutes category needs to be overhauled, It seems strange to have "example statutes" and then it's just a bunch of random states like California or Texas with just copy pasted statutes and elements there. Maybe a Federal section, where you can put the MPC and the federal statute and then a separate section just explaining how states have sometimes differed in codifying the elements of the MPC or the federal statute in their own criminal code. Amicuswiki07 ( talk) 03:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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)
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))
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)
Link to my offending accusation, and I will strike it out.
Please note that the material you are suggesting be added back about Carter does not discuss a terrorist threat.
This article, however, is about "terroristic threat." Carter was the only person mentioned, without a clear explanation. He is a living person.
So, as suggested, if you bring a living individual into this article, the sources should indicate why he is notably connected to "terroristic threat," and this should be stated in the article, and, because he is a living person, and the only person mentioned in the article in connection with this, the citations should also include why and how, from the reliable sources, this kid is the most notable person associated with "terroristic threat" to such a degree that a brief article with only three sources merits an entire paragraph about him with so many sources, at least one of which isn't even about him.
And, yes, associating a minor with an article called "terroristic threat" without elaborating, and making him the only living person associated with the article is a smear campaign.
This is what BLP rules are designed to prevent, as in stop it before it happens, not adjust it afterwards to make sure the material stays in. ( AfadsBad ( talk) 05:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC))
What about Lady Gaga and her threat to kill Trump ? What about the female comedian who held up a bloody head of Trump? These are serious verbal threats of a sitting president. Why were they not arrested and charged? 2600:100C:B226:B55E:1865:6DA4:797E:D925 ( talk) 03:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
I would love some input on some of these changes. I think because this article has such a strong bias towards the United States maybe the article can be changed to just be what terroristic threat as a crime is in the US? I also think the example statutes category needs to be overhauled, It seems strange to have "example statutes" and then it's just a bunch of random states like California or Texas with just copy pasted statutes and elements there. Maybe a Federal section, where you can put the MPC and the federal statute and then a separate section just explaining how states have sometimes differed in codifying the elements of the MPC or the federal statute in their own criminal code. Amicuswiki07 ( talk) 03:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)