This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death 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.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
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 articles
It seems unlikely to me that death threats are protected speech, except when not intended seriously. But I don't know, and I wouldn't know how to find out, so I added the dubious marker. NickelShoe15:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it, since I think the original editor has had long enough to back his/her claim up (and if they can source this claim, they can put it back in). The guidelines suggest asking for peer review before removing something, but I don't think I've been too lax in not doing so - it seems to me that that would be more suitable if it was a question of 'A or B', not 'A or Not A'. --Last Malthusian 20:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how this is defined in legal terms, but linguists and philosophers have a concept of "speech acts", which are also called "performatives." Uttering a threat does more than just making a statement. It also threatens someone. Bostoner (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A list of notable Death Threats, and how they were perceived by the public and their legal status might be added to this article. Just an idle thought. I have a long list in mind, but since it might be considered NPOV, I shall waitDanielDemaret18:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's an excellent idea. I have a few in mind myself. Also should include whether death threat was carried out or attempted. --George10008:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is this an encyclopedia article? If I establish the possibility of the words "burp" and "threat" being combined as a single term, wherein someone has threatened to belch, are we then compelled to write an article entitled "Burp threat"? Seriously, friends, if you don't know what to write about, there are lists of projects and articles looking for editors to work on them. -Eric(talk)03:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't necessarily take into account that the article is incomplete. This article could, for example, have a collection of death threats, legal information, and culture relevance, whereas "burp threat" is completely insignificant. ~Masquatto 09:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masquatto (talk • contribs)
I was kidding about "burp threat"--trying to make the point that we don't need to create an encyclopedia entry to define every combination of two common nouns, especially when the meaning of the resulting term is perfectly clear. If there exists some legal definition of "death threat" and someone wanted to refer to it without using an external link, I might see the point of creating an article for that. I don't think we need a stub telling us that a death threat is when someone threatens to kill someone. -Eric(talk)13:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Burp threat" is not notable, "death threat" is. These are reported regularly in the news. I'm not sure that death threat has a specific legal definition, but the synonymous term "Terroristic threat" does. Perhaps the article could be moved to that title and improved. --George10014:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I was kidding about "burp threat."
I'm not sure that assigning "notability" to any frequently occurring combination of words is a good basis for generating encyclopedia articles, especially when there is no ambiguity to the resulting term. If the term "bicycle tire" started appearing frequently in the news, we wouldn't need to create an encyclopedia entry for it, since the meaning of the compound noun is completely clear. -Eric(talk)16:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notable subject - perhaps - but in what context?[edit]
Including what people have suggested above some structure for the article might:
Definition
Legal definition and threshholds in different jurisdictions
Delivery medium and context
Death Threats as a Hate Crime
Death Threats as a Standover or Extortion Tactic
Law Enforcement and Security Intelligence Response to Death Threats
Made to Joe Public
Made to VIP
Made to Head of State
Made to Celebrity
Related to Domestic Violence
Death Threats Against Groups
Death Threats Against Institutions / Organisations
Death Threats made by Official Bodies / Failed States as Population Control
Death theats made against Law Enforcement Agency members
Notable Death Threats
Death Threats having the "desired" affect (but not executed).
Death Threats executed
Successfully and the impact
Unseccessfully and the impact
Disambiguation - a terrorist threat against an individual is not normally regarded as terrorism, but a terrorist threat against a group, or institution often is?
I am not sure that Death Threats is Law Enforcement article. Perhaps it is more of Sociology / Criminology article?
According to this article, death threats against non-public/royal persons are not a criminal offence in the U.S.A.? Is this correct? 85.4.141.205 (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is correct. Any person may make any manner of death threat, publicly or privately, via any communication, to any private citizen. The only way to get protection is to be a civil servant in some capacity. The source of this information is from various police and lawyers. Some states do allow for you to defend yourself from your attacker, other states strictly forbid you from defending yourself even if a credible death threat has been received. 108.7.66.85 (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the indentations and things in this article seem to be screwed up too me. Maybe it's just me being a grammar Nazi, but still I think there should be heading in bold Using the two == marks or three or however many it takes. Also, anyone have an idea for an image? I know its hard but is an image of something possible here? I'mFlightx52 andI approve this message23:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]