Talk:Theodore Shulman

The big T-word
Per WP:terrorist I have always been very reluctant to describe anyone as a terrorist and I held off on adding the category to this BLP. I lean toward doing it in this article because they guy was convicted of a terrorism-related charge, and most importantly, he described himself as a terrorist. Juno (talk) 22:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Because of the self-description, I think I'll include it. Juno (talk) 08:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Be sure to use the phrase "self-described" and quotation marks. Shulman was never accused, much less convicted, of being a terrorist by anyone in law-enforcement.  If Wikipedia were to call him a terrorist or appear to do so (tongue-in-cheek self-descriptions notwithstanding), Wikipedia would be at risk for a libel suit if damages could be shown.  (For instance, if Shulman were to be denied employment somewhere because of a Wikipedia article.)  Goblinshark17 (talk) 17:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not a lawyer but I think there is enough information to support the inclusion of those categories. That being said, this is a highly sensitive subject and I take WP:TERRORIST very seriously. If you think that things might be on shaky ground I would advice you to file an RfC and try to get more eyes on the topic. Juno (talk) 01:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Is he WIDELY described by many sources as a terrorist? It seems not. MotherJones does not make this assertion as fact but rather cites another reporter by name. Perhaps if Shulman's self-description was picked up by other secondary sources, but here I would say that MotherJones is acting as a WP:TERTIARY source, and this is not meeting the threshold required by WP:TERRORIST, and this is a WP:BLP. Elizium23 (talk) 01:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Not notable
Shulman's threats are too minor to make him deserving of a wikipedia article. If we created wikipedia articles about everyone who has posted or telephoned internet threats related to the abortion issue, wikipedia would run out of memory. Goblinshark17 (talk) 09:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: I see from the record that the article has been nominated for deletion and the decision was DELETE. So why is the article still there? Goblinshark17 (talk) 09:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * A version of this article was deleted in March of 2011, you can view that discussion here. With all the new press that has been generated since March of 2011 I believe that this BLP has sufficient notability to stand. Juno (talk) 10:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Disagree. Shulman is not, as per WP:BIO, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded".  Also, you should have used the DELETION REVIEW process to undelete the article, not just created it again.  I have nominated it for deletion again.  Goblinshark17 (talk) 10:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Disagreement noted. Since the previous article was not Speedy Deleted, nor was the discussion particularly contentious, I didn't think that Deletion Review was called for. I think that there is enough coverage in Reliable Sources to cover an article. I see that you have nominated this one for deletion, so I guess we'll just have to wait and see what the community decides on that one. Juno (talk) 11:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Juno is correct. Deletion Review is "I feel that the article was deleted by mistake, whether through misreading, misunderstanding of Wikipedia guidelines, etc. Please restore it in the form that it was in when it was deleted." This is "The circumstances have changed. I've created an updated article and the old issues have been remedied." —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

"Weapons"
A sentence in the article says that Shulman was in possession of "weapons" when arrested; however, the cited source (FBI article, reference 3) does not say "weapons", but "cyanide, castor beans, and rosary peas". These are toxic substances but not necessarily weapons. In particular, you need to do a lot of chemistry on rosary peas and castor beans to isolate and purify their respective toxins and make them into weapons. It requires a well-equipped laboratory. I am changing "weapons" to "toxic substances". Goblinshark17 (talk) 10:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Our Sources describe them as "deadly substances". Would that work? Juno (talk) 11:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The CITED source, which is the FBI article, does not use the word "deadly" (nor for that matter the word "substances"). Maybe "potentially deadly" would do, if you can find it in a reference.  But "toxic" and "deadly" mean almost the same thing, so I don't really see the point.  Goblinshark17 (talk) 11:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that it makes it a lot clearer to the reader, this NY Daily source says "deadly substances" which seems to have been picked up by other outlets. Use this source and go with that wording? Juno (talk) 11:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Class D Felon
Goblinshark17 added that Shulman was a "Class D Felon". I'm not a lawyer, this may very well be relevant to the article but I can't find any sources for this. Can anyone verify this? Juno (talk) 10:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * GS, do you have a Conflict of Interest with this subject? Juno (talk) 19:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Juno, "Making an interstate threat to injure another person", the crime to which Shulman pled guilty, is a Class D. felony, which can be easily sourced (Is the Federal Penal Code available online?). No, I have no conflict of interest.  Goblinshark17 (talk) 20:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * How do we know thats what he got, with the other offenses floating out there making things more sever, and with the plea deal making things softer. Its a very specific point, it should have a source. Juno (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * See http://www.fbi.gov/newyork/press-releases/2012/manhattan-man-pleads-guilty-in-manhattan-federal-court-to-illegally-threatening-pro-life-advocates the FBI press release.  Clearly details the name of the crime to which Shulman pled guilty.  Then look in the Federal Criminal Code to see that it is a Class D felony.  Does this constitute original research?  Goblinshark17 (talk) 20:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be, and it seems to be research that you're doing after the fact. Juno (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I used to be friends with a lawyer who specialized in stalking cases, and I have known that making a threat to injure another person is a class D felony for a long time. If you can't find the Federal Criminal Code online, and thereby source the fact that Shulman is a Class D Felon, feel free to remove that fact from the article.  I thought it was one of those facts so easy to source that it effectively sources itself. Goblinshark17 (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Can't the charge vary with the plead deal, though? Juno (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? I don't understand your question.  Shulman is guilty of the charge to which he pled guilty, and nothing else.  He pled guilty to a Class D felony, so he's a class D felon.  Other charges he may or may not have faced previously but not been convicted of are irrelevant to his criminal status. Goblinshark17 (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Release
Shulman seems to have been released on 02/14/2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.252.92 (talk) 11:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)