This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Asad Ansari was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 03 September 2014 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into 2006 Ontario terrorism plot. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
I have added an Associated Press Report to the links. Capitalistroadster 03:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Someone's already added text about the size of the bomb, and the claim about ammonium nitrate.
However, they're comparing the weight of one ingredient to a bomb to the total weight of a bomb. The 5000lb figure is the total weight of the Oklahoma City bomb, whereas the 6000lb figure in this arrest is only for ammonium nitrate, one of the ingredients of an explosive.
Is there a more reasonable comparison? - 66.92.73.52 23:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
---
A link on Wiki's Oklahoma City Bombing article states that 4800 pounds of Ammonium Nitrate was used.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/PARTIN/ok2.htm
I have added to the article a comparison of ammonium nitrate weight between this and OK City. I now see that it will not suffice, given the difference between "official" and "unofficial" OK City estimates. The "official" OK City estimate and later unofficial estimates put the OK City weight at 2000 pounds and 4000-4800, pounds respectively.
Between that, and the confusion as to what form of "ton" we're talking about, I'm not sure how to approach this in the article. This CNN transcript describes the OK City bomb as both "one ton" and 2000 pounds. The Toronto articles sometimes refer to a "tonne", or metric ton, which is 1000 kilograms (2200 pounds).
So we have
So Toronto's seizure is either 3.3x or 1.38-1.65x OK City's bomb. (I think.) Outriggr 03:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Images from the CBC should not be here. Also images from the BBC do not work either. I've had problems like this in the past. FellowWikip e dian 02:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I removed CSIS from the list of groups that performed the arrest. As far as I know, CSIS is a civilian agency with no powers of arrest. In fact, it was originally created so that the people doing the spying would not also be doing the arresting (before the 80s, RCMP did both). Correct me if I'm wrong.. Dan Carkner 03:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
There are too many American news sites in the References section. We need to have Canadian ones too. I will find some. FellowWikip e dian 20:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Are the two people from the American state of Georgia or the nation-state of Georgia? I think it's the American state -- that should be made clear. Ryanluck 01:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Please explain the rationale for removing this category. If you inspect the category, you'll see that it contains a variety of articles, some (or most) of which are not about "persons convicted of terrorism". I assume this category is being removed based on some concern about "POV", but that is not the intent of the categorization. This article is about the arrest of people charged under the "Terrorism" section of the Canadian Criminal Code; how can it not be included in Category:Terrorism in Canada? Outriggr 01:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
The following is horribly pov and needs to be reworded pronto:
They have not been found guilty of anything. No evidence has been presented in a court of law. And yet Wikipedia has declared them Islamic terrorists. It seems to me that certain editors, who lack a worked out understanding of what the legal presumption of innocence is, are adding their own pov (possibly anti-muslim) bias to this article. It needs to stop. Serpent-A 02:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I removed an image which was tiny and whose license was disputed, and added an image from the Olkahoma City bombing, expressely for the purpose of showing the destruction capable of the chemical that was seized during these arrests. No part of this makes any judgement call of the guilt of the alleged perpetrators, and I honestly do give them the presumption of innocence. However, some people here are swinging the pendulum too far the other way. There is no doubt that this chemical (ammonium nitrate) was seized, as the authorities have made that clear and mention of this is an undisputed part of the article itself.
So, I believe there is a good chance that removal of this image is a POV edit itself. I won't re-add it, as I'm not willing to start a fight on this, but I also find it offensive that people assume I am making a judgement on those arrested, when I am not. -- Kickstart70- T- C 06:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll add a couple more sections to keep the article up to date. There should one on Aftereffects, possibly combined with a paragraph on international media attention. And, there really should be an in-depth timeline. Plus, pictures are really needed. Hopefully, the Government of Canada website or Police will get some photos. user:Theonlyedge.
"Six of the 17 men arrested have ties to the Al Rahman Islamic Center near Toronto, a Sunni fundamentalist Wahhabi mosque. [1]"
The source used doesn't say anything about the mosque, just that some of those arrested were attracted to Wahhabism. BhaiSaab talk 23:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
One of the newspapers, think it was the Sun, had a great write-up on the alleged "training camp" an hour outside Toronto, I'd love to see that fleshed out in our article a bit, with some facts and whatnot. Sherurcij ( talk) ( Terrorist Wikiproject) 15:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
The article seems to suggest that the group was actually carrying out a plan to storm Parliament and kill the PM. My reading of various news sources (I'm going to look around for refs after I write this) is different. The people were arrested for conspiring to build a bomb, apparently to blow up a target in Southern Ontario (either the CSIS building or possibly a power plant). They also discussed other topics, and it is alleged that one of the arrested individuals, Chand, claimed to want to storm parliament and behead our friend Stephen Harper. To me this is a pretty important distinction. The group talked about doing some things (saying you want to kill the PM is not actually a crime, as far as I know) and took active steps to do something else, and the latter is what they were charged with. Chand's lawyer brought up the Parliament Hill plot, possibly as a way of making the charges look outlandish by including something improbable (though I can't read his mind to determine his intentions). Comments on whether the article should be rewritten to make clear the difference between planning and discussing? moink 18:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
It seems that these kids where "planning" to bomb numerous targets in several cities, take hostages, and take over the CBC. I am the only one who thinks that this is starting to sound just a bit preposterous? - Anarchist42 00:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
This whole thing smacks of Guy Fawkes. Kid me not. 205.188.116.200 04:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Any source for listing them as one of the agencies involved?-- 211.129.114.147 15:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I think what people don't understand about the RCMP officer's comment that it was "difficult to find a common denominator," is that the Greater Toronto Area has a large enough Muslim population that the fact that all the suspects are Muslim does not exactly narrow things down. You want to find a relevant common denominator that allows you to recognize terrorists; apparently, it was difficult to find such a common denominator. ViewFromNowhere 18:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
The quote "the most politically correct terrorism bust in history" is about how they handled the bust with respect to meeting with imams before the reporters. Also this part:
But recently, CSIS has been listening. Under the tenure of Jim Judd, who took over as director in November of 2004, the spy agency has taken specific steps to bring the Muslim community onside. For example, the agency has dropped phrases such as "Sunni Islamic extremist threat" from its lexicon. At last Saturday's news conference, agents very deliberately avoided using the words Muslim or Islamic when describing the arrests.
In this particular article, they were not doing it to "whitewash" the role of Islam, but they were reporting the arrests in such a way that it would not be perceived by Muslims as religious profiling. ViewFromNowhere 04:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
That link does work for me.
But reading it, I still don't see what you think it says. The part about racial profiling comes later in the article and refers only to the Khawaja case. It seems to suggest that a media ban led to accusations of racial profiling (since during a ban, the media can't send positive messages or work with the Muslim community), not that reporting the terrorists as Muslims would itself be considered racial profiling. Also, noting that the word "Muslim" was intentionally avoided is important to mention because otherwise there is the misconception that it was only avoided by chance because it wasn't descriptive enough--a misconception even you made. Ken Arromdee 14:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
This is also the reason why Islamic leaders were debriefed first, and why the news releases were translated into Arabic and Urdu. You can say that the word "Muslim" was intentionally avoided, but don't lump it in with the "whitewashing" accusations. ViewFromNowhere 21:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Canada's secret security apparatus has been putting serious effort into softening its image for much of the past year, conscious of the fact that for many Muslim immigrants, the phrase "secret police" is synonymous with violence and coercion.
I don't like the use of the passive voice in the template: "five young offenders who cannot be named." That makes it sound as if mentioning their names will cause God to strike you down with a bolt of lightning. I think it should read "whose names have not been released because they were under 18 at the time of their alleged involvement." -- Mwalcoff 08:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I *think* the answer to that question is that there is an ongoing effect to avoid American-bias on wikipedia and it's therefore acceptable for an article about a major incident in canada to default to whatever the law is there. But I'm checking on it :)
-- Charlesknight 21:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
What's wrong with "The identities of the five minors are legally protected by Canada's Youth Criminal Justice Act." which is already in there? that covers it no?
-- Charlesknight 21:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
A non-Canadian who has no plans to visit Canada is welcome to add the names if they wish, but as a Canadian myself, I remain bound by the publication ban. Sherurcij ( Speaker for the Dead) 00:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Seems to me that Mubin Shaikh is just a rat, that was paid by the RCMP/CSIS to set up this group, lead them in the direction of conspiring to violence, arrange to purchase all the explosives then got paid for it. -- Mista-X ( talk) 05:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Much reporting on this topic is handicapped by a Canadian-wide publication ban, although I'll quote the judge who issued the 2006 ban that " The ban does not apply to information obtained outside the court". Any information I put on these pages is footnoted to its legitimate source, and nothing comes from any personal knowledge, discussions or attendance at legal hearings. Sherurcij ( speaker for the dead) 03:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Just a note that this article really needs to be updated, and I hate updating it because it's such a massive undertaking to make it a good article. But most importantly, I think it needs a section on the 7 released, and the 1 conviction -- none of which are really discussed in the article. Sherurcij ( speaker for the dead) 23:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Just note that the visuals on the PBS documentary seem to been "faked", since their "screenshots" of alleged investigations of the suspects uses the June 3rd photograph of Shareef at Durham Police Station as the "file photo" that the police were using during the investigation. Sherurcij ( speaker for the dead) 03:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
This source was used in the article and i have substituted it with a {cn} tag because it does not meet basic requirements of WP:RS. It is not clear: Who is the author? Does the author and publisher have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Who is the publisher? Who owns the website?... IQinn ( talk) 01:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
This article is not overly clear on the five youths in the case. It states there were five however the Template:TorontoTerror only lists four as does the article on the youths. Is the 5th youth awaiting trial? All up to date sources I see state that six men are awaiting trial and this youth would make seven, so where is he? — jfry3 ( talk) 15:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I know this has already been discussed somewhat, but shouldn't the name of this article be "Toronto 18". Names of Wikipedia articles should be how they are commonly referred. "Toronto 18" may sound too casual, but the reality is that is how it's being called in the media. Just put "Toronto 18" in google compared to the name of this article. I know "Toronto 18" does direct you to this, but I still think it should be called this. BashBrannigan ( talk) 18:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
In the intro it says they are 'alleged'. I don't know anyone who is in doubt anymore. Did the ringleader not plead guilty to all charges? 174.114.231.69 ( talk) 14:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Absent consensus disagreement, I will set this up to archive all threads older than 21 days.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 05:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC) Under Canadian Law, the two individuals were not confidential informants but elevated to the status of "Agent" as they were bound to provide testimony in Court. Confidential informants are not contracted to do so. Agents can also, if required, enter witness protection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.40.1.129 ( talk) 17:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 08:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 08:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 08:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 08:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 08:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 08:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 08:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 08:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Here's an article, perhaps this should be mentioned in this article. http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/842140--play-takes-sympathetic-look-at-toronto-18 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crocodilesareforwimps ( talk • contribs) 15:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
How could they be inspired by the Fort Hood shooter and the 2009 christmas attemted bombing if their plot was in 2006? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.99.133.32 ( talk) 15:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
The lead sentence currently concludes these individuals were: "found to be Al-Qaeda members of an Islamic terrorist cell." I question whether any of these individuals ever had a first-hand connection to al-Qaeda. Even if this were true charges were dropped against a considerable fraction of the 18 who were initially suspects. Geo Swan ( talk) 09:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
The references to this article were a terrible mess. I spent considerable time working on finding archived versions, and properly populating some of the worst references in the article.
Another contributor came along, and with the edit summary Reverted to revision 574547992 by BashBrannigan: no reason to change established reference style. This contributor not only blew away the reference fixing I made but they blew away editorial tags I placed, and which I explained above. So, no offense, but it was an overly hasty and disruptive edit, and a powerful example of mis-use of automated editing tools.
I reverted that edit, and my edit summary requested "As a courtesy to other contributors could we please discuss controversial edits on the talk page, not in the edit summaries?" Geo Swan ( talk) 16:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
God, you're irritating. As for the above: WP:TLDR. I'll make one final comment and then stop because this is clearly a waste of time. Before your changes, all the refs were inline. After your changes, some of them were inline, and some of them were named and at the bottom. In other words, you changed the style (hence WP:CITEVAR). Apparently, you did more than change the style, you upgraded the references, fixed them, etc. (I didn't see that when I first reverted you - and I am not using "automated editing tools" - give it a rest.) So, once you said what you did, I asked you simply whether you could put the refs back inline without too much work. That was it. I will not be responding anymore to this "discussion"; nor, as you've noticed, have I or will I be reverting you. All I can hope is that whatever burr you have up your butt is only with respect to me and that you do better in your interaction with others.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
As a result of an AfD discussion, I have merged content from the Asad Ansari article and redirected from that article to a new subsection within this article.-- Rpclod ( talk) 14:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa ( talk) 22:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
2006 Ontario terrorism plot. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on 2006 Ontario terrorism plot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2008/09/18/video-of-alleged-ont-terror-group-released.aspxWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 12 external links on 2006 Ontario terrorism plot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Asad Ansari was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 03 September 2014 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into 2006 Ontario terrorism plot. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
I have added an Associated Press Report to the links. Capitalistroadster 03:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Someone's already added text about the size of the bomb, and the claim about ammonium nitrate.
However, they're comparing the weight of one ingredient to a bomb to the total weight of a bomb. The 5000lb figure is the total weight of the Oklahoma City bomb, whereas the 6000lb figure in this arrest is only for ammonium nitrate, one of the ingredients of an explosive.
Is there a more reasonable comparison? - 66.92.73.52 23:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
---
A link on Wiki's Oklahoma City Bombing article states that 4800 pounds of Ammonium Nitrate was used.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/PARTIN/ok2.htm
I have added to the article a comparison of ammonium nitrate weight between this and OK City. I now see that it will not suffice, given the difference between "official" and "unofficial" OK City estimates. The "official" OK City estimate and later unofficial estimates put the OK City weight at 2000 pounds and 4000-4800, pounds respectively.
Between that, and the confusion as to what form of "ton" we're talking about, I'm not sure how to approach this in the article. This CNN transcript describes the OK City bomb as both "one ton" and 2000 pounds. The Toronto articles sometimes refer to a "tonne", or metric ton, which is 1000 kilograms (2200 pounds).
So we have
So Toronto's seizure is either 3.3x or 1.38-1.65x OK City's bomb. (I think.) Outriggr 03:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Images from the CBC should not be here. Also images from the BBC do not work either. I've had problems like this in the past. FellowWikip e dian 02:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I removed CSIS from the list of groups that performed the arrest. As far as I know, CSIS is a civilian agency with no powers of arrest. In fact, it was originally created so that the people doing the spying would not also be doing the arresting (before the 80s, RCMP did both). Correct me if I'm wrong.. Dan Carkner 03:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
There are too many American news sites in the References section. We need to have Canadian ones too. I will find some. FellowWikip e dian 20:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Are the two people from the American state of Georgia or the nation-state of Georgia? I think it's the American state -- that should be made clear. Ryanluck 01:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Please explain the rationale for removing this category. If you inspect the category, you'll see that it contains a variety of articles, some (or most) of which are not about "persons convicted of terrorism". I assume this category is being removed based on some concern about "POV", but that is not the intent of the categorization. This article is about the arrest of people charged under the "Terrorism" section of the Canadian Criminal Code; how can it not be included in Category:Terrorism in Canada? Outriggr 01:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
The following is horribly pov and needs to be reworded pronto:
They have not been found guilty of anything. No evidence has been presented in a court of law. And yet Wikipedia has declared them Islamic terrorists. It seems to me that certain editors, who lack a worked out understanding of what the legal presumption of innocence is, are adding their own pov (possibly anti-muslim) bias to this article. It needs to stop. Serpent-A 02:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I removed an image which was tiny and whose license was disputed, and added an image from the Olkahoma City bombing, expressely for the purpose of showing the destruction capable of the chemical that was seized during these arrests. No part of this makes any judgement call of the guilt of the alleged perpetrators, and I honestly do give them the presumption of innocence. However, some people here are swinging the pendulum too far the other way. There is no doubt that this chemical (ammonium nitrate) was seized, as the authorities have made that clear and mention of this is an undisputed part of the article itself.
So, I believe there is a good chance that removal of this image is a POV edit itself. I won't re-add it, as I'm not willing to start a fight on this, but I also find it offensive that people assume I am making a judgement on those arrested, when I am not. -- Kickstart70- T- C 06:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll add a couple more sections to keep the article up to date. There should one on Aftereffects, possibly combined with a paragraph on international media attention. And, there really should be an in-depth timeline. Plus, pictures are really needed. Hopefully, the Government of Canada website or Police will get some photos. user:Theonlyedge.
"Six of the 17 men arrested have ties to the Al Rahman Islamic Center near Toronto, a Sunni fundamentalist Wahhabi mosque. [1]"
The source used doesn't say anything about the mosque, just that some of those arrested were attracted to Wahhabism. BhaiSaab talk 23:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
One of the newspapers, think it was the Sun, had a great write-up on the alleged "training camp" an hour outside Toronto, I'd love to see that fleshed out in our article a bit, with some facts and whatnot. Sherurcij ( talk) ( Terrorist Wikiproject) 15:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
The article seems to suggest that the group was actually carrying out a plan to storm Parliament and kill the PM. My reading of various news sources (I'm going to look around for refs after I write this) is different. The people were arrested for conspiring to build a bomb, apparently to blow up a target in Southern Ontario (either the CSIS building or possibly a power plant). They also discussed other topics, and it is alleged that one of the arrested individuals, Chand, claimed to want to storm parliament and behead our friend Stephen Harper. To me this is a pretty important distinction. The group talked about doing some things (saying you want to kill the PM is not actually a crime, as far as I know) and took active steps to do something else, and the latter is what they were charged with. Chand's lawyer brought up the Parliament Hill plot, possibly as a way of making the charges look outlandish by including something improbable (though I can't read his mind to determine his intentions). Comments on whether the article should be rewritten to make clear the difference between planning and discussing? moink 18:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
It seems that these kids where "planning" to bomb numerous targets in several cities, take hostages, and take over the CBC. I am the only one who thinks that this is starting to sound just a bit preposterous? - Anarchist42 00:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
This whole thing smacks of Guy Fawkes. Kid me not. 205.188.116.200 04:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Any source for listing them as one of the agencies involved?-- 211.129.114.147 15:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I think what people don't understand about the RCMP officer's comment that it was "difficult to find a common denominator," is that the Greater Toronto Area has a large enough Muslim population that the fact that all the suspects are Muslim does not exactly narrow things down. You want to find a relevant common denominator that allows you to recognize terrorists; apparently, it was difficult to find such a common denominator. ViewFromNowhere 18:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
The quote "the most politically correct terrorism bust in history" is about how they handled the bust with respect to meeting with imams before the reporters. Also this part:
But recently, CSIS has been listening. Under the tenure of Jim Judd, who took over as director in November of 2004, the spy agency has taken specific steps to bring the Muslim community onside. For example, the agency has dropped phrases such as "Sunni Islamic extremist threat" from its lexicon. At last Saturday's news conference, agents very deliberately avoided using the words Muslim or Islamic when describing the arrests.
In this particular article, they were not doing it to "whitewash" the role of Islam, but they were reporting the arrests in such a way that it would not be perceived by Muslims as religious profiling. ViewFromNowhere 04:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
That link does work for me.
But reading it, I still don't see what you think it says. The part about racial profiling comes later in the article and refers only to the Khawaja case. It seems to suggest that a media ban led to accusations of racial profiling (since during a ban, the media can't send positive messages or work with the Muslim community), not that reporting the terrorists as Muslims would itself be considered racial profiling. Also, noting that the word "Muslim" was intentionally avoided is important to mention because otherwise there is the misconception that it was only avoided by chance because it wasn't descriptive enough--a misconception even you made. Ken Arromdee 14:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
This is also the reason why Islamic leaders were debriefed first, and why the news releases were translated into Arabic and Urdu. You can say that the word "Muslim" was intentionally avoided, but don't lump it in with the "whitewashing" accusations. ViewFromNowhere 21:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Canada's secret security apparatus has been putting serious effort into softening its image for much of the past year, conscious of the fact that for many Muslim immigrants, the phrase "secret police" is synonymous with violence and coercion.
I don't like the use of the passive voice in the template: "five young offenders who cannot be named." That makes it sound as if mentioning their names will cause God to strike you down with a bolt of lightning. I think it should read "whose names have not been released because they were under 18 at the time of their alleged involvement." -- Mwalcoff 08:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I *think* the answer to that question is that there is an ongoing effect to avoid American-bias on wikipedia and it's therefore acceptable for an article about a major incident in canada to default to whatever the law is there. But I'm checking on it :)
-- Charlesknight 21:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
What's wrong with "The identities of the five minors are legally protected by Canada's Youth Criminal Justice Act." which is already in there? that covers it no?
-- Charlesknight 21:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
A non-Canadian who has no plans to visit Canada is welcome to add the names if they wish, but as a Canadian myself, I remain bound by the publication ban. Sherurcij ( Speaker for the Dead) 00:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Seems to me that Mubin Shaikh is just a rat, that was paid by the RCMP/CSIS to set up this group, lead them in the direction of conspiring to violence, arrange to purchase all the explosives then got paid for it. -- Mista-X ( talk) 05:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Much reporting on this topic is handicapped by a Canadian-wide publication ban, although I'll quote the judge who issued the 2006 ban that " The ban does not apply to information obtained outside the court". Any information I put on these pages is footnoted to its legitimate source, and nothing comes from any personal knowledge, discussions or attendance at legal hearings. Sherurcij ( speaker for the dead) 03:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Just a note that this article really needs to be updated, and I hate updating it because it's such a massive undertaking to make it a good article. But most importantly, I think it needs a section on the 7 released, and the 1 conviction -- none of which are really discussed in the article. Sherurcij ( speaker for the dead) 23:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Just note that the visuals on the PBS documentary seem to been "faked", since their "screenshots" of alleged investigations of the suspects uses the June 3rd photograph of Shareef at Durham Police Station as the "file photo" that the police were using during the investigation. Sherurcij ( speaker for the dead) 03:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
This source was used in the article and i have substituted it with a {cn} tag because it does not meet basic requirements of WP:RS. It is not clear: Who is the author? Does the author and publisher have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Who is the publisher? Who owns the website?... IQinn ( talk) 01:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
This article is not overly clear on the five youths in the case. It states there were five however the Template:TorontoTerror only lists four as does the article on the youths. Is the 5th youth awaiting trial? All up to date sources I see state that six men are awaiting trial and this youth would make seven, so where is he? — jfry3 ( talk) 15:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I know this has already been discussed somewhat, but shouldn't the name of this article be "Toronto 18". Names of Wikipedia articles should be how they are commonly referred. "Toronto 18" may sound too casual, but the reality is that is how it's being called in the media. Just put "Toronto 18" in google compared to the name of this article. I know "Toronto 18" does direct you to this, but I still think it should be called this. BashBrannigan ( talk) 18:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
In the intro it says they are 'alleged'. I don't know anyone who is in doubt anymore. Did the ringleader not plead guilty to all charges? 174.114.231.69 ( talk) 14:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Absent consensus disagreement, I will set this up to archive all threads older than 21 days.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 05:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC) Under Canadian Law, the two individuals were not confidential informants but elevated to the status of "Agent" as they were bound to provide testimony in Court. Confidential informants are not contracted to do so. Agents can also, if required, enter witness protection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.40.1.129 ( talk) 17:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 08:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 08:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 08:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 08:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 08:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 08:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 08:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 08:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Here's an article, perhaps this should be mentioned in this article. http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/842140--play-takes-sympathetic-look-at-toronto-18 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crocodilesareforwimps ( talk • contribs) 15:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
How could they be inspired by the Fort Hood shooter and the 2009 christmas attemted bombing if their plot was in 2006? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.99.133.32 ( talk) 15:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
The lead sentence currently concludes these individuals were: "found to be Al-Qaeda members of an Islamic terrorist cell." I question whether any of these individuals ever had a first-hand connection to al-Qaeda. Even if this were true charges were dropped against a considerable fraction of the 18 who were initially suspects. Geo Swan ( talk) 09:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
The references to this article were a terrible mess. I spent considerable time working on finding archived versions, and properly populating some of the worst references in the article.
Another contributor came along, and with the edit summary Reverted to revision 574547992 by BashBrannigan: no reason to change established reference style. This contributor not only blew away the reference fixing I made but they blew away editorial tags I placed, and which I explained above. So, no offense, but it was an overly hasty and disruptive edit, and a powerful example of mis-use of automated editing tools.
I reverted that edit, and my edit summary requested "As a courtesy to other contributors could we please discuss controversial edits on the talk page, not in the edit summaries?" Geo Swan ( talk) 16:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
God, you're irritating. As for the above: WP:TLDR. I'll make one final comment and then stop because this is clearly a waste of time. Before your changes, all the refs were inline. After your changes, some of them were inline, and some of them were named and at the bottom. In other words, you changed the style (hence WP:CITEVAR). Apparently, you did more than change the style, you upgraded the references, fixed them, etc. (I didn't see that when I first reverted you - and I am not using "automated editing tools" - give it a rest.) So, once you said what you did, I asked you simply whether you could put the refs back inline without too much work. That was it. I will not be responding anymore to this "discussion"; nor, as you've noticed, have I or will I be reverting you. All I can hope is that whatever burr you have up your butt is only with respect to me and that you do better in your interaction with others.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
As a result of an AfD discussion, I have merged content from the Asad Ansari article and redirected from that article to a new subsection within this article.-- Rpclod ( talk) 14:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa ( talk) 22:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
2006 Ontario terrorism plot. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on 2006 Ontario terrorism plot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2008/09/18/video-of-alleged-ont-terror-group-released.aspxWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 12 external links on 2006 Ontario terrorism plot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)