Talk:2006 Ontario terrorism plot

Canada: Ontario / Toronto Mid‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ontario portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Toronto (assessed as Mid-importance).

Terrorism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects 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.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

Previous discussion without header[edit]

I have added an Associated Press Report to the links. Capitalistroadster 03:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

The name needs to be changed. At the least GTA should be Toronto or something intelligible to non-Canadians (Ontario, Canada, etc.). --Dhartung | Talk 05:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a pagemove is needed, as no one outside Ontario is expected to know what GTA means. --199.71.174.100 05:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would June 2006 Greater Toronto Area terrorism arrests or June 2006 Toronto terrorism arrests be more appropriate? If either option is more appropriate, we can change it as appropriate. Capitalistroadster 05:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto, I think. ekrub-ntyh ^talk 06:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To whoever changes it: in line with other "event" articles, the article title should start with "2006", not "June 2006". (This is always an optimistic move. :-) Outriggr 07:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work with the article everyone. We should still keep it up to date and add more pictures, I think, as well as add search links to this page so its easier to find. Theonlyedge 14:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm getting my wikifeet wet here for the first time. The article should be renamed to "2006 Toronto bomb plot" as it is more descriptive of what actually occurred, and avoids the pejorative term terrorism. --Angrybeaver.bc 18:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's like saying terrorism doesn't exist. Wikipedia says it does (see Terrorism). Your comments would apply to every event listed in all of Wikipedia relating to terrorism (see List of terrorist attacks in Canada for example). Deet 20:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other events on that list of terrorist attacks in Canada don't have terrorism in the name. Air India Flight 182 Front de libération du Québec Squamish Five. A "bomb plot" is a terroristic event and gives more information than the generic term "terrorism case". --Angrybeaver.bc 21:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Oklahoma City bombing Omagh bombing 2002 Bali bombing --Angrybeaver.bc 21:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad points, but it's hard to fit weapons importing, bombing, kidnapping, hostage-taking, and Prime Minister beheading all into one title.Deet 23:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta say, not to make a value judgement about plotting to behead the Prime Minister, but that list seems to fit better under the banner of 'terrorism' than any other name I can think of. --Gpollock 00:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The gun-smuggling and the fertilizer are known elements of this plot - at this point in time we don't know if the PM-beheading, kidnapping, and takeover of the CBC are anything more than chat-room rantings. "Terrorism case" was a good title when the news first broke, but as we know more about what happened, we should find a more descriptive title. --Angrybeaver.bc (added signature as I forgot earlier)

You're losing credibility. I saw a defense lawyer say himself that his client was accused of the planned beheading and some of the other elements. That was good enough for the front page of every newspaper in the country. Hardly chat-room rantings. Deet 11:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be incivil. By "chat-room rantings" I was referring to the CSIS monitoring of chat-rooms frequented by the accused and not discussions that occurred after the arrests. There has been no evidence presented in court yet that the accused had a serious plot to behead the PM and take over the CBC. --Angrybeaver.bc 17:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bomb size?[edit]

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)[reply]

I think there is another component that needs to be added that the authorities are keeping under raps, so the media doesn't distribute bomb making instructions. Maybe a good idea. --Omnicog 19:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The other component is #2 diesel, 6% by weight. Sorry to let that cat out of the bag. - 63.107.91.99 14:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Toronto - 3 metric tons = 3000 kg = 6600 pounds

OK City (conservative) - 1 short ton = 907 kg = 2000 pounds

OK City (unofficial) - 1818 - 2180 kg = 4000-4800 pounds

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)[reply]

Images[edit]

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)[reply]

One of the images also has the United States federal government as the author. I'm assuming that's incorrect since the arrests took place in Canada. --Impaciente 06:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. User:CST did that. FellowWikip e dian 20:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CSIS[edit]

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)[reply]

If US practice is any guide, the only agency that did any "arresting" was the RCMP (corollary, FBI), with other agencies providing intelligence and other assistance. If it's mentioned in news articles, it should be in this article; excluding it arbitrarily is edging toward original research. --Dhartung | Talk 07:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, Canadian agencies are not just parallels of American ones. Perhaps the articles are wrong if they said CSIS was doing arresting.. Perhaps someone else can enlighten us though. Dan Carkner 21:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CSIS themselves are fairly open about this. They are not mounties, and they do not carry firearms, and they may not arrest people. http://www.csis-scrs.gc.ca/en/about_us/faq.asp#bm04 - 63.107.91.99 14:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CSIS consists of agents at desks with computers etc. It was the RCMP, along with other local police forces that physically arrested the people. --Jay(Reply) 20:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All due respect, I may be American, but I actually was trying to help. I'm just pointing out that we can't erase them from the article because somebody says, "oh, they can't arrest people". From the CSIS website:

Investigating terrorism and keeping Canadian residents safe is our number one priority. CSIS played a vitally important role in this investigation.... This particular investigation is an excellent example of seamless cooperation between the RCMP, CSIS and other law enforcement partners. By working together, we have prevented acts of violence and protected people from harm. CSIS is proud to acknowledge its role in this case because it’s important that people have confidence that we are doing all we can to fullfill our mandate and keep them safe. -- CSIS Assistant Director, Operations

Through the work and cooperation of the RCMP, CSIS, local law enforcement and Toronto’s Integrated National Security Enforcement Team (INSET), acts of violence by extremist groups may have been prevented. -- PM Harper

As of this posting, the CSIS is only mentioned in the article as a target. --Dhartung | Talk 10:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not downplaying the role of CSIS. They were a vital part of this investigation - if anything, CSIS should have its own section, or at least a paragraph about there involvement. The United States is known for their FBI and CIA etc; in Canada, it is set up a little differently. Although CSIS doesn't actually arrest individuals, they are still as much apart of the ongoings as the authorities in the field. Funny how before June 3, Canada's security agencies were for the most part unknown. Now they are the talk of the world. --Jay(Reply) 02:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my reply should have been to Dan Carkner, not to you. I have made revisions such that the structure of the raid and coordination is clearer, and reworded so that it doesn't say that CSIS did any arresting, which seemed to be the reason that Dan Carkner removed the text. --Dhartung | Talk 05:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

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)[reply]

The Toronto Star has a huge section and seems to me to be the appropriate resource (local) though maybe because it assumes everyone knows where, e.g. Etobicoke is that might be a point against it. But I don't want to look at the Star because their stylesheets fail to work properly with my browser. moink 00:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which Georgia?[edit]

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)[reply]

It's the American state of Georgia

Category:Terrorism in Canada[edit]

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)[reply]

I see now that two out of three removals have been because of someone reverting too far back - but the point is still relevant. Outriggr 03:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Presumption of innocence[edit]

The following is horribly pov and needs to be reworded pronto:

resulting in the arrest of 17 members of a Wahhabi Islamic terrorist cell who were caught in the planning and preparation of large scale terrorist attacks in Canada involving 3 tons of explosives.

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)[reply]

Very true. But its a pretty neutral article now, as it stands. With the constant editing, and pov gets erased in a couple of minutes. Theonlyedge 02:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the word alleged if it will make you sleep better.--CltFn 03:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMNSHO, sprinkling "allegedly" never improves an article. "Allegedly" has an undercurrent of "alleged by people we disagree with". If we must have "alleged", best to restrict it to one use per sentence. In "allegedly belonging to an Islamic terrorist cell who were allegedly caught in the planning and preparation of large scale terrorist attacks in Canada involving 3 tons of explosives" I think the first "allegedly" suffices. Or better yet, how about "suspected of"? That's what this is about, anyway. 194.151.6.67 09:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A useful rule of thumb is to use alleged as a verb, not as an adverb. "The police alleged that Smith shot Jones and covered it up." vs. "Smith allegedly shot Jones ..." which gives it an insinuating tone. --Dhartung | Talk 10:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image for article[edit]

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)[reply]

And the current image of the outline of a mosque means absolutely nothing and contributes nothing to the article. --Kickstart70-T-C 16:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of the people who removed it. The image is not only not related to the article, but carries really significant overtones that are not appropriate. As a reader, if I didn't already know the background of this case, I would see a picture of a blown-up building and be immediately misled as to the context of these arrests. I, for one, am not making a judgment about your POV, so don't be offended. The image is just plain inappropiate and I know editors at large would agree with this (it's been removed again by someone else). Outriggr 19:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, my first thought was, is it Muslim or not. (My second was, "any Trinis"; sadly, the answer to both answers was yes. I'm still hoping that the answer to the third question - is he in any way related to me - is a no). So it would be wrong to say that the image has no value to the reader. On the other hand, it is prejudicial - not only does it presume guilt, it presumes motive. So I agree, it's inappropriate. Guettarda 20:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After spending a few minutes working out what you said ... (ok, Trinis, and your first few sentences are talking about the people involved, not the image) ... I'm not clear how that leads to the conclusion that "the image has [some] value to the reader". Ultimately, though, I'm glad you agree that it is inappropriate. Outriggr 23:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New sections[edit]

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.

I caution the idea of a new section, since the investigation is still going on and there is enough to improve upon already. Just as a comparison, Wikipedia was fairly small on the morning or 9/11 - I could only imagine how long the article would be if after every day following the events, a new section was added. Perhaps the set-up of the article needs to be adjusted. There will inevitably be a 3 month trial, on top of sentencing and so forth (if found guilty) - I'd prefer to have a proper complete article which covers the background, investigation, arrests, trial, and conviction. 2006 Toronto terrorism trial is a better name for a start. --Jay(Reply) 23:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate Statement.[edit]

"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)[reply]

Yes it is mentioned and also it is quite obvious. --CltFn 03:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you quote where it's mentioned in the article then? I don't happen to like Wahabbis either, but that statement is original research. BhaiSaab ^talk 04:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

read the articles at the bottom, its in there in numerous places. --CltFn 04:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read some of them but don't remember anything about that mosque being a Wahhabi fundamentalist mosque. Could you quote one for me? BhaiSaab ^talk 04:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawa Sun?[edit]

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)[reply]

Sure. FellowWikip e dian 22:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the Ottawa sun is a rightwing and very alarmist newspaper, don't rely too much on it... Dan Carkner 02:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Planning to do vs. brainstorming suggestions[edit]

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)[reply]

Here's a news report that lists the charges, nothing about storming the hill: [2]. moink 19:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one with many direct quotes from the lawyer who disclosed the PM angle: [3]. It does seem like it is alleged that they were indeed plotting this: "My client is being accused of plotting to storm the Parliament buildings, take hostages [and] make demands to remove Canadian troops from Afghanistan and to free Muslim prisoners... He is supposed to have planned to behead hostages if his demands weren't met ... and to want to behead the prime minister. The last thing was that they were going to storm the CBC building downtown [in Toronto] to take over communications to broadcast their message." But the same article also says that the men "were arrested on Friday and charged with planning a terrorist attack somewhere in southern Ontario. Police said the men were planning to build a simple but effective bomb using fertilizer and diesel fuel. Sources have told the National Post that the men were in an advanced stage of planning two attacks: a truck bombing to destroy a significant building and an attack involving opening fire on a crowded public place." So I still think that they were charged with the bomb plot, and it was additionally alleged that they had this other hostage plan. moink 19:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zanimum seems to have fixed it. I am much happier with it now. moink 19:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

From such details as have come out, people could be forgiven if they thought it sounded distinctly amateurish and rather wannabe. On the other hand, it doesn't require much intelligence or a whole lot of technical knowledge to do an enormous amount of damage if you've got sufficient quantities of ammonium nitrate and diesel fuel. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Rrburke 16:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gunpowder, treason, and plot[edit]

This whole thing smacks of Guy Fawkes. Kid me not. 205.188.116.200 04:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a comparison between that plot and this might be a good idea. 205.188.116.200 05:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joint Task Force 2?[edit]

Any source for listing them as one of the agencies involved?--211.129.114.147 15:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. FellowWikipedian 05:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Whitewashing" the role of Islam[edit]

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)[reply]

The "common denominator" remark came from a newspaper, not the police; besides, the newspaper was willing to say that there was no common denominator except that "virtually all are young men", yet being young men doesn't narrow them down any better than being Muslim.

The "broad strata" remark did come from the police, but it's still subject to criticism; the police could easily have said "broad strata of the Muslim community" or similar. Besides, a good many of them went to the same mosque, which is more specific than just being Muslims. Ken Arromdee 16:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "virtually all are young men" does not narrow it down - I suppose. However, they mentioned in the beginning that they were inspired by Al-Qaeda, which doesn't leave any ambiguity that they were radical Muslims. ViewFromNowhere 04:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Authorities confronted 'wall of silence'[edit]

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)[reply]

To "bring the Muslim community onside" could mean several things. It could, as you suggest, mean "they didn't call the terrorists Muslims because they didn't want Muslims to think of it as religious profiling". It could also mean, however, "they didn't call the terrorists Muslims because they felt that Muslims would be embarassed at the fact that the terrorists were Muslim" (which would be whitewashing). Since we shouldn't decide for ourselves which of these interpretations is correct, it's best to let the reader decide.

In addition, see your own explanation above, that the police didn't mention Muslim because they didn't think it narrows down the description much. Mentioning that the police deliberately avoided using the term shows that that explanation is unnecessary.

I've restored the text. Unfortunately, the article is now registration and I don't know a non-registration version. Ken Arromdee 06:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here [4] is the full version. Read it again, and you might agree that the way you inserted it in the article is misleading. ViewFromNowhere 18:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's still registration. Ken Arromdee 23:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't when I looked. Here [5] is one last try. ViewFromNowhere 01:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The first part of the article (ending in "... Arabic and Urdu.") is about the "political correctness", while the part after talks about something slightly different. It's the second meaning of "bring the Muslim community onside" because of this part near the beginning:

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.

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)[reply]

You can interpret that as "they avoided the word to improve their image, because avoiding it makes them seem less violent", but in that case it isn't clear what that has to do with racial profiling (or that it makes sense at all).

You can also interpret that as "they avoided the word to improve their image in general; if their image is better in general, they will also be seen as less violent", in which case it need not mean racial profiling.

I can see how to interpret that as fear of profiling, but I don't think that interpretation is all that obvious. Ken Arromdee 15:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"who cannot be named"[edit]

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)[reply]

That's a pretty standard way of talking about young offenders. It's not decreed by God that their names cannot be released, but it is decreed by law. It's also a quick way of making the point. --Gpollock 18:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pretty standard way of talking about young offenders in Canada. In the U.S., they name juvenile suspects all the time. In fact, Wikipedia, being US-based, could name them with little fear of repercussion (see Richardson family murders). I think we need a better explainer for people not used to Canadian media law. -- Mwalcoff 20:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

My question now is not whether we should abide by the Canadian law but simply how we should explain the law. -- Mwalcoff 21:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm talking about the template, not the article. As I said above, I think it should read, "whose names have not been released because they were under 18 at the time of their alleged involvement." That would make it pretty clear. -- Mwalcoff 21:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, the place to suggest it would have been Template talk:TorontoTerror, but I've been bold and done it. Does the template seem OK now? --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 21:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Thanks. -- Mwalcoff 22:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

CSIS setup[edit]

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)[reply]

Mubin Shaikh had nothing to do with any explosives, in fact if you read interviews with him, he didn't know about the alleged explosives until the arrests were being carried out. The RCMP didn't tell him. So whatever your opinion of Shaikh, it should at least be grounded on facts. :) Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 00:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What? WTF does it matter if he "knew" about the explosives or not? He set up the operation and the same people he was working with gave access to the explosives. --Mista-X (talk) 15:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Publication Ban[edit]

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)[reply]

Note[edit]

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)[reply]

PBS[edit]

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)[reply]

Questionable source "thefacesbehind.net"[edit]

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)[reply]

5 youths[edit]

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)[reply]

Saad Gaya was initially an "unnamed youth", but was later treated as an adult and his name released - hence the "confusion" about numbers. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 23:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks that helps. Also i left a message on Talk:Young offenders in 2006 Toronto terrorism case if you know the answer to that as well. -- jfry3 (talk) 00:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name, again[edit]

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)[reply]

The name of the article should actually be "Ontario terrorism plot" not "Toronto", as it included Ottawa as well. UrbanNerd (talk) 00:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged[edit]

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)[reply]

Close call. Mixed case -- I think some are still awaiting trial, no?--Epeefleche (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archive[edit]

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)[reply]