Jump to content

Talk:2009 Bronx terrorism plot

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs) at 20:33, 17 January 2024 (Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Rename...

to 2009 The Bronx and Newburgh New York alleged homegrown terrorism plot. The title is misleading. It involved not just New York City and bombs and it has not been proven. My suggestion is technically correct but could be made more elegant Edkollin (talk) 17:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying but I do concur in that the current title "2009 New York bomb plot" is problematic. The plot involved shooting down planes, which is not a "bomb". I actually wanted to create this article but I couldn't come up with a good name so I scratched it.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe 2009 New York terrorism plot? I know we like avoiding the word, but this would be a good fit under these particular variant circumstances.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2009 New York attempted attack? Bsimmons666 (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2009 New York Terrorism Plot gets my vote. 2009 New York attempted attack is definitely not descriptive enough. Could be anything. ShamWow (talk) 00:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. "attempted" is not defining enough. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Words to avoid. Just sayin'. Bsimmons666 (talk) 19:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm... good point. I just don't really know any other way to describe. I would definitely veto "attempted attack." ShamWow (talk) 01:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The current name of the article is wrong because half of the plot did not include any bombs. I would agree that we generally should avoid using "terrorism", but this case, with the lack of other alternatives, calls for the name. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: From the discussion here I'm picking up that a rename to 2009 New York terrorism plot would be the best idea and I've gone ahead and made the move.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should be renamed. To something like "2009 FBI Entrapment Plot". The judge who presided over the trial wrote: 'The Government indisputably “manufactured” the crimes of which defendants stand convicted. The Government invented all of the details of the scheme ... The Government selected the targets ... The Government funded the entire project. And the Government, through its agent, offered the defendants large sums of money, contingent on their participation in the heinous scheme.' They say that everybody has his price. The defendants in this case were basically broke, and the FBI undercover agent had to suggest they'd get $250,000 to persuade one of them to participate. Big success for the FBI, good headlines in the WSJ ...Longitude2 (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "Alleged"

I find it interesting that it's the "alleged" suspects but not the "alleged" informant. Either we use the word for both or for neither. Otherwise could possibly constitute violation WP:POV. Thoughts?ShamWow (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I started out with alleged informant, but along the way someone must've changed it. Better to stick with alleged unless we know for a fact he's the informant. Bsimmons666 (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. I've changed reference to the informant as "alleged." Personally, I rather drop alleged for all of them but I haven't dealt with editing events that have legal implications. Based on the evidence though, it was clear that these men were preparing to bomb these synagogues, therefore use of alleged or accused seems a bit ridiculous. On the other hand, there is scant information about this informant. Perhaps we simply need to wait until the court formally charges the four men, but it seems more than evident what they were doing. Thoughts? ShamWow (talk) 01:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The use of 'alleged' reflecting innocense until proven guilty is typically only for those that are charged or accused of doing something wrong. 'Alleged suspects, alleged crimes, alleged acts'. Informants, while a part of a criminal case, aren't typically given an 'alleged' tag as they aren't really being accused by anyone. As for this case; since its a red-handed crime unless the other three roll over on the leader, the defense will try to argue entrapment; i.e. the infromant enticed the men to attach bombs to cars and buy missiles. Should be an easy conviction, even in a state like New York. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 10:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure it's the fact that we're not sure if the guy was actually the informant or not (I could be misunderstanding this though). Bsimmons666 (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name

I would suggest that this be renamed, given that the NY 2009 terrorism plot discussed at Najibullah Zazi also falls under its title.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Bronx would be more appropriate. Even Riverdale should be considered but since using that neighborhood is somewhat obscure, I think Bronx fits the bill. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me, but I would note it is "The Bronx".--Epeefleche (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Does that "technically matter"? Overall, I like the sound of 2009 Bronx bomb plot rather than 2009 Bronx terrorism plot. But I suppose the latter is more descriptive... Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter at all substantively. But technically, "Bronx" is simply not the correct name. It differs from the other NYC boroughs in that sense, as they do not have "The" as part of their names. But while The Gambia is commonly also referred to as "Gambia", the same is not true for "The Bronx". Wikipedia treatment is generally sensitive to this ... see, for example, the redirect at Category:Bronx--Epeefleche (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so we'll change it to "2009 Bronx terrorism plot"? And if you're amenable, I would even do "2009 Bronx bomb plot." Choose one and make the change. No reason not to move forward with the change. Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about "2009 The Bronx Terrorism Plot".--Epeefleche (talk) 01:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No! That's sounds ridiculous and other editors will not recognize it as being the "proper" spelling. I'm changing it to simply "Bronx." Plot Spoiler (talk) 06:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you get the prison updates my husband is listed in an I corrected prison ? Newbornbrooklyn (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In corrected prison*** Newbornbrooklyn (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2009 Bronx 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2009 Bronx 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:21, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2023 update

Shouldn't we add the fact that, in July 2023, a judge has ordered three of the Newburgh Four freed from prison? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 23:54, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably should be put in bold letters at the top of the article. 38.146.192.155 (talk) 15:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2009_Bronx_terrorism_plot&oldid=1196540648"