Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:24, 2 October 2015

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ahmed Mohamed clock incident article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 5 days

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Texas Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Texas. Dallas-Fort Worth (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dallas-Fort Worth, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Dallas-Fort WorthWikipedia:WikiProject Dallas-Fort WorthTemplate:WikiProject Dallas-Fort WorthDallas-Fort Worth Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. African diaspora Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Islam Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion: Interfaith Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Discrimination Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 17 September 2015. The result of the discussion was Renamed to Ahmed Mohamed clock incident.

The Arbitration Committee has permitted Misplaced Pages administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor editing this page or associated pages. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

The Clock Kid

Media call him that. Add it? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

A redirect then? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I made a redirect.

Hello? Hello? Is this thing on? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

So now the picture of the innocent device is gone? Why?

It seems to me that the people who have deleted the picture of the device. So why did we remove it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarcocapitalista1981 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'm gong to put it again.Anarcocapitalista1981 (talk) 18:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

It can be downloaded from the Irving Police Facebook Page. I've seen better resolution pics but not sure where they came from. Pic was deleted because no source for it was given, copy-vio. Raquel Baranow (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• Ok, I uploaded the best version i found Anarcocapitalista1981 (talk) 19:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

It was deleted based on Wikimedia Commons policy. The file you uploaded again will also be deleted. See https://commons.wikimedia.org/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Ahmed_Mohamed_device.jpg - Cwobeel (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

{ec}:That's not going to work, it's already up for speedy deletion, you should upload from the FB page and use proper copyright justification. I'd do it myself but don't know copyright justifications. Raquel Baranow (talk) 19:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

A case could be made for a non-free image in en-wp (not in commons), but it would be difficult to pass the threshold for inclusion. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The reason for not passing the threshold is that non-free images are only allowed if there is no other way to present a subject. In this case, a description of the device is probably enough not to warrant a non-free photo. See WP:FREER - Cwobeel (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Absurd, especially as any description of the device has been deleted from the lead and as it reads currently is highly misleading. The image needs to be uploaded, reading through the commons page I found no rational reason to delete the image if it came from the press release and was the original photo taken by the police. - 106.187.88.122 (talk) 19:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Nope, read what User:Cwobeel said above. Raquel Baranow (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The description of the device is not that central to the incident. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Ridiculous, it is Ahmed Mohamed CLOCK incident, not Mohamed's breakfast incident. The first thing people will want to know when they hear about the story is what the clock looked like. There could not be anything more central to the story than this. The entire story is about a Muslim boy who got detained by the school because they thought the device was designed to look like a bomb. Did it look like a bomb, or was he profiled? This is getting old. - 106.187.88.122 (talk) 20:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Your outrage is not a valid substitute for following copyright law and policy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• The photograph should go back in. It is not a photo taken by the media, but was released by the police department, which took the photo. It appears on the Irving PD Facebook page:

IPD Facebook post

Since it is not a media image, but one released by a government entity, then there would be no issue with copying it either. Psalm84 (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• Just saw the mention of the Wikimedia delete discussion.

Have to question if notice of the deletion request discussion was posted here, too, since it is related to this article and its issues?

Also, on the Irving Police Department "holding the copyright," as its web site says, there are a couple of things to bear in mind:

This was an evidence photo that was released.

The IPD web site says the information contained on the site is "public information," but also that the IPD would defend its copyright.

So what does that mean? It sounds like the IPD would "defend its copyright" if any images were improperly used for commercial purposes. Suppose a television show about police just wanted to take the photo of the IPD's headquarters to use as the image of their "fictional" headquarters? By stating it has a copyright, IPD is defending itself against such an uncompensated and possibly harmful commercial use (someone could make it the fictional headquarters of something nefarious, like totalitarian police). Suppose photos of police officers on the site were taken, for commercial purposes too. People could photoshop those photos and make money off of them. Psalm84 (talk) 20:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

IPD released the photos. It is apparently not going after news organizations for copyright infringement. Misplaced Pages has a similar purpose, and is a non-profit. Psalm84 (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

@Psalm84: the good folks at Wikimedia commons work under very specific constraints, and only photos that are 100% free of copyright burdens are allowed. Maybe Cirt who is active in both here and at commons can explain this better than me.- Cwobeel

(talk) 20:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I've worked on pages where images are disputed, and also looked into the requirements for images at Wikimedia in the past, so I do understand that. But if Misplaced Pages was truly *that* stringent, then it wouldn't use fair use as it does (there's no other free image available, the image quality reduced), and it would employ an actual team of copyright lawyers. Also, the image has been released by IPD for uncompensated use by for-profit media corporations, and there's no way for IPD to have a commercial interest in the photo itself. It could not possibly profit from it. Given all that, would the IPD single out Misplaced Pages and sue Misplaced Pages, a non-profit, for doing what it evidently intended media to do? Why would it bring such a suit, and even if that were somehow a remote possibility, how could it prevail, given all this? Psalm84 (talk) 00:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

And as I said above, we may try our luck as a non-free image here in WP-en, but we will hit the barrier specified at WP:FREER. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

You can find Cirt's response here User_talk:Cwobeel#Commons_explanation. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Pity. When I was at the press conference and the IPD released the image and related press release, they said the image was released to the public freely to help help explain what the device was. Since the IPD is a government agency and said image has been used world wide, with and without credit, it should be used here. I even called up the PIO and asked them if they were holding any claim to the copyright so it can be utilized by the public at large especially online use such as wikipedia. He said the image has been released free and without holding back any claim to copyright. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

That is great, Heyyouoverthere. See commons:COM:OTRS. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Cirt is completely wrong. He even uses this photo of MLK on his talk page which is not in the public domain. It was a gift to the Library of Congress, but the LOC states the vast majority of works still retain copyright except those labeled "World-Telegram photo" or "World-Telegram photo by Ed Palumbo." and may be subject to restrictions on distribution. He wrote no copyright known on the description. Double standard and reveals he is trolling. https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Martin_Luther_King_Jr_NYWTS.jpg#file - 106.187.88.122 (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

You may want to take that on with directly Cirt if you want, but it may be better to assume good faith. But from what I see they are a long term and well respected editor of Misplaced Pages. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

If this were a real issue, it would be best dealt with elsewhere. Probably on the image talk page or via a deletion nomination since it affects the whole image and not simply Cirt's use of it. But I don't see any issue, so I'll mention this here to avoid others checking. The image on common iss and was tagged as a "New York World-Telegram and Sun" photo which as 106 themself said, generally have no copyright. The LOC copy of the photo, which again is and was linked from the commons details is here . A quick check of the "About This Item" confirms it's tagged as part of the "New York World-Telegram and the Sun Newspaper Photograph Collection", and further that "No copyright restriction known. Staff photographer reproduction rights transferred to Library of Congress through Instrument of Gift." So even without AGF, 106 could easily confirm this wasn't an apparent issue. Nil Einne (talk) 01:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I restored a copy of the image under a fair use rational as a historically significant image, i.e. this specific image is the one that provoked many of the comments discussed in the article (e.g. "Cool Clock") as well as the discussed attempts to deconstruct what Mohamed had created. If people want to argue about whether that is a good enough reason to include this image, then feel free to do so. Personally though, I think this image is a unique part of the historical context of this event and provides an understanding of the clock beyond what can be conveyed by text alone. Dragons flight (talk) 22:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed on that, and reducing the resolution makes sense.

This is an unusual situation, and at the very least fair use should apply.

For one thing, what "commercial value" might this have to IPD? They could not in any way do so since that would certainly be illegal. Somehow gaining compensation from evidence photos?

Then, something can't be copyrighted if it doesn't take any creativity. That has to be given wide latitude since news photographers/services often copyright similar photos, but in this case, the department released the photo and it is being widely circulated in the news media, which are mostly for-profit corporations. Psalm84 (talk) 00:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I reduced the resolution and put it in the body where the photo was discussed was discussed. --DHeyward (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. Someone who uses Facebook please contact Irving PD and ask them to explicitly state they are not holding any copyright to the image on FB so people stop trying to use unusual interpretations of their website's copyright statement to justify censoring the image. - 106.187.88.122 (talk) 23:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The only release that would matter to us is a completely free use release. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The PD has released it completely free of use. The user that tried justifying the deletion with copyright law cited the fact that the police department will enforces copyrights. That doesn't mean that everything, or anything on the website is copyrighted, especially in the context of the previous clause: "all information is public." Also, if they enforce copyrights on copyrighted images, and they clearly haven't enforced any copyright on this image it stands to reason that the image is in the public domain, as evidenced by the immediately preceding clause. What you are doing is not called following copyright law. If you had any interest is resolving what you call an unclear statement, you can easily call them to clarify. -106.184.2.207 (talk) 23:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

No, the PD has NOT released it in a completely free manner as required by Misplaced Pages/Wikmedia policy. Please read the policies.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Would video footage of the PIO holding up an image of the clock and saying, Irving police department wishes to have wikipedia use our photo of the clock free and clear of any copyright claims now and in the future. If so, I'll see about driving back over there. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 23:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

No. All non NFCC media has to be either under a suitable free licence, or without copyright (in the public domain, all rights released, uncopyrightable etc). A suitable free licence means the licence needs to allow all reusers to use it, for any purpose including commercial purposes, and without restrictions including on modification, except for any attribution or copyleft requirements. Allowing only wikipedia to use the photo is insufficient. And no idea why you want video footage. Simply ask them to make a clear public statement or alternatively email OTRS releasing the photo under a suitable licence would seem far easier. Nil Einne (talk) 00:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Fine, I'll have him say that, basically repeating what he said in the press conference. Better yet, I'll call up Oprah and she can stand up and yell: "Free use for you, free you for you, Everyone gets free use!!!!! Why video? Because even then it would be clear, I would hope. Plus I work in TV and video comes natural. For email? Still waiting for Wiki to respond to a copyright claim placed against them regarding a now removed photo. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 00:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

According to you, what was said at the press conference was "the image was released to the public freely to help help explain what the device was". This doesn't seem to be a clear free licence copyright release. The statement ""Free use for you, free you for you, Everyone gets free use!!!!!" is a little better, but still seems insufficiently clear (are they allowing all derivatives for example?). This is one reason why it's far better to deal with written stuff that can be explained. Also, do you plan to send this video to OTRS or what? I'm not sure whether OTRS is set up to deal with videos. If you plan to upload the video to commons, that seems to add another layer of complexity. Do you have permission from the person involved for that for starters? All in all, using video may be something normal for you, but there's also a good chance you'll go through a lot of effort and achieve nothing or at least take far longer then you could with a written statement. Nil Einne (talk) 00:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

"A lot of effort and achieve nothing" similar to the bitch fest that usually happens on Talk pages like this. As for email...I will wait until Misplaced Pages responds in writing to a copyright violation to a now removed image. They have not via snail mail or fax as a signature of the attorney of record is needed. Although I am sure others on here are free to contact the IPD and do otherwise. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 00:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages can't respond to anything. Misplaced Pages is simply an encyclopaedia. I think you're confusing very different things here. If you're waiting for a signature of an attorney, you must be waiting for a reply from the Wikimedia Foundation. There's little either the English wikipedia community, or the Wikimedia Commons community can do to help you with that other than to apply pressure to them to deal with it more promptly, but we will need to have a very good reason to do so. Free licence releases will be dealt with by the community, probably the wikimedia commons community if you plan to upload the image there. It's very unlikely the wikimedia foundation will be involved in that. Nil Einne (talk) 00:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

When I say Misplaced Pages, I am referring to the Misplaced Pages as a generic to include Wikimedia Foundation and everything they may touch. But the actual legal office of the station that was harmed had only received an acknowledgement of receipt but no updates to follow. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 00:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

But again, the issue is you're conflating different things. The Wikimedia Foundation have little to do with a free licence release. And there's also no need for updates for a free licence release. You appear to be complaining about something largely unrelated to what you need to do to have the image available ont the Wikimedia Commons.

I'm not that involved in commons, nor do I involved myself in copyright matters in general, but I'm reliably confident a clear cut email freely licencing the image, or releasing all rights to OTRS is going to be far more effective then a random video, which may not even contain such a clear cut release. The alternative is they release the info on the website, or somewhere else it can be viewed.

I strongly urge you to read the appropriate help like Commons:Commons:OTRS before trying anything because to be honest from all you've said so far, I don't think you really understand what's required. For example, the template at Commons:Commons:Email templates makes it clear that the person releasing the content is representing the copyright holder. This is probably important since I'm not sure whether a random statement by a random press person is always going to be trusted as they may not really appreciate what they are doing. Particularly if you bring up wikipedia and don't properly emphasise copyright. (Of course, a press person can still make a mistake with an email, but when it's formal like that it's a lot less likely they will. These sort of issues have I'm sure been considered by people more familiar with copyright and our requirements and expectations than you or I, hence why there is a process which can be followed to largely avoid them.

Nil Einne (talk) 01:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid what you typed is all for not. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 01:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Well it's your choice to make a video which probably won't achieve anything although I do suggest you are clearer in the future about what you are referring to (the WMF, the English wikipedia community, the wikimedia commons community etc) otherwise there's likely to be significant confusion. And see also my comment below. Nil Einne (talk) 01:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• I don't see *any* legal reason for Misplaced Pages to do anything differently from what the news media are doing. *They* are using the clock image free of charge, and you can be sure that their stories about this are generating considerable amount of ad revenue. On what basis is Misplaced Pages legally less free than these news media outlets? I see none whatsoever. Psalm84 (talk) 00:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

As I said above, we require content be freely licenced, and that any reuser can reuse the content for any purpose including any derivatives without worrying about copyright (well barring certain copyrighted elements which may be incidental) besides complying with certain possible terms (such as attribution and copyleft). This means not only can you put it in the news, you can use it for completely unrelated things in any way you wish for now and for ever more. Nil Einne (talk) 01:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Except that Misplaced Pages permits fair use. That is not public domain. So "freely licensed" is the ideal, but that's not always possible and Misplaced Pages makes allowances for that. This appears to me well within permissible use.

And the primary purpose of Misplaced Pages is to inform readers on noteworthy subjects. There's a compelling reason to use the picture of the clock in this case, since its appearance is at the heart of the issue. And the image's quality has been reduced out of an abundance of caution.

Ultimately, someone using an image for themselves needs to take some responsibility. For instance, to make sure the "fair use" images here would be all right for their own purposes. And since the police department released the photo without any strings, and for-profit companies are using it and profiting off of it, then that is not even the same as just taking something off of their web site. Psalm84 (talk) 01:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, on being a repository for free images, anyone looking to use this image can take it from the news media or Misplaced Pages and the legal conditions are identical. It's not like Misplaced Pages in using it is making a special use of it that the news media isn't so someone picking up the image here is doing so on a different basis than elsewhere. And, they aren't likely to pick up the image here, given that the image quality was reduced. I saw in one major newspaper, the image attributed to IPD. Another newspaper didn't attribute it. Psalm84 (talk) 01:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The image is already used under NFCC. It's possible using this particular image under NFCC is okay, but we don't really consider legal issues in deciding that (other then the fact it obviously does need to be legally compliant), since NFCC intentionally has far more strigent requirements than the legal requirements. Nor are we simply going to follow what the media is doing. The media may have a small influence, in that they may affect whether an image is iconic etc, but we ultimately need to comply with our requirements and expectations for NFCC, and will not simply ape the media's usage given our much more strigent requirements and expectations for when we use non free media. Not sure what being a repository for free images has to do with anything. The fact we are a repository for free images is actually a reason not to use this image, since this image doesn't appear to be free hence why we are using it under NFCC and not claiming it is free. However it may be that our other requirements means we're willing to use it despite it being non free. Nil Einne (talk) 01:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

We aren't a repository for free image, COMMONS is. This image meets two seperate and independant criteria. The first is that the police used the image as a visual depiction of the probable cause for a "hoax bomb" making it historically significant. The second is third parties have discussed the image itself to describe the internals of the clock (i.e. the Micronta clock analysis is a discussion of the image) as well as the pencil box. Either of those justifies its fair use inclusion. Both of those together make it an open and shut case that it should be included. --DHeyward (talk) 18:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

(EC) Actually reading more carefully, it seems an additional concern is copyright over the clock. This did occur to me, but I decided that it would be incidental, but as I've said, I'm far from an expert on such matters. Since we have no evidence that the copyright holder of the clock is willing to release it for any purpose, that sort of kills any free licence possibility. Media may feel they can use pictures of the clock for the purpose of news under their countries respective fair use, fair dealing etc laws, that's their decision. But there's even more reason to think other reusers, such as people wanting to sell shirts of the clock or something may not be able to do so, a sure sign the image is not under a free licence. Nil Einne (talk) 01:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I thought of that, too, but it doesn't seem to apply. In that case, the IPD would be in trouble. Since Ahmed has admitted to using significant parts from a clock, and that he did this in ten minutes at most, I believe Radio Shack would have a copyright interest. Did he substantially invent something? No. That's become clear. Again, this was released as evidence (and from what different news reports say, a lawsuit is likely) and the news media are using it, and there's been no hint that Ahmed has any copyright basis for copyright on this. Psalm84 (talk) 01:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Why would they be in trouble? They may be allowed to take and distribute the image under law for specific purposes. It doesn't mean they can release all copyrights held by other people. The image is therefore still non free, as it can only be used for certain purposes. To give a different example, if the police release a photo of a copyrighted painting that was stolen, it's fairly unlikely they're releasing the copyright to the painting. The media may be able to use the photo to provide info on the stolen painting. But they probably can't sell reproductions of the painting to art collectors from that photo. Nil Einne (talk) 01:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Utilitarian objects are not copyrightable in the US. There may be separable parts of the object that are copyrightable, like stickers or statuary, but I seriously doubt it for the clock he used and it's clear none of those elements made it into the picture.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps Ahmed and his parents can stop gallivanting around the country and pick up the clock take a photo and upload it himself, unless his sister wants him to do it a different way, after all she was the one that got suspended for a bomb scare the first time and coaches him what to say with Mark Cuban. ThurstonHowell3rd (talk) 01:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the Mohamed family have much better things to do than cater to demands from characters from Gilligan's Island. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh you and your personal attacks ThurstonHowell3rd (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think a "fair use" rationale would be the easiest to use. I really don't believe that the the involved police department intended anything other than to release the pic for public use (i.e. public domain) but they didn't make that legal distinction. When the media publishes something, they aren't granting a license to other users to continue using it, so if they are found to have published an image they didn't have the rights to, they can simply retract it and remove it from their website. If anyone copied it in the meantime, that person violated the media outlet's own copyright, so has no standing to claim they still have a right to use the image. If Misplaced Pages improperly releases an image that wasn't already released under a similar license, the end-user might possibly have standing to hold Misplaced Pages responsible for any damages they incur as a result of following Misplaced Pages's licensing on the image. That's the legal reason for Misplaced Pages to act differently than the media does, sometimes. As for the boiler-plate copyright on the police department's website, I'm sure that is more a case of "just in case we need it" than because of any intent by the department to go looking for copyright violations from their own web page. (I would presume, however, that it also is intended to help prevent any phishing of their site, since a totally public domain site could legally be copied, lock, stock, and barrel, and may be needed to protect any commercial content that is reproduced there.) Etamni | ✉ | ✓  01:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I think denoting it as fair use makes sense, and also noting, just as many but not all media publications do, that it was provided to the media by the IPD. That actually makes clear for readers some aspects of the story, so that they know how the photo fits in. That reader doesn't have to wonder if the photo might have come from Ahmed's Twitter account, for instance. Psalm84 (talk) 01:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

And again, the image quality has been reduced, which also greatly reduces the prospect of someone taking it from here, if for some reason the copyright should matter, though given all the circumstances in this case, it's once again hard to see how. Psalm84 (talk) 01:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Please note that there is now a dispute over whether the fair use claim for this image is justified under WP:NFCC. Please see: File:Ahmed Mohamed Clock by Irving PD.jpg and File talk:Ahmed Mohamed Clock by Irving PD.jpg. Dragons flight (talk) 08:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Should this article be renamed (again) to remove the teen's name?

I know it was just renamed, and believe that was certainly a step in the right direction, but the title still seems not quite right as it includes Mohamed's name. Yes his name is being mentioned right now, but it's the circumstances and not his personal notability which is the reason for that, and it's actually the incident that people will be thinking of. Of course people who aren't notable do end up doing something or having something happen to them that makes them notable, but he still isn't a household name. And most of all, he's a teenager. Whatever happened, it seems he should be afforded some distance from this incident as he finishes growing up. This is akin to "the right to be forgotten." The title of the "balloon boy hoax" article seems to be in line with this thinking, and though Mohamed is older and ,uch more of an agent in this story, again it seems to me that the fact that he's only 14 should outweigh all else. If for any reason he should become more notable in the future, the article could always be renamed at that time. Of course, I'm only talking about the article's title. He and his family went public with his identity and are currently putting themselves out in the public eye, so I'm not arguing that there's any need to avoid his name altogether. Psalm84 (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

You have a point there, but on the other hand, the incident and Mohamed are now intrinsically connected and will remain so for the foreseeable future. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Is his name really that much in people's minds, though? It seems to me that if and when people decide to search for more information on this incident, they're even now far more likely to put in terms like "Muslim," "student," "clock," and "bomb," than Mohamed's name, unless they've been following the story closely. Psalm84 (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions for a rename? - Cwobeel (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

What Ahmed did is pretty important to this article. Without his name, we'd have "clock incident". :D(But seriously, what do you want to rename the article to?) Epic Genius (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I have been playing in my head some ideas and they end up all being cans of worms (no kidding). I think that for now, the current title is OK. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, me too. Epic Genius (talk) 20:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Clearly we now need a disambiguation page for clock incident. clpo13_(talk) 02:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

If we are to rename this article to obfuscate the child's name, my suggestion would be MacArthur High School clock incident, as this is where the incident took place. I have no vested interest in this article either way. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 21:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, it does seem likely that some people will search under that term, or try using those as key words, so I have redirected that page to this article. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  01:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• Consider this:

Editing on a person who must be identified

This applies to, for example, a notable individual who is the main subject of an article.

Edit what is said about the person so that it is even less contentious than would be acceptable for a competent adult or not contentious at all. Do so not just by adding sources but by toning down the content in a way that remains consistent with sourcing."

I think the article has followed this guideline, which is natural to people given Mohamed's age, but the title doesn't if it includes his name. Psalm84 (talk) 01:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to start a move request, and see what the response here. You can do this with this template {{Requested move}} - Cwobeel (talk) 02:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't start another move request! There is already a move request for this article that is still open. If you want to suggest a different name, just suggest it in that discussion. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

RFC: How should the clock be described in the lead?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Biographies Politics, government, and law Maths, science, and technology When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

How should the clock be described in the lead?

• A - "the internals of a commercial digital clock inside a locking pencil box"

or

• B - "a digital clock built into a locking pencil box"?

Comments

Previously involved participants

• B - The description of the clock as a commercial digital clock is only available from a handful of sources, while the preponderance of sources does not describe the clock as such, or as a Micronta clock as some bloggers and a handful of sources have argued. Notwithstanding the fact that it may be possible that the clock was built from parts of a commercially available clock, the lead should not make statements of fact based on the unattributed opinions of a few bloggers and commentators, which in turn were all based on a low resolution photo released by police. The assessments and viewpoints of the clock in the photo, as well as comments by the main actor in this incident, are better left to be presented and attributed in the article's body. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
• B irrelevant details to the primary aspect of why the incident became and maintained its notability don't belong in the summary which is the purpose of the WP:LEAD. WP:UNDUE detail for the lead. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
• A It's obviously a hoax bomb, he took apart a clock in 10-20 minutes, the question (as Dawkins asks) is why did he bring it to school?! A few more questions in this very popular article:

The Federalist? Are you serious? Maybe popular with some people, but not a mainstream source by any stretch of the imagination. Maybe we should start a section on the conspiracy theories, which are currently being peddled in the right-wing media echo chamber. I'll get it started once I collect some examples. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

How about this: Texas police asked Mohamed to pick up his clock and Mohamed's hired lawyers to get his clock back? Glen Beck has a lot to say too: latest-and-very-revealing-details-of-ahmed-and-his-clock Raquel Baranow (talk) 03:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Got it started Ahmed Mohamed clock incident#Conspiracy theories. Please help expand, as there is more of this shit out there. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Glen Back has a lot to say about a lot of things, most of it crazy stuff. I have added a short comment of Beck, and that would be enough, see WP:FRINGE - Cwobeel (talk) 03:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

No offense to either of you, but your remarks here are partisan. The school was concerned about a possible hoax bomb, but that hasn't been established by authorities to this point. The Federalist also wouldn't be considered authoritative enough for Misplaced Pages.

On the other hand, though, there are good reasons to be reasonably cautious about the news media's reporting. A case in point which actually has some similarities is that of another student, Erin Cox, last year. The claim was that the school unfairly suspended her after she had gone to a party to pick up a friend who was intoxicated, and her family was suing. It was all over the media. I first heard about it on the Today Show, in fact, where the case was discussed as if all was known for certain (even though nothing had yet gone to court). You can search on the story and see the national coverage it got. Yet then the case suddenly dropped off the media's radar. I happened to think of it around that time, wondering how it had turned out since the media coverage suddenly stopped, so I searched on it, discovering this story. It's from a small, local publication, and it says Cox ended up confessing she was at the party longer than she had claimed and had been drinking. An article from the Huffington Post also questions her story.

We might actually know more for sure what did and didn't happen, if ANY major news media, even local TV news stations, had acted properly by covering the story to its conclusion. If they give so much attention to a story in the first place, then they should cover the conclusion of it as well, but they didn't. That's not right. CNN, ABC News, the Today Show and a whole host of outlets covered the story, and as they did often criticizing the school (as happened on the Today Show and in a CNN opinion piece I came across), yet then they never report on how the case turned out. Not even local news touches it. That means many people were falsely informed on the case, and the news media left them that way rather than correcting what they had reported. Psalm84 (talk) 03:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

No offense to you, but this is not the place to complain about the media, or to attempt to correct perceived wrongs. Regarding additional material on the conspiracy theories, there is a ton of more of that bat-shit-crazy stuff, but most of it on non-reliable sources. So unless a RS report on these, such as the Dallas Morning News, we can't use any of that material. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

You're missing the point here. The point is writing an accurate Misplaced Pages article, starting with the lede. It isn't accurate to create the impression in the lede that this is a homemade clock that Ahmed made from scratch and spent a great amount of time on. The evidence that has come out since the case went viral, has shown that's inaccurate. That includes evidence from Ahmed himself. He says he spent ten to twenty minutes on it. So the amount of work he put into the clock has been questioned by reliable sources for good reason. The fact that the news media isn't out there discussing this as it did his detainment isn't surprising, but these questions are being discussed in reliable sources. Now, to present as fact that Mohamed did make a bomb hoax, as Richard Dawkins is arguing, that would be putting in an opinion, despite his high stature and the claim being reported in major media. There aren't facts that back up the claim with certainty, and that would also take some sort of legal finding. It's only a suspicion. But the evidence that the clock was not built from scratch, as presented by people who know electronics and as reliable sources have reported on, is conclusive. Mohamed's family also hasn't disputed that this was a clock simply taken apart and soldered into the pencil box, it should be noted, and again, Mohamed's own words on the time he spent on the project are consistent with that. Can a clock be made from scratch in ten to twenty minutes? He said he soldered the pieces in the box. About how long with just that take? He also said the project was either “simple,” or “very simple,” in the context that it was something to show his teachers but not something he expected would be very impressive to them. That's another statement consistent with that it wasn't made from scratch, besides his statement that he used manufactured parts. So *evidence* in reliable sources is sufficient for us to know at least that much about his clock project, and that makes for a difficult description of the clock in the lede. Psalm84 (talk) 04:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

See #can we put this to rest?. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Respondents to the RFC, previously uninvolved

• - A. Now that the hoopla around this incident is dying down a little (and that's why WP is supposed to be NOTNEWS), it's starting to come out that all this kid did apparently was take apart a digital clock, toss the pieces into a pencil box, and haul it off to school for some reason. The sourcing on how his "clock" was made appears to be sufficiently solid to put it in WP's voice. As far as I know, no major media sources dispute this. Cla68 (talk) 11:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • There is no evidence that "it's starting to come out that all this kid did apparently was take apart a digital clock, toss the pieces into a pencil box, and haul it off to school " has anywhere near the interest or coverage that the "carting off a 14 year old Muslim boy in handcuffs to the police station to be fingerprinted" has received. Nor that those details are relevant to why the incident is important. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
    • No major media is reporting on the conspiracy theories and tone deafness of some bloggers, with the exception pf BuzzFeed that called it for what these are. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
• - A It's described enough in reliable sources. Also we have the interview from Ahmed that described his time and assembly. I'm satisfied that he put a Micronta clock in a pencil box. --DHeyward (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
• B - per significant non-fringe sources —Мандичка 😜 00:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
• A - "According to Irving police, Ahmed's case contained a digital clock that the student had taken apart and rearranged." Plus other sources that have identified the exact digital clock and case it was. Uhcord (talk) 02:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

References

1. http://www.wfaa.com/story/news/local/dallas-county/2015/09/15/irving-isd-student-detained-for-device-resembling-bomb/72339246/

• To respond to some comments about the incident itself: In one of Ahmed's early interviews, he described it as a small project, where he put a clock that he put in a pencil case. That it started beeping during class should have clued in anyone with reasonable critical thinking skills that it at its core, an alarm clock in a new case. People wonder why he brought it to school; he answered this: he thought his teacher would be impressed. That some people mistook this for some sort of brilliant new invention is not relevant to the core issue that he was punished in a grossly disproportionate manner.

To respond to the question about how to describe the project: A reasonable description might be "an alarm clock that was disassembled and reassembled in a modified pencil box." --Zfish118 (talk) 16:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• B. The vast majority of non-WP:FRINGE sources describe it that way. --Aquillion (talk) 23:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• B reads better, is better sourced, and is an accurate description even if the fringe nutters are right. --JBL (talk) 00:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
• B. I'd use "in" instead of "into", but this does read better. The comment by @Zfish118: describes the incident the best way I've seen, so far. (I commented on this on the WP:FRINGE noticeboard before I was invited by the RfC bot. I haven't made any edits to this article or read its talk page, so I'm saying I'm uninvolved.) Roches (talk) 12:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
• B. As described by non-fringe sources. Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 14:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
• B. Per our WP:UNDUE policy. Kleinebeesjes (talk) 22:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• I don't have much time to comment tonight, but I believe that it's important to state in the lead in some fashion that a commercial clock was used. Mohamed admits that much himself, and also makes statements consistent with that (for example, on the amount of time put into his clock project). This is significant and noteworthy because the news media's coverage on this aspect of the situation has been misleading, by and large. Many teens have built clocks from scratch (and I'm not saying Mohamed also couldn't, or perhaps did at another time, but in this case, he clearly didn't); I've read many comments on different sites about people who did so as teens. In this case, he did far less than what many teens have done. Yet the media presented this part of the situation as that he made the clock from scratch, and that misreporting was the basis for not only the perception that on the basis of this clock project alone, Mohamed is extremely talented, but also as part of his story on why he made the clock which the officials reacted to with suspicion. You can see the difference in that if Mohamed had spent some days or even hours on a truly homemade clock project, that clearly would have an impressed his teachers. Yet he spent minutes on a project in which he merely reassembled parts from a manufactured clock, and that teachers told him resembled a bomb. So this is an important part of the incident, given that it directly relates to the controversy in that it appears to be a factor in the school and police officials' questions over his motivations behind the project. Psalm84 (talk) 02:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• While I may agree with many of the things you say, Misplaced Pages is not the place to correct any perceived wrongs. In Misplaced Pages we follow the sources and describe significant viewpoints as reported in reliable sources. The discussion of the clock itself and how it was build and with what parts, can only be given justice in the article's body, with full attribution for a WP:NPOV presentation. And by the way, if Mohamed had spent some days or even hours on a truly homemade clock project I am of the opinion that nothing would have changed. The teacher that alerted the principal and police, was his English teacher, who would have been clueless no matter how the clok was built, or how long it took to put it together. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• Well, I don't agree, and these are some of the reasons why. It's not a matter of "correcting perceived wrongs," but correctly and truthfully explaining the matter. There actually is reliable source support for the fact that Ahmed didn't build a clock from scratch. The number of reliable sources doesn't necessarily matter, either. Media coverage can be distorting. Some things are hyped, including at times whole stories, and the media can "get things wrong," particularly with developing situations. So how the media presents things is highly significant, which can't be overstated, but isn't 100% binding in the sense that every judgment of the media must be agreed with if such a judgment isn't entirely supported by the facts they themselves are reporting. In other words, it's important to make logical use of these reliable sources, and during the editing I've done here, I've seen that's what editors generally do.

In this case, the media gave the impression that the clock was homemade (and Mohamed's presumed bbvious talent in making it therefore underscored the suspected bigotry of the school and police). Is it disputed that the media gave the "homemade" impression? But there is enough evidence scattered around in reliable sources that "homemade" truly wasn't the case as presented by the media. And as I've started to discuss, this is a significant point in the incident, and important enough to be reflected in the lead, as it is discussed in the article proper. Psalm84 (talk) 03:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• Ugh, there is an unfortunate problem with the news media on this one. The clock Ahmed "built" is obviously just the guts of a commercial clock stuffed into a pencil case. Whether he disassembled and reassembled it is unknowable. The problem is twofold: Many of the media sources claiming he built it are putting their own words in Ahmed's mouth, and many of the "media" sources claiming he didn't built anything then immediately follow with theories about Ahmed and his Dad conspiring to make the school/police look bad. So the "significant" viewpoint is just wrong (not unusual for mass media) and the "correct" viewpoint is coming largely from anti-Muslim dingbats (to be fair, this does not describe everyone criticizing Ahmed's "invention", but if you take a good look around the internet, it's many or most of them). I want the fact that Ahmed's clock is just the guts of a commercial clock stuffed into a pencil case to be in the article, and I think it belongs. But I'm not sure I've come across any sources that would justify it anywhere else but down in a reactions section. I think it would be best if, right here, people presented what they feel are the best sources for a sentence characterizing the clock. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

How about the Make magazine article? They're very pro-Ahmed, they're not dingbats, they're a serious edited magazine, and they say clearly that it's the guts of a commercial clock stuffed into a pencil case. -- 120.23.90.79 (talk) 06:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Someguy1221: no one is arguing that descriptions of the clock should not be in the article, and in fact they are already included in detail. What this is RFC is about is what to say in the lead. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• Whoops, I didn't make it clear I already knew that. Though the last time I read the article, it was not in the lede. I see that has changed. I don't like the disjointedness between the lede and the introduction of the article right now. The lede describes accurately what the clock was, but the incident section only gives Ahmed's statements on what the clock was, and the truth isn't revealed until further down. The description should be the same in both places, and based on the best available sources. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, you lost me there. What is the "truth"? - Cwobeel (talk) 03:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Ugh, I seem to really suck at writing today. Maybe I'm tired. The truth is that Ahmed's clock is a commercial clock minus its case. The truth is present in the "responses" section, where it belongs, and more recently in the lede, which is what we are supposed to be discussing. I think the lede should reflect the article, but entire first half of the article only presents Ahmed's description of the clock. So either the start of the "incident" section should change, or the lede should change, and whatever decision gets made should match was the best available sources say. The best sources I've found discussing the nature of the clock and asserting what the clock is (rather than reporting what so and so said the clock is) are all blogs. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• Consider this article from the Daily Beast, which interviewed several of the electronics experts that have spoken out in media and offered the opinion that it's a manufactured clock simply removed from its case:

• [http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/21/nerds-rage-over-ahmed-s-clock.html "Ners rage over Ahmed's clock

The story notes that the Daily Beast tried to contact Ahmed's family for comment, but they didn't return the messages. Psalm84 (talk) 04:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

As I have said, I have no issue in adding sources and commentary about the clock in the article's body, with full attribution. What we arr discussing is what to say in the lede. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

And actually all the comments from sources described in the the Daily Beast, are already in the article. What is not in the article is this: The fact that a teenager was put in handcuffs over his clock appears to be less of a concern to some people than the apparently shoddy engineering of the “invention” in question. and some engineers say something’s fishy about the high schooler’s invention, and the Internet has been lit aflame by claims of conspiracy - Cwobeel (talk) 04:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

BTW, I would not oppose a section on the conspiracy theories, if such theories gain sufficient prominence to warrant inclusion. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The fact that it is a commercial clock is not a conspiracy theory. You are telling one side as fact without a reliable, unbiased expert source. The teenager was put in handcuffs because he brought a specific clock to school. The clock is obviously an important part of the incident, whether you agree it looked like a bomb or not. The fact you have such a problem with accurately describing or even showing a picture of the clock, leads me to believe you also feel the teachers were justifiable in thinking it could be a hoax bomb. 106.187.88.122 (talk) 11:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

You are way off here - we dont go searching from someone we identify as "neutral" - we present what the mainstream reliable sources present, as they present it. the manufactured "controversy" about "that 14 year old didnt build a clock he merely put one back together" is a sideshow and irrelevant to the main coverage of the incident and why the incident is notable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Describing what the clock is as identified by reliable sources is not a "manufactured controversy" as you put it. The clock is central to the story and you are attempting to use an article to showcase what you personally feel is important about the incident. Most media centered around the fact that a kid brought a device which was confused as a bomb by school officials, and whether this is an example of profiling. Clearly the actual device is central to the story, nobody is saying he got arrested singularly because he is not white and showed up to school. Irving is one of the most diverse cities in the country and has a large muslim population, this has been covered as "arrested for bringing a device to school (when muslim)", not arrested for showing up to school (when muslim). Your argument for censorship is incredibly weak. - 106.187.88.122 (talk) 12:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Quite the contrary, YOU are the one pushing for excessive details that YOU feel are "important" but which haven't been given that level of importance in the reliable sources coverage of the story. The coverage of the story is most decidedly not: "In Irving Texas, One of the most diverse cities in the country, a boy tried pass off a minor bit of reconstruction as if it were the new sliced bread! (oh, and by the way he was dragged off by the police. and oh, he was Muslim.)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

That is not even a remote paraphrasing of what I said, and is totally uncalled for. - 106.187.88.122 (talk) 12:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• I started a reply on this, but in the course of it stumbled across something really shady done by the New York Times, if it isn't somehow a mistake. I don't know. I'll get to that in a moment, but on this topic, then, I have to say that it isn't a matter of following the shape of the news media's coverage, or not following it.

It's a matter of following an encyclopedia's format, specifically Misplaced Pages's, however well that fits with the media's coverage.

In this case, if we were to follow the media's coverage, the public reaction would be far more important, even more important than what happened.

Below is a partial outline the New York Times first report, I believe, on the incident, by paragraph.

And this is where I ran into something with the New York Times article that really surprised me. :The original article at the link that I read when the story broke has now been “transformed” into a very different article with the same link. So I found the original article on the Boston Globe web site, which credits the Times. I don't think I'm mistaken about this, and it seems entirely unprincipled to radically alter the original story later on and pass it off as the original.

:Original N.Y. Times story via the Boston Globe

Original link with altered story; original title: Ahmed Mohamed, 14, Builds Clock, Is Cuffed for Bomb Hoax, and Ends Up Invited to White House; new title: Handcuffed for Making Clock, Ahmed Mohamed, 14, Wins Time With Obama

A site which carries some of the original N.Y. Times article and a link to the “replacement” article

Original intro:

A high school student in Texas whose hobby was inventing thought he had a unique idea for a project: to build his own clock.

The effort landed him in handcuffs and juvenile detention on Monday, accused of making a hoax bomb.

The detention of Ahmed Mohamed, 14, a student at MacArthur High School in Irving, Tex., near Dallas, generated accusations that he was targeted because of his religion.

New intro:

HOUSTON — Ahmed Mohamed’s homemade alarm clock got him suspended from his suburban Dallas high school and detained and handcuffed by police officers on Monday after school officials accused him of making a fake bomb. By Wednesday, it had brought him an invitation to the White House, support from Hillary Rodham Clinton and Mark Zuckerberg, and a moment of head-spinning attention as questions arose whether he had been targeted because of his name and his religion.

Looking through the new article, it seems substantially different from the original, and it's concerning that the N.Y. Times would just switch articles like that. If you reference what they write in another work, including here, then when anyone follows that reference, as people will, there will be entirely different material.

Back then to my point. On the original N.Y. Times story, you see that paragraphs 1 and 2 say that he wanted to make a clock and he ended up handcuffed and placed in juvenile detention. It isn't until paragraph 16 that the incident is even discussed. Paragraphs 3 through 15 talk about the public reaction, including President Obama's support and a couple of statements from Josh Earnest, and also mentions that Ahmed appears at a news conference at his house, where reporters were given pizza and drinks by his family. Then it talks about the public discussion, quotes Ibrahim Cooper, mentions that people online posted selfies of themselves with clocks, talks about support from Hillary Clinton and Mark Zuckerberg. At paragraph 16, it has one short sentence on Ahmed making the clock, and the next paragraph/sentence “covers” what happened in school. Then remainder of the article discusses the actions of the school and police interspersed with more public reaction.

The New York Times' article is representative of the media's coverage, but it doesn't, as often is the case, fit the framework of an encyclopedia article. Psalm84 (talk) 22:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• The lede has to be accurate, including in its description of the clock. I think an accurate statement on that would be something to the effect that since the story broke, questions have been raised about the originality of the teen's project. Psalm84 (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• I've added some to the lede, which I believe makes sense since as it is now, it doesn't adequately summarize what happened. Here's what I've come up with:

In September 2015, Ahmed Mohamed, a 14-year-old Muslim Sudanese American high school freshman, was detained by police at school in Irving, Texas, under suspicion of possessing a hoax bomb. An aspiring engineer who had won prizes for science projects in the past, Mohamed brought a digital clock that he had constructed within a pencil box. It was widely reported in the news media to be a homemade clock, although questions have been raised about its originality, and Mohamed has said that the clock took him ten to twenty minutes to make the night before, and that he used some manufactured parts.

The incident began when a teacher heard the clock's beeping in class and told Mohamed that she thought it looked like a bomb. The teacher confiscated the clock and Mohamed was later questioned, taken into custody by police, handcuffed, transported to a juvenile detention facility, fingerprinted, and his mug shot was taken. He was then released with no charges filed but was suspended from school for three days.

News of the incident went viral on Twitter, and sparked a debate on racial profiling and Islamophobia. Politicians, technology company executives, and media personalities remarked on the incident. Psalm84 (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Where's the evidence that he ever won anything in a school science project? It's not in the article. Raquel Baranow (talk) 03:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Psalm84: you can be WP:BOLD and make the edit, although we dont have any text or sources in the article about Mohamed winning science prizes. If you have these sources, add to the article first. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Lede is being discussed and should not be changed, especially without evidence for the science prizes. "Aspiring engineer": is POV are all boys who take apart things "aspiring engineers"? Raquel Baranow (talk) 03:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I ran across that claim and I'm nearly certain it was in a major news source. It takes some time to cite sources, so I haven't been in a hurry to change the lede, but wanted discussion on it first. I'll try to locate a source on his previous interest in science. Psalm84 (talk) 04:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Psalm84: see:

• Selk, Avi (September 26, 2015). "Before Ahmed's fame". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on September 27, 2015. Retrieved September 27, 2015.

- We should add some of that to the articles' body and then add something per your wording to the lede. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

can we put this to rest?

Per NPR article of September 16 (two days after the incident):

In interviews with local media, Mohamed says he wanted to show the engineering teacher at school what he had done over the weekend: take apart a clock and rebuild it inside a pencil case.

References

1. "Texas High School Student Shows Off Homemade Clock, Gets Handcuffed". NPR. Retrieved 26 September 2015.

We can close this RFC if we use that wording: He took apart a clock and rebuilt it inside a pencil case. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC) - Cwobeel (talk) 04:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Along the lines of that comment, I would like to say two things: 1) I don't like the way this RFC was phrased as a choice between only two specific alternatives – there are many possible ways to describe the thing Mohamed brought to school; and 2) As time moves on, it seems possible that a better understanding of the actual details will emerge – probably we won't forever need to be trying to base our understanding on a photo and a press release from the police and the remarks that the people involved in the incident (and the people not involved in the incident) have already made. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the current version is as close as we can get to a factual and neutral summary of the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The opening sentence of that version (and the current article) says that he "was detained by police at school". That statement tells readers that he was kept at the school, which is incorrect. He was taken from the school in handcuffs to a detention facility where he was fingerprinted and photographed (and further questioned). The fourth sentence provides that information, but the first sentence seems incorrect to me. A person should be able to read the first sentence and stop there with an accurate understanding of what it says. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

That first sentence is still the same. As there has been no response to the comment just above, I plan to soon change the sentence to address that problem unless someone else does something to fix it, although I haven't yet decided exactly how I will change it. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales meets Clockboy!

OMG, Wales tweeted a pic of him with clockboy! Wonder if pic is copyrighted?Raquel Baranow (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

That's pretty interesting. Just a few days ago, Wales seemed to be saying the incident didn't seem especially noteworthy and that he wanted the article about the boy to be deleted. See User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 195#Ahmed Mohamed (student) and especially this. He later relented (in response to a comment from me) and agreed that a renaming would suffice. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Things change! Etamni | ✉ | ✓  04:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the comments by Jimbo "a few days ago", after first saying that the article should be deleted per BLP1E,, he said a few hours later that the incident was notable enough for an article, but that a biographical article on the student wasn't appropriate. As it turned out, the consensus here followed that latter approach. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's the same edit I referred to as "relented" above. It may be more correct to refer to it as a clarification of his thinking than as a relenting. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Now I better understand why things have been going the way they have at this article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit Requests on 27 Sep 2015

This edit request to Ahmed Mohamad clock incident has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Part 1 – This part was  completed already by Cwobeel, which was seen when returning to article after posting the request.

On 26 Sep 2015 (10:40), an editor removed the POV-lead template and replaced with the systemic bias template (here). The editor (188.166.114.102, or someone using same IP address) has made only two edits. No discussion was added concerning this change on the article talk page. As the editor did not begin a discussion, nor enter into any discussion (none of which appears to concern "systemic bias"). The former (POV-lead) was added here on 25 Sep 2015 (17:56), removed by Cwobeel, added again here the same day (20:04) by a currently blocked (for 72 hrs) IP. Please do either of the following:

Option 1 - Change "Systemic bias" to "POV-lead|date=September 2015" as was before the ("drive by") edit switching the templates.

Option 2 - Remove the "Systemic bias" template and do not replace with "POV-lead" that was added by blocked IP.

Part 2

On the first reference (name="IFLAT") under "Incident" heading, please correct the typo in "work=" by changing "On" to "on" (i.e. to fix the broken wikilink).

Part 3

Under "Conspiracy theories" heading, the third paragraph (beginning with "Other theories posit...", please change "planned to get handcuffed and being in the news" to "planned to get handcuffed and be in the news" or alternatively "planned to get handcuffed to be in the news" (original article has "...planned to get handcuffed to hit the news").

Thanks! 99.170.117.163 (talk) 03:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Part 2 and 3  Done. Part 1 not done. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Part 1 was already done earlier while I was posting request, and apparently the other two while I was returning to annotate #1 had been done - you're good (or gmta), Thnks! :) 99.170.117.163 (talk) 03:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

1) Under "Conspiracy theories" heading, paragraph beginning with "Other theories posit...", the last sentence has no space between "The Dallas Morning News" and end of prior sentence (/ref), please add a space and also suggesting removal of wikilink as it's already linked earlier in article.

2) Same section ("Conspiracy.."), first paragraph ("A number of theories.."), change "casted" in last sentence to cast – for all meanings of the verb, past tense and past participle is cast. Thanks! 99.170.117.163 (talk) 05:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done - Thanks for pointing those out - Arjayay (talk) 15:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Arjayay, I appreciate it! :-) 99.170.117.163 (talk) 01:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

How is this not flagged as controversial?

This article is without doubt the worst example of Misplaced Pages bias I have ever seen in 10 years as a reader. Some people, unfortunately, still take content posted on Misplaced Pages seriously. This article should be nominated as a warning for those people. Even Wiki founder, Jimmy Wales, has glommed onto Ahmed Mohamed. — Jackdaw20 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 06:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC).

We do not do WP:DISCLAIMERs. (other than the general disclaimer on all pages) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I would like to thank the new editor for their comment. If they would like to help improve the article, they are hereby encouraged to share their suggestions. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theories"

I changed that section heading and removed the synthesis that led off the section. I hope it wasn't an experienced WP editor who did that, because they should know better. Please remember that WP doesn't take sides. Cla68 (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Sources used in that section explicitly call these to be conspiracy theories, as so we should. These are not just innocuous "contrarian views". There is no WP:SYNTH, read the sources - Cwobeel (talk) 22:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories about Ahmed Mohamed are spreading nearly as fast as the boy’s celebrity. A week after police called a homemade clock that Ahmed brought to school a “hoax bomb,” then dropped the charge, viral posts have called the 14-year-old everything from a fraudulent inventor to an Islamist plant who planned all along to get himself handcuffed. Most of these theories cite no evidence, many contradict each other and some clash with known facts — like a statement from Irving City Hall that the MacArthur High freshman never intended to frighten anyone with his circuit-stuffed pencil case. Yet rumors of a sinister plot are moving into the mainstream, intersecting with celebrities like Richard Dawkins and Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban.

References

1. "Craze over teen clockmaker from Irving shifts from celebrity to conspiracy". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on 23 September 2015. Retrieved 27 September 2015.

Restored, with attribution per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV - Cwobeel (talk) 22:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

That's a single source. Will restore the more NPOV version. Cla68 (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

No a single source. There are others as well if you just take the time to review the sources. These are not "alternative narratives" these are made up stuff and speculation galore. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

A number of observers have questioned or criticized the original narrative of the incident. ??? Original narrative? Deleted per WP:OR. Also deleted your scare quotes around conspiracy theories. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Last week, Ahmed Mohamed’s homemade clock got him arrested and then invited to the White House. This week, the conspiracy theory backlash against his ‘invention’ begins.

References

1. "Nerds Rage Over Ahmed Mohamed's Clock". The Daily Beast. Retrieved 26 September 2015.

- Cwobeel (talk) 23:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

A few others (not currently used in the article):

• Just one more Ahmed conspiracy theory: the mystery (or not) of Twin Towers Transportation
• Ahmed Mohamed Clock Fake Say Hoax Conspiracy Nuts Imagining Nerdy 14-Year-Old To Be Terrorist Or CIA Fraud
• Ahmed Mohamed’s Clock Was “Half a Bomb,” Says Anti-Muslim Group With Ties to Trump, Cruz

- Cwobeel (talk) 23:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

"Narrative" is a very loaded word when it comes to controversy and conspiracy theories. It heavily implies that someone is guiding public opinion or that the official statements are merely a story, not based in fact. I'd avoid it if at all possible. "Conspiracy theories" is a common enough phrase for this. clpo13_(talk) 23:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone else (other than me) look at the "Conspiracy theory" section and see a trivia section? And not just a trivia section but a POV trivia section? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Glad you asked, I certainly agree, the best "conspiracy theories" are not even mentioned:

• 6 unanswered questions
• Police say, "Pick up your clock" and lawyers are hired to get clock
• Students say clock looks like a bomb
• Family blocking release of records
• Glen beck on the clock Raquel Baranow (talk) 23:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
• Muslim teen assembles a ‘clock’ and a dangerous PC media trap: This is a new story, a few hours old.
• Irving police will release more info soon

Tic, tic, tic Raquel Baranow (talk)

Trivia? Or good reporting? The Internet is alight with fringe theories about the incident and should be part of this article with no doubt. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to add more, but just note that some of these are not Reliable sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Raquel Baranow: World Net Daily, are you serious? Classic fringe, and not a WP:RS by any stretch of the imagination. 00:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Multiple sources characterizing as conspiracy theories:

1. Selk, Avi (September 23, 2015). "Craze over teen clockmaker from Irving shifts from celebrity to conspiracy". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on September 23, 2015. Retrieved September 24, 2015. Conspiracy theories about Ahmed Mohamed are spreading nearly as fast as the boy's celebrity.
2. Mitchell, Jim (September 23, 2015). "You need a scorecard to follow the Ahmed conspiracy theories". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on September 24, 2015. Retrieved September 24, 2015. I woke up this morning thinking Ahmed Mohamed's few days of fame had expired, and the world would move on to other issues. But after reading about the conspiracy theories now swirling social media, I have one question. What ever happened to facts?
3. Drago, Mike (September 24, 2015). "The Ahmed Mohamed affair". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on September 27, 2015. Retrieved September 27, 2015. Then, when kids are kids and adults over-react and the rest of us go bonkers, people like Van Duyne can point fingers, say people are overly sensitive and condone stupid conspiracy theories.
4. Greenwald, Will (September 21, 2015). "Bomb, Clock, or Just a Future Career in Engineering?". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on September 27, 2015. Retrieved September 27, 2015. The incident sparked a debate about racism and Islamophobia (and the inevitable conspiracy theories emerged)
5. Briquelet, Kate (September 21, 2015). "Nerds Rage Over Ahmed Mohamed's Clock". The Daily Beast. Archived from the original on September 23, 2015. Retrieved September 27, 2015. It's been enough for conservative websites like Breitbart to all but fuel conspiracy theories on Mohamed's meteoric rise and his father's history as an anti-Islamophobia gadfly who twice ran for president of Sudan.
6. Fang, Lee. "Ahmed Mohamed's Clock Was 'Half a Bomb,' Says Anti-Muslim Group With Ties to Trump, Cruz". The Intercept. Retrieved September 27, 2015. Gaffney, who was an acting assistant secretary of defense for several months in the Reagan administration, has spread a variety of Islamophobic conspiracy theories in recent years
7. Francis, Matthew R. (September 25, 2015). "Why is Richard Dawkins such a jerk?". Slate. Archived from the original on September 27, 2015. Retrieved September 27, 2015. Dawkins even links to a piece at the right-wing hate-monger site Breitbart, thereby spreading a conspiracy theory the paranoid author espouses.

- Cwobeel (talk) 00:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a good example of original research: A number of observers have questioned or criticized the original narrative of the incident. I have seen no sources that describes the speculation and fringe theories as critiques of "the original narrative". - Cwobeel (talk) 00:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Cla68: I'd appreciate a response. There is a sufficient number of sources calling these conspiracy theories, and your addition of " critiques of the original narrative" is OR. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@DHeyward: I'd also expect a response from you on your revert. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

See discussion at the Fringe theories noticeboard: WP:FT/N#Ahmed Mohamed clock incident. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• The term "conspiracy theory" has a negative connotation suggesting lack of credibility. We might want to make the distinction between what are called conspiracy theories and reasonable questions of Ahmed Mohamed's version of the story. I don't think we should imply that all questions of his version are conspiracy theories. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • " reasonable questions of Ahmed Mohamed's version of the story" ???? A 14-year old brought a clock to school and was dragged off in handcuffs by the police when they knew it was not a bomb -as reported by all reliable sources INCLUDING the police. There is no "reasonable" question about the story. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "conspiracy theory" has a negative connotation suggesting lack of credibility. Yes, exactly. That is what sources call these, and so shall we. This is not a case in which we are interpreting sources, rather it is a case in which sources refer to these as conspiracy theories for obvious reasons. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Often times one needs to do a lot of reading and thinking to come to a decision. This is not one of those times. How anyone could argue that these are not conspiracy theories is beyond me. Gandydancer (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• Cwobeel, you're starting to come off as having some WP:OWNERSHIP issues with this article. As you can see above, I'm not the only one concerned with the violations of NPOV going on with this article. You can keep it up if you want to, I guess, but I think compromise and cooperation is probably better in the long run. Cla68 (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

At this point it should be called "The Dallas Morning News reports on hoax allegations and conspiracy theories" as that is the only source for that entire section as it has been gutted. Uhcord (talk) 04:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Uhcord: I haven't seen a lot of other secondary sources presented; have you? A checklist of every conspiracy theorists' Tweet or public comment results in an article that gives devotes too much weight to a very tangential aspect of the subject. VQuakr (talk) 04:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Video deleted

@DHeyward: Why did you deleted the video of the press briefing? Why is the article "a better version" without it? - Cwobeel (talk) 01:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

If there is no response to this question, I will restore the video tomorrow. It is a notable part of the incident. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment from chief program officer for juvenile law

Excuse my French, but who gives a hoot what Raquel Baranow thinks? You can't just delete material that is sourced to a reliable source from a notable individual, just because as you said in your edit summary this is obvious and he seems very happy to me. Care to explain why did you delete this content? - Cwobeel (talk) 03:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Put it back if you want this article to sound like you're reading The Onion. Raquel Baranow (talk) 05:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree. It has no place in an encyclopedia article. What's supposed to be a NPOV encyclopedia article. It's leading a reader to come to a conclusion, it's pointy, and it borders on WP:CRYSTAL. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

??? This is the text "Shawn Marsh, chief program officer for juvenile law at the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, said that just getting arrested and processed by police, can have negative effects in a young student such as Mohamed, stating that the so called "perp walk" can be harsher for teenagers "experienc the stigma, the shame, of being arrested, paraded out of school"

How WP:CRYSTAL applies here? Do you really think that a 14-year-old being paraded through school in handcuffs is no big deal? Do you have kids? - Cwobeel (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

"Paraded"? Give me a fucking break. That's not what happened. But using such a loaded descriptor does give more insight to how POV you are in regard to this article and the issue.

You've been here long enough to know why Crystal applies here. You've been here long enough to know why this isn't encyclopedic. You've been here long enough to know how this is POV crap. Which is, in my opinion, why you want it to stay. Whether I have children or not means nothing - so please drop the outraged act as a way to manipulate. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The pot calling the kettle black - Cwobeel (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I guess I could respond with I'm rubber you're glue, your words bounce off me and stick to you. Please just stay with an adult discussion over content and leave the neener-neener stuff for lighthearted moments. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Paraded vs Perp Walk either way the kid has street cred now. ThurstonHowell3rd (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• I think this is more POV than NPOV. Not that there couldn't be any basis for its inclusion, but actually the focus of the coverage has been much more on the Islamophobia claim than any possible permanent effects on Mohamed. And if would be included, then this statement from him should also be included, it would seem:

“Social support and community support – those can offset risk,” said Shawn Marsh, chief program officer for juvenile law at the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.

“Children in the juvenile justice system, experience a massive amount of risk. With the right protective factors they can get support and develop robustness.”

http://www.ibtimes.com.au/muslim-teen-arrested-us-after-teacher-mistakes-clock-bomb-1467683

Psalm84 (talk) 23:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

One and a half hours and footnote

Footnote number 5 doesn't say how long he was interrogated for. Hackwrench (talk) 04:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

It is the CNN source: - Cwobeel (talk)

Yes, that CNN article says "In an interview late Wednesday with MSNBC's Chris Hayes, Ahmed said he was pulled out of class at MacArthur High School by his principal and five police officers and taken to a room where he was questioned for about an hour and a half". I have seen something roughly similar in some other sources. More precisely, I think I recall some source saying the principal arrived with one police officer, and they took him to a room where there were four more police officers. I haven't noticed any sources saying how long he was further questioned at the juvenile detention center (which at least one article referred to as the Irving police headquarters rather than as a juvenile detention center). —BarrelProof (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I found no sources mentioning the length of the detention and the juvenile detention center. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Following up on the comment above about what "I think I recall", there was this in the Dallas Morning News article: "the principal and a police officer pulled Ahmed out of sixth period ... They led Ahmed into a room where four other police officers waited." It says they took him to "a juvenile detention center" (without identifying a particular facility). —BarrelProof (talk) 19:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Non reliable sources, and more conspiracies

Bachcell added some material sourced to Conservative blog Weasel Zippers, which is not a WP:RS, piling on the conspiracy theories. DIFF and DIFF. Not acceptable, unless that blog is referred to in a reliable non-self published source. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Way too much weight is currently given to conspiracy theories in general. Trimming it down to 2 sentences now per WP:BLP, and I request that consensus be achieved here before adding more back in per the requirement for "greatest care" in that policy. VQuakr (talk) 05:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Clock photo analysis.

I've removed this section, since my reading of it is that it's mostly using strung-together quotes pulled out of various sources to make disparaging implications about the clock and about Mohamed; it doesn't really have the sources to illustrate that this aspect is WP:DUE so much weight. The few sources that discuss it in any depth are blogs and the like, while several sources are just quotes pulled out of context to support the section's central thesis via WP:SYNTH. (As an aside, as I noted in my reverts, I feel that this section clearly makes negative insinuations about a WP:BLP subject based on insufficient sourcing and WP:SYNTH -- I wouldn't usually be so aggressive about removing it, but in this case, given that it's a breaking story about a living subject, the potential for harm is much higher than usual, so the standards for inclusion have to be similarly raised. --Aquillion (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Instead of blanket reverting someone, why don't you rewrite the section that was added in order to make it more agreeable with your objections? Cla68 (talk) 23:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Because you cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear? Although, you are more than welcome to spend your time trying.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Because I believe that it is WP:UNDUE to give this aspect an entire section. The fact that the clock was taken apart and reassembled in a pencil case is already covered in the "background" section with the one sentence I feel it is due ("Mohamed said he wanted to show the engineering teacher at school what he had done over the weekend: take apart a clock and rebuild it inside a pencil case"); the sources for this section don't seem sufficient to justify touching on it in more depth than that, nor (once you strip out the WP:SYNTH) is it clear what this section intends to add to that one sentence already present further up. --Aquillion (talk) 23:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Police provided the photo of clock that got kid arrested unexpectedly it gets analyzed, don't see this as possible not to consider noteworthy.Boxingmojo (talk) 23:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, what part of the analysis do you think requires a section? What do you feel the section is saying that isn't already covered elsewhere in the article? Its only purpose, as far as I can tell, is to lend additional weight to a few blogs and similarly obscure sources, and to commit WP:SYNTH in support of the conspiracy theories below it. Random bloggers commenting on a photograph isn't news; absent significant mainstream coverage, why do you feel they need a section to themselves? --Aquillion (talk) 23:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I readded the section though I took out what appears to be random blogger commentary.Boxingmojo (talk) 23:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

But why? The article already identifies the clock further up ("Mohamed said he wanted to show the engineering teacher at school what he had done over the weekend: take apart a clock and rebuild it inside a pencil case"). I still feel that this section is committing WP:SYNTH in that it's attempting to string together these quotes in support of the conspiracy theories further down, and it's still clearly giving WP:UNDUE weight to a few commentators, but all that aside -- what do you feel it adds to the article that isn't already there? Why do you feel it requires an entire section devoted to it? Also, I should point out that your most recent revert is a WP:3RR violation -- I suggest that you self-revert it, at least for now. --Aquillion (talk) 23:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Boxingmojo. Cla68 (talk) 23:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

No need for a separate section based mostly on non WP:RS. We already have this in the conspiracy and hoax claims section: Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst Andrew Napolitano speculated Mohamed and his parents may have committed a "purposeful hoax" by referring to the clock as an invention, and that electronic experts have said the clock looks similar to a 1980s clock sold by Radio Shack. anything beyond that would be WP:UNDUE, and give a voice to WP:FRINGE. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

POV problem now in hoax section is now merged with clock analysis. The same two sources from Dallas Morning News and Daily Beast arguing that there is no hoax are now used both in the introduction and closing of the hoax section, making the entire section fairly biased.Boxingmojo (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Biased against fringe theories? That is great, then. See WP:FRINGE: Misplaced Pages summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence. A Misplaced Pages article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The Daily Beast is a fringe source. Using the same source material in the Daily Beast and Dallas Morning News to point out hoax commentary and then use that source material to to debunk it is more a POV issue.Boxingmojo (talk) 00:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

No, The Daily Beast is not a "fringe source". It has its political biases but it is not WP:FRINGE. If you feel the source used is for some reason not RS for the claims it is being used to support then you should make that argument, if not here at the reliable sources noticeboard. What POV do you feel is being under/over represented? As has been mentioned before, Misplaced Pages represents views in proportion to their coverage in reliable sources. In particular we do not give any legitimacy to conspiracy theories and always make sure the text of an article can not be read in such a way as to give credence to such ideas. Jbh 01:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

If Daily Beast and Salon are allowed, than why not Breibart, Daily Caller, or The Blaze?Boxingmojo (talk) 02:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Also using the same source material to introduce and conclude the hoax section is biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boxingmojo (talk • contribs) 02:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

A key part of the problem with Brietbart et al is that they lack the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy required under WP:RS; they've repeatedly made serious errors and often haven't even issued retractions. The issue isn't WP:BIAS; biased sources can be useful, especially to illustrate a point of view (although we have to take their bias and how prominent, mainstream or high-profile they are into account when considering things like due weight and whether their coverage of something is noteworthy.) But we can't use sources that are unreliable, and Breitbart is infamously unreliable, so it can never be used as a source for anything about a WP:BLP. The other issue here is that WP:BLP imposes higher requirements for sourcing anything that could harm a BLP; that is to say, because the conspiracy allegations could cause immediate harm to Mohamed, we need higher-quality sources than we do for other things. Gossip-magazines, political rags, and sources far outside the mainstream (which might be usable to source an opinion in other contexts) are not usable to make allegations against people who fall under WP:BLP. ---Aquillion (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Please put the serious (and eminently notable) clock analysis back in, and keep it separate from the conspiracy theories. -- 120.23.121.131 (talk) 11:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

If it were eminently notable, then it would be eminently covered by serious reliable sources. Do you have some of those? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

BLP article on Ahmed Mohamed?

Over past few days there is an emerging number of sources related to Mohamed. This may not fit in the current article which is about the incident itself, so it may be better located under a BLP article on him.

Here are some of the sources:

• "Turkish Prime Minister Davutoğlu meets Ahmed Mohamed". Hurriyet Daily News. September 26, 2015. Archived from the original on September 28, 2015. Retrieved September 28, 2015.
• "Turkish PM Davutoğlu meets US Muslim teen Ahmed Mohamed arrested over clock". Daily Sabah. Daily Sabah with Anadolu Agency. September 26, 2015. Archived from the original on September 26, 2015. Retrieved September 28, 2015.
• "Ahmed Mohamed Joins The Stars At The Social Good Summit In NYC". Information Nigeria. Retrieved 28 September 2015.
• "Clock-making teen Ahmed Mohamed joins the stars at the Social Good Summit on technology and global impact in New York City". Boston NewsTime. Retrieved 28 September 2015.
• Selk, Avi (September 28, 2015). "Ahmed's celebrity tour goes global as family heads to Qatar". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on September 28, 2015. Retrieved September 28, 2015.
• Floyd, Jacquielynn (September 28, 2015). "Floyd: Let's let Ahmed go back to being a kid". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on September 28, 2015. Retrieved September 28, 2015.
• Met Mayor of New York City Bill de Blasio, Comptroller of New York City Scott Stringer, New York City Public Advocate Letitia James, and members of New York City Council. Visit arranged by NYPD Muslim Officers Society. "Irving Teen Arrested for Clock Visits NYC City Hall". KXAS-TV. NBC DFW; NBC Universal Media, LLC. September 28, 2015. Archived from the original on September 29, 2015. Retrieved September 29, 2015. Fourteen-year-old Ahmed Mohamed toured the building Monday as part of a visit put together by the NYPD Muslim Officers Society. ... Mohamed said de Blasio told him to 'keep doing what you're doing.'
• "Around the area and state: Muslim student who built clock welcomed in New York". Houston Chronicle. Staff and Wire reports. September 28, 2015. Archived from the original on September 29, 2015. Retrieved September 29, 2015.

See also Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Mohamed (student)

Thoughts?

- Cwobeel (talk) 00:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

All of that seems to be ongoing reactions to the clock incident, or only interesting to the public because he was the boy in the clock incident. I think we don't need a separate article about him until some reliable sources write articles about him that don't talk about the clock incident (or at least don't refer to it as being the key reason that he is interesting to talk about). —BarrelProof (talk) 00:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I hear you. So were do we add this material in the article, if at all? - Cwobeel (talk) 00:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

He would definitely fall under WP:BLP1E, which means an article about him would be premature. These things probably belong in the 'responses' section of this article, either in a new subsection or in one of the existing ones (possibly retitled to broaden it a bit.) eg. if we cover the Turkish Prime Minister meeting, it would go in the politicians section, probably. --Aquillion (talk) 01:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• No separate article on the subject is appropriate, that was the outcome of the AfD. The aftermath of the event can be discussed in the current article. We can revisit in six months or so if a change to a BLP is appropriate.--Milowent • 12:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Background section

At the present time, the "background" section cites unspecified interviews with the media, according to which, Ahmed claimed to "take apart a clock and rebuild it inside a pencil case."

The sentence is taken verbatim from the NPR article. However, it links to a Dallas News article, which says no such thing, to a Dallas News interview, which also does not contain this statement, and mentions a WFAA interview, which I've been unable to find. I've checked four different interviews with Ahmed and he does not explicitly describe it as a rebuilt clock in any of them.

If such an interview exists and the statement was not an interpolation by NPR, it would be nice to have a direct link, a quote and a date.

The problem with the statement is that it provides inadequate background for the rest of the article. When the story broke on 9/15, the device was consistently described by the media as "a homemade clock" or "an invention". The fact that it was a reassembled commercial clock was mentioned in passing by a WFAA article (which quoted Irving police) on 9/16 but otherwise mostly ignored. It only went "viral", so to speak, when Dawkins waded into the controversy on 9/20 and his comments got picked up by the conservative media.

Much of the immediate reaction, from Obama's tweet and Zuckerberg's invitation to Dawkins' lashing out, seems inexplicable if the device in question was acknowledged to be a rebuilt commercial clock from day 1, but makes sense if the device was initially assumed by everyone to be a genuine homemade clock. --Itinerant1 (talk) 06:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

See WP:RSBREAKING, particularly, "Claims sourced to initial news reports should be replaced with better-researched ones as soon as possible, especially where incorrect information was imprudently added. All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution per WP:PSTS." I am not clear on why you feel the provenance of the components makes responses "inexplicable," though. VQuakr (talk) 06:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Among other things, we have this: : " accused Ahmed Mohamed of performing a hoax by pretending he invented the clock he brought into school." (This incident was in the article when I was writing my original comment, but looks like someone deleted it.) If Ahmed admitted at some early point that it was a rebuilt clock, then Dawkins' reaction makes no sense.

It is possible that Admed did admit it in one of the early interviews, but, to my knowledge, it was not disseminated by international media before 9/20.--Itinerant1 (talk) 06:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Is anyone but Dawkins claiming that it is some huge surprise that that circuit board is of industrial origin? Seems pretty obvious that it was printed and wave soldered. VQuakr (talk) 07:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

For reference, here is Dawkins's point.

"He got a clock, got a screwdriver, opened the clock, took the works out and put them in the box. He did nothing else whatever. There was no creative act in that at all, he took it to school, as an invention, and then a teacher was afraid it might be a bomb. It wasn't a bomb, it was an unaltered clock which he had taken out of its case."

“You have to ask the question: Why would a boy take a screwdriver to a clock, take the works out, and put it in a box?”

I think this video will help explain what Dawkins meant. For comparison, here is an image of Ahmed Mohamed's clock .--Bob K31416 (talk) 13:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The NPR article is dated September 16; so there is nothing here. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

And some of you seem to miss the fact that what triggered the coverage of this incident, was the photo of a 14-year old in handcuffs posted on Twitter, not a photo of a clock or a discussion about the amount of engineering (or lack of) of the damn clock. This is the photo: https://twitter.com/anildash/status/644020453724585984?lang=en - Cwobeel (talk) 14:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Please be careful and note that this talk page is not for advocating for or against Ahmed Mohamed. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I am well aware of that, but what I said above is a verifiable fact. In any case, I don't see the point of this discussion or what proposed edits are being contemplated. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the OP could clarify that. And perhaps you could clarify your message, "The NPR article is dated September 16; so there is nothing here." Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't it his sister that started the campaign? Kids call in bomb hoaxes to high schools all the time. Some even cause lockdowns and arrests but don't make national news. It's post-Columbine (two white children that brought their propane barbecue project to school). It's a legitmate question as to why Ahmed ignored his teachers instruction not to show it. I'd also like to know the evolution of the story as it first started as "show my engineering teacher" to "show all my teachers". Was that the press that evolved or Ahmed's story? --DHeyward (talk) 18:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I really don't understand what is being discussed. Are we using this talk page as discussion forum in which editors are commenting on motives and speculation? If that is the case, please use your personal talk pages. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify: It may be the case that this incident was concocted by his sister (in which case she has a bright future in PR and social marketing given the massive traction it got). It may also be the case that Ahmed ignored his teachers because he wanted to make a scene. Or that the "lamestream media" fell for it, got duped and developed a sustained biased narrative till today. But this page is not the forum to litigate this incident or to speculate on what "really" happened. There are other fora more suited for that, your Facebook page, your blog, discussion forums such as Reddit, alternet and others. Not here, please. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

This wrangling about the nature of the homemade clock ignores the central point: all digital clocks today will either use some sort of large-scale integrated circuit for the clock logic or, avoiding that, are making a primitivist gesture by using obsolete or inapt technology. As to why a 14-year-old boy would disassemble and reassemble a clock, this is what boys and girls do, and in fact, taking apart a clock has been a staple of fiction and metaphor for decades. See Niven and Pournell, A Mote in God’s Eye for one example. Here’s a 19th century example from Janet Harderman’s Heavy Yokes. Sure, you could make the clock from TTL gates. You could make the LEDs by refining your own Gallium Arsenide, made from rat poison and from Gallium culled from your backyard mine. But why? MarkBernstein (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

To your question, DB's Kate Briquelet nailed it: But some engineers say something’s fishy about the high schooler’s invention, and the Internet has been lit aflame by claims of conspiracy. The fact that a teenager was put in handcuffs over his clock appears to be less of a concern to some people than the apparently shoddy engineering of the “invention” in question. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Breaking up a wall of text & this article is being discussed on reddit

How about breaking up a wall of text with this quote:

You have to ask the question: Why would a boy take a screwdriver to a clock, take the works out, and put it in a box?” -- Richard Dawkins

Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

???? Rachel: WP:NOTFORUM. If you want to join the discussion at Reddit, you can. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

NOTFORUM applies. How is this helpful to improving the article? It is not, and it is disruptive. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Her comment doesn't qualify for removal per WP:NOTAFORUM. Please consider and recall all of the bullshit posts on article talk pages you and others contribute frequently that could be deleted per notaforum but aren't. Your comment here and removal of Raquel's comment is selective at the very least. Prejudicial and pointy, as well. Leave it alone. It will hurt nothing if it exists. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I am sure that if someone links to a thread off-wiki, in which you are attacked, you will be so happy to keep it there. The Reddit link is irrelevant. Refactored again. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

You're now saying you want to get rid of the content in this section because it links to something off-Misplaced Pages that is what you perceive to be an attack on you. Before, you claimed you wanted to get rid of it because it was violating WP:NOTAFORUM. The two reasonings couldn't be more unrelated. Does this mean you used the NOTAFORUM reasoning dishonestly? (because that's what it now looks like to me). In response to your comment: I couldn't care less what an off-Misplaced Pages site has to say about me - negative or otherwise. Because it seems negative comments about you at an off-Misplaced Pages site truly bother you, I suggest you stop doing things that give them a reason to make negative comments about you. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The Reddit part is irrelevant. I do not think the proposed blockquote would be an improvement. Indeed, I have not seen any convincing argument as to why Dawkins should be mentioned in the article at all, let alone quoted, let alone quoted in a breakout quote box. VQuakr (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

It's a significant question that addresses the credibility of Ahmed Mohamed's account. Comments like that are needed for NPOV. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Why do you think Dawkins's tweet is relevant to said credibility? No one has explained this reasoning despite my repeated requests. And no, comments like that are not needed for neutrality; see WP:FALSEBALANCE. Dawkins is a famous biologist and noted atheist; on high school education, law enforcement in Texas, and electronics engineering he is out of his areas of expertise. VQuakr (talk) 00:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

What is exactly "Mohamed's account" that Dawkins challenged with his Tweets? Invention or not, high-level engineering or a re-assembled clock in a small pencil box, has nothing to do with the incident, which is a kid that dabbles in electronics being arrested and led in handcuffs because he brought something to show his teachers. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

"because he brought something to show his teachers". No, he was handcuffed, detained, and questioned by police because he brought something to show his teachers that, in the words of Bill Maher, looked "...exactly like a fucking bomb". -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

It questions the credibility of Ahmed's account with respect to his motive for bringing the clock in a pencil case to school to impress his teachers. This is at the heart of the controversy, which is, did he bring the clock to school to impress his teachers with his skill with electronics, which Dawkins questions because Ahmed didn't do much in that regard, or did Ahmed do it to alarm the teachers with something that looked like a timing device for a bomb.

Note that it is not our function to debate what Ahmed Mohamed's motive was, which would be a forum discussion, but to present what Ahmed says his motive was and to present questions in reliable sources about the credibility of his account. If we present only Ahmed's account and comments only by people supporting his account, that would not be NPOV.

Re WP:FALSEBALANCE, for editors it's a matter of judgement whether this question is reasonable enough to include, not necessarily believe, but just to include. I think it is reasonable enough to include. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Not reasonable at all, and indeed is not our role to question the credibility of anyone. We already have the material from police and the mayor, who were closer to the incident. Dawkins on Twitter? no way. See false balance and WP:NPOV. How is Dawkins a "significant viewpoint"? - Cwobeel (talk) 13:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, looking at it that way, how is the viewpoint of anyone not directly involved in the case important? If we worked off that premise, then we wouldn't have the opinions of anyone who wasn't there, anyone who isn't a police department official, who isn't a school administrator or spokesperson. Also going off your premise, let's be sure to get rid of the opinions of newspaper reporters and other media commentators as well. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you really saying that you do not know the difference between Twitter comments and analysis by secondary sources with a reputation for editorial review? WP:CIR. @Bob K31416: as discussed here, Dawkins's observation that it is a reassembled commercial clock is quite obvious from looking at the images of the device. His conclusion that this equates with a "hoax" or a ding on anyone's credibility, however, is the part that simply does not follow. VQuakr (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

"Are you really saying that you do not know the difference between Twitter comments and analysis by secondary sources with a reputation for editorial review?" Answer: No. Are you saying you didn't know I wasn't referring to the Twitter tweet, rather, a published interview with Dawkins? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Dawkins is a biologist, with a tendency to say bunch of nonsense in Twitter. He is not a journalist with editorial control. See a good article about it here . Quote: These days, Dawkins describes himself as “a communicator”. But depending on your point of view, he is also a hero, a heathen, or a liability. Many of his recent statements – on subjects ranging from the lack of Nobel prize-winning Muslim scientists to the “immorality” of failing to abort a foetus with Down’s syndrome – have sparked outraged responses (some of which Dawkins read aloud on a recent YouTube video, which perhaps won him back a few friends). For some, his controversial positions have started to undermine both his reputation as a scientist and his own anti-religious crusade. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The source wasn't Twitter. It was a news article about a TV interview of Dawkins in which he said,

"He got a clock, got a screwdriver, opened the clock, took the works out and put them in the box. He did nothing else whatever. There was no creative act in that at all, he took it to school, as an invention, and then a teacher was afraid it might be a bomb. It wasn't a bomb, it was an unaltered clock which he had taken out of its case."

“You have to ask the question: Why would a boy take a screwdriver to a clock, take the works out, and put it in a box?”

I think this video will help explain what Dawkins meant. Dawkins is asking a reasonable question and it should be included in the article, along with the reliable source. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Apparently Mr. Dawkins doesn't know any 14-year old boys because that is exactly the kind of shit that 14-year old boys do, and have been doing for a hundred years - because they are 14-year old boys. While anyone can have an opinion, we are not required to repeat opinions, particularly when made by people who have no expertise in the subject areas about which they are opinionating. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Bob K31416: what is the reasonable question? Asking why a 14-year old budding electronics enthusiast took apart a clock and re=assembled it on a pencil box? Is that such a notable and reasonable question? If so, care to explain why? - Cwobeel (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel, I think I already answered that in this discussion in my message of 12:31, 30 September 2015. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

TRPoD, Note that the current state of our article is that we have opinions about the clock saying that it is cool (by someone who is not an expert in electronics), we have extreme opinions criticizing the clock incident by saying that it was an Islamist conspiracy, but we don't have any more-reasonable criticizing opinions, such as the above question by Dawkins. We need to correct this situation to comply with NPOV. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

No, we don't need to attempt to create a false balance. Where did you get that opinion? And if the most relevant criticizing opinions are "Why was a 14-year-old boy doing shit that 14-year-old boys do?" we certainly dont need to include them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

TRPoD, That wasn't a very useful comment. You ignored the point that I made in my last message, you brought up an issue I already addressed in my 12:31, 30 September 2015 message, and you're putting quotation marks around your own comments expressed in terms of shit, etc. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I did address your point. You were making a point that we "needed to balance". I pointed out the policy that says, no, we do not need to create balance where there isnt. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) we have opinions about the clock saying that it is cool. That is an expression of support because of the stupid detention of a kid in school. Not an assessment of his engineering prowess, for Pete's sake. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

"That is an expression of support because of the stupid detention of a kid in school" That's a conclusion drawn by you, Cwobeel. And that conclusion means nothing in the realm of editing Misplaced Pages in a NPOV manner. I don't even know why you're giving your opinion on why Obama said what he did. It's neither here, nor there. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, no, that is the conclusion of the reliably published sources which is what we present. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

TRPoD, On second thought, maybe you didn't understand the point. The following question might help. Why do you think it is OK to have in the article the extreme criticisms that are in the section Hoax allegations and conspiracy theories, but not Dawkins's question? --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Because it is not a significant opinion. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

It looks significant to me. In fact, I think it's one of the the best challenges of the credibility of Ahmed's account. It's certainly better than what is in the section Hoax allegations and conspiracy theories. This looks like something akin to a straw man argument, where only the least credible criticisms are being presented in the article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, if the best "challenge" is "Why was a 14-year-old boy doing what 14-year-old boys do?" that says something in an of itself. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks like the three of us are at an impasse here. Anyone besides the three of us want to comment? --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I will get my sister and my mom to talk about the boxes full of electronics that my nephews and I and brothers took apart when we were 14 (and failed to put back together - in a pencil box or otherwise). You can ask your mom about where she put the stuff that you tried to tinker with. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There are additional opinions at Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Ahmed Mohamed clock incident Just search for Dawkins there. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you talking about this link? Epic Genius (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes that was the link, which I removed as not relevant. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I was just wondering. Epic Genius (talk) 20:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Bob K31416: Looks like the three of us are at an impasse here. Anyone besides the three of us want to comment? I see a lot more than three editors in the particular thread, so I might be misunderstanding what you are saying here. I think it is safe to say, though, that there is no consensus to add a quote box of Dawkins's commentary. Do you disagree? VQuakr (talk) 01:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the quote is appropriate, but not a box around it. It looks like there isn't much interest in putting more reasonable criticism in the article than the extremist type of criticism that is in the Hoax section. So for now it seems that the article will continue to have an NPOV problem in this regard. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The opinion of Dawkins is not a significant opinion, per WP:NPOV Misplaced Pages should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those view. So, feel free to add that quote and more if you wish to Richard Dawkins, not here. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

My question wasn't really about your opinion, but about whether there was consensus to add the quote. The Dallas News source already in the "hoax" section of the article addresses Dawkins's criticism fairly dismissively: the general response appears to be, "Yes, these were commercial clock parts in a pencil box. Who cares?" I am having trouble seeing the basis for your opinion that there is a POV issue with the current version. VQuakr (talk) 02:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

For anyone following this discussion, here's the link to the present version of the Hoax section to check what VQuakr wrote regarding the Dawkins quote that is the topic of this talk section. Also note that the Hoax section has only one source. Here's the source where the Dawkins quote discussed in this Talk section appeared , which isn't in the Hoax section.

...and that's enough for me. Too much time spent here. Good luck with the article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I know lots of 14-year old boys, and I remember being one myself. They don't generally do this, they generally build clocks from cheap kits. Taking things apart and re=assembling them in pencil boxes is what much younger kids do. And in line with your comment about "people who have no expertise in the subject areas about which they are opinionating," lets take out all the discussion of the clock my non-engineers, and re-insert the material from Make magazine. And, unlike POTUS, Dawkins is at least a scientist, and a notable one. -- 120.23.63.151 (talk) 06:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

BLP violation removed. What does Make magazine have to say that is missing from the article? VQuakr (talk) 06:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The Dawkins quote is still the elephant in the room. It is the element behind the Hoax bomb statute in Texas. Motive has to be established, there was no solid evidence he brought the clock to school to scare anyone, so the question remains: "Why would a boy take a screwdriver to a clock, take the works out, and put it in a box?” How about we add the quote to the paragraph about Dawkins and please, no more ad hominum about Dawkins! His question is genius and sums everything up nicely. Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

That has been answered so many times already, why are you keep asking the same question? ... Let me quote Shock Brigade Harvester Boris , who nailed it: The obvious answer is "budding curiosity." When I was a lad my mother despaired of my always taking things apart to find out how they worked. One thing led to another, and now I make my living by finding out how things work. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC) - Cwobeel (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

No authority, including the police that handcuffed and detained the kid, thought for a minute that this was a bomb, hoax or otherwise. Dawkins's observation about the clock is trivial, his extension of the trivial observation to a conspiracy theory is moronic, he completely misses the point of why this story is notable in general, and all this has been noted in secondary sources. VQuakr (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

There are other possible reasons he brought the clock to school:

• a prank, like he did with the school's projector,
• “A silly prank that was taken the wrong way"?
• that he's not too bright?: NBA owner Mark Cuban of the Dallas Mavericks told HBO “Real Time” host Bill Maher Sept. 18 that he spoke to Mohamed on the phone, but his sister supplied answers any time the conversation turned toward how, exactly, events transpired on the day of his suspension.
• That he "did a really dumb thing" bringing the clock to school.
• A pawn who was put up to it.
• a "purposeful hoax."

Dawkins raises a really good question that we don't have to answer but will soon come out. Raquel Baranow (talk) 19:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Useless quote mining. You are selecting sources based on your POV without any regard to their usability or reliability. We already cite reliable secondary sources that identify Dawkins's bullshit as bullshit; if you want to roll in it, do it somewhere else. VQuakr (talk) 00:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Sister?

Where's the best place to mention his sister starting the twitter/facebook campaign as well as her suspension from middle school for making bomb threats? --DHeyward (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Sources? VQuakr (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Breitbart , WND , Infowars , Pamela Geller and a large number of conservative blogs . Non RS.- Cwobeel (talk) 20:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

All of which started from this article in The Daily Beast After the MSNBC segment, Eyman and I sit down in the hallway where she says the same thing happened to her as Ahmed. “I got suspended from school for three days from this stupid same district, from this girl saying I wanted to blow up the school, something I had nothing to do with.” Eyman talks with the slightest lisp, almost imperceptible, but it becomes stronger as she gets emotional. “I got suspended and I didn’t do anything about it and so when I heard about Ahmed, I was so mad because it happened to me and I didn’t get to stand up, so I’m making sure he’s standing up because it’s not right. So I’m not jealous, I’m kinda like—it’s like he’s standing for me.” Eyman said her suspension was in her first year of middle school, “my first year of attempting middle school in America. I knew English, but the culture was different, the people were different.” You go figure, how that gets converted into what is reported in these sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I would argue for a BLP violation by the OP above. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? "The Baily Beast" and "The National Review" are the sources I was referring. The two relevant details are 1) the sister started the viral campaign because 2) she felt when she was suspended for a bomb threat, nobody stood up for her. You don't think the genesis and motive are relevant?

After the MSNBC segment, Eyman and I sit down in the hallway where she says the same thing happened to her as Ahmed.

“I got suspended from school for three days from this stupid same district, from this girl saying I wanted to blow up the school, something I had nothing to do with.”

Eyman talks with the slightest lisp, almost imperceptible, but it becomes stronger as she gets emotional.

“I got suspended and I didn’t do anything about it and so when I heard about Ahmed, I was so mad because it happened to me and I didn’t get to stand up, so I’m making sure he’s standing up because it’s not right. So I’m not jealous, I’m kinda like—it’s like he’s standing for me.” --DHeyward (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

From Snopes On 16 September 2015, Mohamed’s sisters Eyman and Ayisha (18 and 17, respectively) started a Twitter account (@IStandWithAhmed) to communicate with supporters on behalf of Ahmed. In just a few hours, the account had attracted more than 30,000 followers: --DHeyward (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Snopes is not a reliable source. As for the text that I posted and you re-posted, it does not say anything about a "bomb threat", neither these sources speak of such. It is only the fringe media and known conspiracy theorists that are making these headlines, and so are you. We have her words alone, which paint a different picture. Please remove the allegations you posted above as it is a BLP violation. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

It seems that you are saying that it is worse to be accused of making a "bomb threat" than it is to be accused of wanting to "blow up the school". Actually, I see another point that you might be making is that "allegedly" should be used. Just to get past this side issue, maybe DHeyward can change the OP from "for making bomb threats" to "for allegedly wanting to blow up the school." --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Bob K31416:: No, not at all. All we have is the sister's comments. The right-wing echo chamber is putting out headlines such as "Ahmed’s Sister Admits School Suspension for Alleged Bomb Threat 3 Years Earlier", while a different headline from a fringe liberal source may be "Ahmed's Sister Targeted in Previous Case of Islamophobia in Irving" (i.e a Sudanese Muslim girl wearing a hijab, first year in school after arriving the the U.S. is accused by a schoolmate of wanting to blow up the school, in Irving from all places, and gets suspended.) Neither the latter not the former would be acceptable in this article as it is all speculation. Best we could do is to quote the sister verbatim, but not sure if that is related to the subject of the article to warrant inclusion. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

How is his sister being suspended for a bomb threat in the same SD not in the background section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tex249 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

grossly WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACKING. or we could add content about global warming because, you know, they live in Texas where a lot of greenhouse gas carbons are extracted. Or about Big Ben, because, you know, its a clock. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

If reliable secondary sources are connecting the two and saying there is an epidemic of Islamophobia in the district, that could be relevant. So far, no reliable secondary sources have been presented, though. VQuakr (talk) 00:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Is he known for climate change and his sister works for Exon Mobile? Cause that should be in the article. Was he detained for threatening to blow up Big Ben and his sister had was also detained for threatening to blow up Big Ben? Cause that should be in the article. Reliable secondary sources are connecting the two and its relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tex249 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

What reliable secondary sources? VQuakr (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

"“I got suspended from school for three days from this stupid same district, from this girl saying I wanted to blow up the school, something I had nothing to do with.”" http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/17/man-i-went-viral-my-day-with-ahmed-moahmed-the-most-famous-boy-on-earth.html Tex249 (talk) 01:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

That is even from a sympathetic source. Tex249 (talk) 01:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

What reliable secondary sources? VQuakr (talk) 01:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

That isn't primary. Tex249 (talk) 01:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

It most certainly is. It is a freaking interview. Please read WP:PRIMARY. VQuakr (talk) 01:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Bullshit. It's not primary at all. If it were the sister saying it on her Facebook account, that would be primary. It's been heard by a writer for a secondary, reliable source and reported in the same secondary, reliable source. And, even if it were primary (which it isn't), the following found at WP:PRIMARY would apply: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Misplaced Pages". -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

You are confusing "primary" with "self-published". They are not synonyms. The "unless restricted by another policy" part of your quote explicitly applies. VQuakr (talk) 01:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Wrong on both counts. But nice try. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

When only fringe sources publish bombastic headlines, and no other reputable sources follow, it says something very loud and clear. Nothing to do here. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Headlines are irrelevant as they are editorially generated, not reliable, and the body is the source for the quote. --DHeyward (talk) 03:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

A sensationalist headline is a good canary for a poor source, but I agree we obviously want to use article content not headlines to source articles. That doesn't address the reason that this proposed content is unsuitable for this article though, which is the lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources as discussed at WP:DUE and WP:SYNTH. VQuakr (talk) 04:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Luckily the DailyBeast has no such headline. --DHeyward (talk) 04:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

"Most famous boy on earth" is (albeit self-knowingly) sensationalistic. That in no way addresses the reason that this proposed content is unsuitable for this article though, which is the lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources as discussed at WP:DUE and WP:SYNTH. VQuakr (talk) 05:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

So you will be removing the sources titled "Here's The Ridiculous Texas Law That Allows Law Enforcement To Pretend A Digital Clock Is A Hoax Bomb", "Facebook, Google roll out welcome mat to Ahmed Mohamed", and "'Thank you so much for giving us Muslims the freedom to take our giant cumbersome clocks to school'", right? Tex249 (talk) 18:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Some of the responses could be trimmed and some of the sources could be improved, but in general, WP:BLP requires a higher standard of sourcing for things that could harm the reputations of living people; the other things you mentioned are not subject to the same level of scrutiny because they don't have the immediate potential to do damage to anyone. --Aquillion (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

There is a police department and a school full of teachers who would beg to differ. Tex249 (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

A police department is not a person; it's a department. A school is not a person, it's a school. The Misplaced Pages policy on biographies of living persons applies to....living persons, not police departments, schools, or corporations. Corporations are not people. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

oh, mark, didnt you learn anything from the presidential campaign? "Corporations are people, my friend" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

This article mentions individuals. Tex249 (talk) 23:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Grammar or typo mistakes

I'd fix these myself, but I have a conflict of interest, and you Wikipedians have locked the article, anyway. "make the clock. and that he" "Some of Mohamed middle school teachers at Sam Houston school" "when a potential threat of criminal act". I'll trust that you can figure out what's wrong with these passages. - 2601:42:C100:9D83:7437:6AC9:9F2:97F0 (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Not sure what is the issue with the sentence "Some of Mohamed middle school teachers at Sam Houston school" (that is what the source says). - Cwobeel (talk) 02:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

possessive. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Responses section is too long

It's unnecessary (and probably not really possible) to highlight every single response by anyone everywhere, especially given the amount of attention this has gotten; so I think we should try to trim the responses section down to particularly noteworthy responses. Looking over it, these are the ones that seem worth keeping:

• The very highest-profile stuff (most of the stuff in the Politicians section.)
• Responses that have themselves gotten significant secondary coverage (which we should cite and use as the source, rather than the primary source of the comment itself.)
• Responses that we can group together and summarize in ways that illustrates a common broad response (eg. many sources have commented on this as an example of the problems with zero tolerance policies.)

In general, a laundry-list of random quotes by arbitrary talking heads isn't very useful; I'm not sure it's useful to divide up "Media", "Comedians", and "Others". --Aquillion (talk) 04:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense. Give it a go - Cwobeel (talk) 04:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I also agree that the section is too unduly long. Epic Genius (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Bias in "Hoax allegations and conspiracy theories" section

This section seems almost entirely based on the view of the The Dallas Morning News. -- 120.23.250.236 (talk) 01:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

That does not inherently make the section biased. The problem that stripping the section addressed, is that having even a single sentence from each of the talking heads in the echo chamber of hoax theories results in too much weight given to those theories. So instead, we use a secondary that examines those theories as a group. If there are other reliable, secondary sources about the hoax theories we could discuss diversifying the sourcing of the section. VQuakr (talk) 02:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The Dallas Morning News And

• PC Mag and
• ABC and
• Slate and
• Richmond Times Dispatch
• The Washington Post and
• the Seattle Times
• the collected New Jersey newspapers of NJ.com
• The Herald

You can add any of them you like if you want to spread the refs. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Of these I think PC mag and WaPo are the best sources. ABC doesn't provide any analysis except to juxtapose the City of Irving's official position against the mayor's; Slate is a little too irreverent to be taken seriously; RTD includes a usable but very brief mention of the subject; Seattle Times is a syndication of the DMN; the NJ.com article is moving and eloquent but too polemic; and the Herald Extra is another syndication of the DMN article. Does anyone object to me using the PC Mag and WaPo sources to diversity the "hoax theories" section? VQuakr (talk) 04:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The PC Mag source is pretty good, but I fail to see how it can be used in the conspiracy theories section, unless it is used to further debunk them, that is. But please, by all means go ahead.- Cwobeel (talk) 14:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, reliable sources are going to debunk bullshit conspiracy theories. That's pretty inescapable and in compliance with WP:FRINGE. The OP pointed out that the section relied on a single source, which was definitely true and fixable. VQuakr (talk) 15:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• Richard Dawkins is an internationally renowned scientist, so his opinion on the matter definitely has weight. I readded a short paragraph on his "conspiracy theory." Cla68 (talk) 06:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• By the way, if a world-renowned scientist says that there are problems with Mohamed's clock, and a non-peer reviewed, non-academic source like the Dallas Morning News takes exception with Dawkins's comments, aren't we, per our guidelines, supposed to give more weight to the academic view? I've seen some of you here argue this very point in other articles like homeopathy. Cla68 (talk) 07:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• I am pretty sure it is not "science" to look at a photo and declare : That 14-year-old is a fake. In fact all of the coverage from all the sources that cover the Dawkins fooferla are focused on how inappropriate Dawkins repeated attacks on the phrasing a 14-year-old made. To include Dawkins as a viable critique is taking it out of the context in which it is presented.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
• Dawkins is known for his science, but also known for making some rather stupid comments on subjects unrelated to science. And posting a series of rants in Twitter is not the same as publishing in a peer reviewed journal, lol. But if you insist in keeping these rather silly comments in the article for posterity, be my guest. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cla68: Dawkins's opinion has nothing to do with science. He is not speaking as an expert and his statement's certainly have not been peer reviewed; we don't just treat everything a scientist says as gold just because they are a scientist. VQuakr (talk) 15:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

This is nothing like the scientific objections presented at the Homeopathy article since in that article we are not relying on tweets form scientists that have no expertise in the field in question to counter those claims. To put it clearly discounting Dawkins here is not does not mean that we have to reject scientists on the Homeopathy article.--67.68.29.107 (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• As others have said, review WP:RS. On an article about a subject, we try to rely on sources from people who are experts on that subject, published in reliable sources such as peer-reviewed journals that exert editorial control. If Dawkins was commenting about evolutionary biology here, we could possibly use him as a source (though ideally we rely on publications in peer-reviewed journals); but he is neither an expert on clocks nor sociology nor politics, and the quotes in question are self-published on Twitter, so his comments here have no more weight than yours or mine. Now, the coverage of his comments might be worth touching on, but his expertise as an evolutionary biologist is utterly irrelevant to this topic and lends no weight whatsoever to his tweets about it (beyond the attention he might attract from more reliable sources by being a famous talking head, of course.) And we have to use the coverage to determine the weight WP:DUE to his tweets; again, being an evolutionary biologist doesn't magically make his tweets about unrelated things become relevant. Given that he later seems to have retracted most of what he said, I'm dubious that it's worth covering here -- it might be worth covering on his own page, but mostly it seems to have become a scandal about Dawkins more than anything else. --Aquillion (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Minor Edits

This page has been locked--and after reading the talk page, I can see it is for good reason--however there are one or two typos that should probably be corrected by people with privileges when the chance arises. Specifically, under "hoax allegations" the following passage:

" positing that Mohamed planned to provoke his arrested to embarrass "

There might be others that need fixing, but this is the only one I found on a quick read-through. I'll do another scan when I have more time and am less tired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.50.226.143 (talk • contribs)

I see that has been corrected. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Bill Maher

I don't think the second sentence is over coverage. Both sources felt it was important to include it. One grabs part of its title from it and the other one chose to close their article with the quote. How do I prove it isn't over coverage besides stating I don't think it is? Is it a matter of cites/coverage? Newsweek is another one that covered it and with the full quote as well.

Would the following be better - "Bill Maher, host of HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher, said on the program that Mohamed deserves an apology, that his clock "looks exactly like a fucking bomb" and "It's not the color of his skin. For the last 30 years, it's been one culture that has been blowing shit up over and over again."

"Why are we uncritically parroting Maher's bigoted, inaccurate, irrelevant claim?"

I think it is relevant to the article because the bigotry you speak of was supposedly, according to other sources in the article, a leading cause of his arrest. I don't think we should wipe it simply because we believe it is inaccurate (it is not violating BLP as it speaks as a criticism of a culture and not casting any aspersions towards Ahmed or a single person) or disagree with it. Uhcord (talk) 08:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I think we should remove the "comedians" section (which is just opinions by Maher and Danish Ali). Neither one seems particularly important to understanding the event, though Ali's satire might merit a mention in Islamophobia. The Newsweek bit you cite is in the "culture" section and adds the puntastic, "Thus far, it looks as though no one has clocked Maher for his insensitive comments." There are plenty of sources available that link Mohamed's detention with Islamophobia, so quoting an example of additional Islamophobia after the event isn't helpful. VQuakr (talk) 14:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Allegations of previous suspensions?

Where does the history outline here fit? --DHeyward (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

After being trouted for reckless BLP, you are seriously presenting "Headless body in topless bar" NYDN as a source for claims about a living person??? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

And are you really confusing the Daily News (New York) with the New York Post? Please at least look at the links you create. --DHeyward (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Oops, I did confuse one terrible tabloid with another terrible tabloid. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Also Dallas Morning News --DHeyward (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

the source states the records of whether or not there were suspensions is a sealed document, so it is hearsay, and non relevant to the fact that his being handcuffed and dragged from school for having a clock provoked enormous reaction around the world. But from the full reading of the, i suppose we could put in "The anti-Muslim reaction from the police was predicted by the anti-Muslim harassment he had received from the students". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

No, that would be synthesis. The Dallas News did, however, interview one of his teachers and would have fact checked the allegation of previous suspensions with other sources (note how they left out details and said it was because they were unable to contact others). And the whether the records are sealed doesn't really have a bearing in this article. Records that are sealed: His three-day suspension from High School over the clock, being taken into custody by police, details of any statements that he made to police or the school. Yet we still have a whole article. --DHeyward (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

To be more precise, some aren't even sealed, they are destroyed. Police have no record of him being handcuffed or taken into custody. They have no record of photographs or fingerprints. Are you proposing that those details be removed because there is no record of them? --DHeyward (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead if you want, to summarize stuff like this from the Dallas Morning News

It’s also the school where Ahmed racked up weeks of suspensions, became convinced an administrator had it in for him and — before he left for the high school where he turned famous — prompted Irving ISD to review claims of anti-Muslim bullying In November, Bond wrote a letter to the superintendent, school board president and other officials, protesting that Ahmed had been suspended for defending himself during a hallway fight. A larger boy had been choking Ahmed, Bond wrote. What’s more: “Ahmed also alleges that everyday, students in the school are calling him ‘Bacon Boy and Sausage Boy and ISIS Boy.’” Bertha Whatley, who was Irving ISD’s attorney last year, said “high-level” officials at the district reviewed Bond’s letter. Bond said the principal overturned the suspension after meeting with Ahmed.

Go ahead and make my day. But if your intent is to summarize with a statement of "allegations of previous suspensions", then forget it. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

His previous suspensions have been covered by the Daily Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3254317/Ahmed-Mohamed-s-former-teachers-say-teen-trouble-maker-suspended-weeks-time.html

• And the Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/10/01/clock-kid-keeps-ticking-and-so-does-media-interest/
• And the Ledger Gazette http://www.ledgergazette.com/ahmed-mohamed-before-arrest-clock-making-teen-had-discipline-issues/92894/
• And the Syracuse Post-Standard http://www.syracuse.com/us-news/index.ssf/2015/09/ahmed_mohamed_suspension_head_of_gang.html

Don't worry though! The fact that a boy had been suspended before has NOTHING to with an article about a boy being suspended and must be excluded, for....reasons Tex249 (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, if this kid has had previous run-ins with his school's administration for which he had received suspensions, that is relevant to this incident. Cla68 (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

only if the reliable sources make that connection. And currently they are only reporting that the Morning News is reporting claims from teachers. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Except that the Washington Post, like other outlets have also reported, requested comment from Ahmed's family and didn't get one. So what these sources are reporting should go in, along with that note. That is an accurate picture of this part of the incident. Psalm84 (talk) 01:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I forgot, the Washington Post does run a monthly column where they discuss the disciplinary records of random 14 year olds throughout the nation. Clearly the discussion of a boy being previously suspended for a tech prank is totally unrelated to the discussion of the same boy being suspended for a tech prank. Tex249 (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Because, Middle Schooler, I hope you know this will go down on your PERMANENT RECORD -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Casting doubts on the victim of a wrong, for being previously victimized? Nice. That material does not belong in this article, but if editors here insist that it does, then argue for a BLP instead of an article on the clock incident. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel, we don't take sides. Cla68 (talk) 00:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cla68: I am embarrassed for you. We take sides as far as protecting living persons is concerned: content that can be construed as negative is going to receive greater scrutiny and is going to require the immaculate sourcing. Unless there is overwhelming consensus that negative content about living people is compliant it stays out by default, as is absolutely required by policy. We are intentionally cautious when writing about living people, especially when adding gossip, especially regarding juveniles, especially when they are non-notable people caught up in a notable event, and especially when they are victims. We cannot fail at this. How is jumping on a tabloid bandwagon, when the claims cannot be confirmed and when other teachers have contradicted the narrative, possibly in compliance with our requirement for extreme caution? VQuakr (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm embarrassed for Libertarians based on your very un-Libertarian behavior and approach at this article, VQuakr. Actively working over and over to suppress reliable source viewpoints and commentaries on this incident that differ from the lemming-like media narrative as well as the the truth? Very un-Libertarian, indeed. You really should remove the Civil Libertarian userbox from your user page. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

"immaculate sourcing". Would you accept, say, the paper of record of the nation's Capitol? Tex249 (talk) 01:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The "paper of record of the nation's capital" is quite clear that they are only quoting the Dallas Morning News, who is quite clear that they are only reporting what teachers and ex-teachers have claimed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The material on suspensions does not violate WP:BLP or any of the three core content policies. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

To make a blanket statement about non existent content is quite bold! Perhaps there are ways that it can written and sourced that are in compliance with policies, but it seems to me that it would take quite a wordsmith. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Could someone please list the sources below that have reported on the kid's suspensions? As more sources come out, just add those to the list. Cla68 (talk) 01:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Never mind. I just saw that someone listed them above. Cla68 (talk) 01:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

you only need because the others are merely reporting what the DMN ran. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

This is becoming a circular conversation, going nowhere. If anyone wants to add the content about the suspension, that someone will also have to add the context as reported. Once that someone does that, we can keep, revert per BRD if needed and then discuss, with the shared understanding of WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you suggesting this as your opinion, or are you saying this in the sense that it's either your way or the highway? I think the conversation will be more productive if we remember that everyone's opinion here has equal value. Cla68 (talk) 02:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I am suggesting that this discussion is becoming circular and going nowhere, and that if anyone wants to add this material, then they should do the work, and see if it sticks. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

"see if it sticks" <--- Which has become a real problem. Content is added, or edited, and a certain few editors work together to make sure it doesn't "stick". -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• C-Class Texas articles
• Unknown-importance Texas articles
• WikiProject Texas articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• C-Class African diaspora articles
• Low-importance African diaspora articles
• WikiProject African diaspora articles
• C-Class Islam-related articles
• Low-importance Islam-related articles
• WikiProject Islam articles
• C-Class Religion articles
• Low-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• C-Class Discrimination articles
• Low-importance Discrimination articles
• WikiProject Discrimination articles
• Misplaced Pages pages under discretionary sanctions
• Biography articles of living people
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment