Talk:Ahmed Mohamed clock incident

Factory clock

Personal opinions unrelated to article improvement.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why isn't there more information in this piece of garbage article about how the innards of the clock were clearly factory? --140.32.16.52 (talk) 07:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC) Because whether the innards were factory or not is not particularly central to an article about an instance of Islamophobia. VQuakr (talk) 07:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC) Wow that's some neat ad hominem but seems to me like there is a pretty critical difference between "making a clock" and "taking a clock apart" -- he did not re-assemble the clock, he removed the casing. He is not a engineering genius, he is a troll. I look forward to hearing why I am a shitlord. Please try to be less biased in your enforcement of your regime of social justice. ~ <3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.172.60.18 (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC) It takes some real "ingenuity" to take a clock out of its housing and mount it in a suitcase... someone call Mensa, we have a winner. The fact he talks about "soldering CPUs" together and other nonsense shows he probably has little idea about computing, electronics etc. aside what a kid might pick up from watching cartoons. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but clearly there is not the ability to make a clock out of discrete components. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.132.10.250 (talk) 13:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC) Please refer to WP:NOTFORUM. 65.128.3.208 (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC) This article does appear to be one sided and support the idea that it is a clear cut and dry case of Islamophobia. Is there any section for the rebuttal of the law enforcement and school district? I would be very interested in seeing testimony from both sides including the teachers and arresting officers involved as there is speculation of possible lawsuit ahead. I would like to examine all of the facts of this case and make my own decision. This article does not accurately portray the alleged incident without that evidence.Depresyondayim (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC) Wikipedia relies on reliable sources. Wikipedia also has many guidelines against directly using legal documents and similar, so testimony would need to be reported on by reliable, independent sources, and any conclusions would have to be made by those sources before being included in this article. If you know of such sources, bring them forth, please. Seeking out sources specifically because they disagree with the current article risks false balance. "Both sides" is a common source of difficulty, because it assumes that both sides are equal. It also implies that there are only two sides, which is an oversimplification as there are almost always many more than that. Grayfell (talk) 01:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC) All of Wikipedia's "reliable sources" are far left media outlets, like NYT, HuffPo etc. Who would predictably have seen the school's perfectly reasonable response to this kid's stupid prank as "Islamaphobia". I found no mention of Amena Jamali in the article. She is a Muslim valedictorian of the school who went public to defend the school, saying it is a place where there is "no or very little prejudice." She also said that the school is the "reason she is proud of her religion and heritage today." You won't find the school's side of the story because they're restricted from voicing it by Federal privacy laws due to the Mohammed family not signing a FERPA release form. Waliway (talk) 05:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC) References

No malicious intent revert

I have reverted edits to the article by anonymous IPs which fundamentally change the meaning of the sentence in a way which is both directly contradicted by the cited reliable source and which tends to bring the article subject into disrepute. The cited source states clearly and specifically No charges were laid after it was determined the teen had no malicious intent, which is consistent with other sources such as the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, which states Police said they had determined Ahmed had no malicious intent and it was "just a naive set of circumstances". NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I have read the suggested edit and the suggested revert, and I understand where NorthbySouthBanof is coming from. I also understand where the anonymous editor is referencing. If you search for "Police said they had determined Ahmed had no malicious intent" in a search query, you'll find the exact language or sentence from multiple media sources, but absolutely none of them cite what officer or when this statement was made. Without a primary source, a reasonable person must ask themselves, How would they determine that he had no malicious intent? While the 2nd edit stating "they couldn't prove malicious intent" is a spin to make Muhammed appear guilty, "they determined there was no malicious intent" is a spin to make Muhammed appear innocent. The first edit removing this line maintains all level of factual evidence without the spin in either direction. I suggest a third party review this sentence and decide what is more accurate as there is no primary source to back this statement.

Howlowcanig0 (talk)

You are very new here, this is your first edit, and you don't seem to understand Wikipedia policies. I suggest that you read Wikipedia's five pillars to get a better understanding of how we write encyclopedia articles. Suffice to say, it is not for us to investigate the reporting of reliable sources, and that you or anyone else disagrees with the content of that reliable source is irrelevant. Reliable sources have reported, as a fact, that police cleared Mohamed, and absent any reliable source claiming otherwise, those sources are controlling here. Furthermore, your insistence on a "primary source" is contrary to Wikipedia policy on primary sources — as a tertiary source, we rely primarily on reliable secondary sources to support our content, because those sources have professional editing and fact-checking systems. It is a widely-reported fact that police determined Mohamed had no malicious intent, and that fact will remain in the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

"Soldering together CPUs"

As reflected in past talk page discussions, the source here (It's really simple to me, because I've built more stuff that's very complicated, like CPUs and soldering them) is ambiguous -- did he really mean he made CPUs, or was he just speaking imprecisely about using them in something else he soldered together? Without another source to clarify this, I really think we should just drop the CPU part and leave it at ...it took him "10 or 20 minutes" to put it together and that he had built more complicated items, but that the clock was simple..., especially since it's something people are pointing at to attack the guy. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done. The boy's quoted remark doesn't seem especially clear about what he was trying to say about CPUs, so I agree with removing the mention of CPUs, although whether the boy's statement was attacked is not necessarily our concern. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Makes sense, and I agree with the change. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Built or taken apart?

I'd like to see some clarification on whether the boy actually built an electronic clock. Or did he simply disassemble a clock designed and built by someone else? But if we cannot determine this (or doing so would violate our original research policy), then I have another suggestion.

Particularly since there were lawsuits about the supposedly 'defamatory' charges the boy had carried out a hoax, perhaps we could cite some of the reasons given in the legal papers. Like it was defamatory to call the construction/display of the circuits a hoax, because the boy really did make it himself. There would be sketches of the circuits, and so on. (But I heard the judge asked for just that, and the lawyer hemmed and hawed for 15 minutes and then conceded he had no evidence that the boy made the thing himself.) Likewise, we could cite some of the reasons various people have given for declaring the 'homemade' device a hoax, such as: "Duh, it's this particular model of a Radio Shack clock radio, and I have the pictures to prove it."

I come to Wikipedia for answers, or at least the details of two sides (when there's a controversy). I don't see the sides' evidence and reasoning here: just accusations and a court finding. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The defamation suits alleged that the defendants called Mohamed a terrorist. How much creativity was invested in the clock is relevant neither to the kid's detention nor the lawsuits. VQuakr (talk) 00:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, but if the suits alleged that the defendants called Mohamed a terrorist, then this allegation (1) is more important than whether the boy built a clock or disassembled one; and (2) should be in the article, which on a cursory reading did not mention the "terrorist" allegation. What I found when scanning two of the sources rapidly is that one defendant said that Ahmed’s arrest was a publicity stunt by terrorists, and that someone persuaded the boy to bring the device to school. Whether this is the same as calling the boy "a terrorist" I leave up to you. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Remove "Unsupported allegations"

Adding the word "unsupported" to "allegations" amounts to POV-pushing. Further, the citations given didn't state that the allegations were "unsupported". If anything, one citation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Mohamed_clock_incident#cite_note-auto-4 specifically stated that "Electronic experts have said that Mohamed's clock looks astonishingly similar to a clock that was sold in the 1980s by Radio Shack." I'd say that's enough to disprove that the allegations are "unsupported". What is happening is that somebody wants to discredit these allegations, but doesn't want to bother to find a source which claims that the allegations are "unsupported". Calling them "unsupported" for the specious reason that "No evidence has been offered to support them, thus unsupported" reeks of WP:OR. Did a WP:RS actually say this? I did a Google search for "ahmed clock unsupported" and I saw no source claim that such allegations are "unsupported". And if anything, it is not necessary that allegations be proven to include them; merely calling them "allegations" is accurate. Incidently, this kid and his family just got spanked by the courts in Texas. https://www.popehat.com/2017/01/11/clock-boy-gets-his-clock-cleaned-with-texas-anti-slapp-statute/ And today, http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2017/05/19/clock-boy-lawsuit-dismissed/ 2601:1C2:4E01:CE00:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

No; we call them allegations "unsupported" because the preponderance of the best and most reliable sources consider them unsupported. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

No, you don't. They don't _SAY_ they are unsupported. And, I am unaware of a gradation of sources that you are implying when you say, "the best and most reliable sources". Show some cites, the burden of proof is on the person wanting to keep the word "unsupported" in the text. You've already claimed a "preponderance", that means that you already admit there is a dispute. Show your work. 2601:1C2:4E01:CE00:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, see http://www.mediaite.com/online/debunking-the-muslim-clock-kid-and-the-obama-block-kid/ which cites: http://blogs.artvoice.com/techvoice/2015/09/17/reverse-engineering-ahmed-mohameds-clock-and-ourselves/ It completely debunks Ahmed's role in "building a clock". It was a hoax from square one. 2601:1C2:4E01:CE00:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 20:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)