Talk:Ahmed Mohamed clock incident

Alternate name

Given that this article is about the incident more than the person, should it be renamed to something like Irving, Texas Islamophiba controversy or something? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I support renaming this article to "Irving,Texas Islamophobia Controversy (2015)". Manosijbasu (talk) 15:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I Oppose that name. It is specifically about the student's arrest. See below. Epic Genius (talk) 22:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Non-Muslim students who did nothing wrong have also been turned over to the police.

I added this to the article, but someone else deleted it. I'm not going to edit war. However, I would like to hear what other people think of including or not including the fact that plenty of non-Muslim students have been treated the same way as Ahmed Mohamed was treated. This is notable to the article because it disputes the claim that the mistreatment of Ahmed Mohamed was due to Islamophobia.

"On the other hand, during Obama's presidency there were students who were not named Mohamed who got in trouble with the police for similar non-dangerous things, but were not defended by President Obama or invited to the White House. In 2010 in Forest Hills, New York, a 12 year old girl named Alexa Gonzalez was arrested for writing "I love my friends Abby and Faith. Lex was here 2/1/10 :)" on a classroom desk. In 2010 in Sanford, North Carolina, a 17 year old girl named Ashley Smithwick was charged with a misdemeanor for having a small paring knife in her lunchbox. In 2013 in Holmes County, Mississippi, a five year old boy was taken home from school in a police car for violating the school's dress code. In 2011 in Fort Myers, Florida, police were summoned to an elementary school after a girl kissed a boy."

And those are just the ones where the police got involved. In cases where the police did not get involved, there have been dozens of reported incidents where students who were not named Mohamed got in trouble at school for things as ridiculous as pointing their finger like a gun, biting their pastry into the shape of a gun, threatening to shoot someone with a pink plastic toy gun that shoots bubbles, and dozens of other similar examples. But Obama never defended any of those students.

References

Autoerotic Mummification (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

This report seems say the contrary. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The above paragraph looks too much like POV commentary to me. This article isn't the place to list every similar previous case (although, if any of those other stories have articles, they can be linked to from here). And it certainly isn't the case to criticise Obama as a hypocrite, whether that's fair or not. Robofish (talk) 23:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

As written, it certainly has POV issues. It also amounts to WP:OR. To the extent that notable public figures make statements disputing the claims of religious, racial, and ethnic profiling in this case, that would be appropriate to add. But not some Wikipedia editor just searching the web for material to back up their pre-conceived POV. The term confirmation bias fits that paragraph.Plvt2 (talk) 03:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

What's POV is a Wiki article claiming islamophobia when nearly identical cases have previously occurred outside of religious connotation. Use some common sense.

8.20.69.6 (talk) 23:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

8.20.69.6--The article isn't "claiming islamophobia", it discusses the fact that there are accusations of Islamophobia regarding this case. It would be POV for the article to pretend that those accusations don't exist.Plvt2 (talk) 03:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Reminds me of when that MIT grad student made that LED shirt as well as the Mooninites bomb scare But that source above, linked via washtingtonpost is wonkblog and is constructive with "suggests" and "in my opinion". Not reliable as a source. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 01:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete

It's a fad in the news. Not wikipedia article worthy. Certainly deeply troubling, but nonetheless not important enough to merit an article. --Monochrome_Monitor 23:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

It's a fad? Wow. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Very poor word choice. It's in the news right now, but it's a question of recentivism. If you look at this a year from now, would it warrant mention in the list of things that happened this year? The vast majority of "kid suspended from school for doing something totally innocent" controversies do not have their own articles. They are often put under articles like "Zero tolerance policy". I think this article could be put in "Islamophobia in the united states" or some article with a list of controversies. The kid is a minor and I just don't think a wikipedia page that will never be updated is necessary. Not many people have wikipedia articles. Heck, there are hundreds of fairly large towns in Syria which don't have articles. We need to straighten our priorities. Last time I checked his name (and other ahmeds muhammads) produced about 104,000 results. "Sahar Yemen" has 411,000 results. Sahar, Yemen does not have an article. --Monochrome_Monitor 20:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

As stated MULTIPLE TIMES, the article has been rewritten to focus more on the incident rather than the boy himself. It won't be long before it is renamed. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I missed that. I support the move. Something like, "Irving, Texas, Clock controversy"? That's awful, nevermind. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:31, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Is the article about the kid? The incident? The town? Clocks in general? Need to pick one with reliable sources. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 21:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

What exactly is your point here? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 03:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I vote for deletion. The clock was indeed a hoax and it makes President Obama look like a fool for inviting Mohamed to the White House with the clock he purchased and took out of its case. Amhed’s clock was invented, and built, by Micronta, a Radio Shack subsidary. Catalog number 63 756. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.225.145 (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the incident here is the most notable. Renaming seems more appropriate than deleting. And there are a lot of notable subjects that don't have Wikipedia articles; that's just because no one has gotten around to writing them. I think notability is really the only criterion for keeping one around, and I think this article passes that threshhold. Library Guy (talk) 17:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Should "Ahmed Mohammad" redirect to Ahmed Mohamed (student)?

Should "Ahmed Mohammad" redirect to Ahmed Mohamed (student)? 12.180.133.18 (talk) 04:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

It is redirected to Ahmed Mohamed, which is a disambiguation page, as there are many people with that name. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Similar case from 2013

Kiera Wilmot, a black student at Bartow High School in Florida

• http://abcnews.go.com/US/florida-girl-arrested-similar-circumstances-ahmed-mohamed-advice/story?id=33838741

• http://www.slate.com/blogs/schooled/2015/09/17/kiera_wilmot_arrest_florida_teenager_reacts_to_ahmed_mohamed_story.html

• http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/kiera-wilmot-student-arrested-for-science-experiment-wont-face-charges-6535632 12.180.133.18 (talk) 04:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Purchased Alarm Clock

I added a reference that the said alarm clock was purchased according to the makezine article. Another user requested I receive consensus on this since it is a "controversial" change and it was not reported by any other news agencies outside of makezine. I did add a better source citation in the meantime. RaymondLull (talk) 11:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Pinging @Michaelh2001, McGeddon, and Cwobeel:. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

That was the most ridiculous edit I have ever seen in a while. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The Makezine article analyses a photo and gives the opinion that the electronics appear "appear less as a combination of miscellaneous parts wired together into a timepiece, and more so as simply the guts of a standard digital alarm clock" which have been fixed into a pencil case. That Makezine thinks it looks more like one thing than another can be quoted in context, but it's nowhere near enough to claim that Ahmed simply "purchased" the clock.

Even if true that he took apart an alarm clock and fixed the parts into a pencil case, "boy purchases clock" would be a misleading summary of that. --McGeddon (talk) 16:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I think article should include the photo of the said home-made "alarm clock". It is available in public domain from Irving PD. Rajkancherla (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if it is in the public domain. The photo was first published by Reuters [1] with this disclaimer: Reuters/Irving Texas Police Department/Handout via Reuters THIS IMAGE HAS BEEN SUPPLIED BY A THIRD PARTY. IT IS DISTRIBUTED, EXACTLY AS RECEIVED BY REUTERS, AS A SERVICE TO CLIENTS. FOR EDITORIAL USE ONLY. NOT FOR SALE FOR MARKETING OR ADVERTISING CAMPAIGNS. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@Rajkancherla: You say the article must include the photo and then you also say that the article must be deleted. Please make up your mind. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@Rsrikanth05: I am not obligated to makeup my mind. You can re-read my original comment on the delete entry, I stated that the article about the person to be deleted but it may be moved to an article about incident, if there is consensus.Rajkancherla (talk) 02:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The photo itself was taken by the Irving Police Department and distributed by them via electronic methods and in hand-outs during official press briefings and is considered to be public domain. For those interested in it, they can contact the Irving PD's Public Information Office at 972-721-3515. Said number is publicly available and was on the bottom on the press release handout which contained the photo in question. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 03:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

When you say "is considered to be public domain" – by whom? Well I haven't looked up the laws applicable to Irving, it is not automatic that it would be public domain unless they have such a law. Are you aware of such a law?--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Did you watch the press conference they gave that was aired? Did you call them? Heyyouoverthere (talk) 13:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is that when a photograph is produced by a government entity in the United States and circulated for distribution, there is generally no claim to copyright on the photograph – it is simply considered to be in the public domain. But IANAL and TINLA, and I offer no warrantee that my understanding is correct. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Here is article that claims to have identified the parts to the project. It appears to be a old LED alarm clock which has been fitted with a portable power supply and put into a pencil case. Reverse Engineering Ahmed Mohamed’s Clock… and Ourselves. "Amhed’s clock was invented, and built, by Micronta, a Radio Shack subsidary. Catalog number 63 756." "So there you have it folks, Ahmed Mohamad did not invent, nor build a clock. He took apart an existing clock, and transplanted the guts into a pencil box, and claimed it was his own creation. It all seems really fishy to me." ... "Because, is it possible, that maybe, just maybe, this was actually a hoax bomb? A silly prank that was taken the wrong way? That the media then ran with, and everyone else got carried away? Maybe there wasn’t even any racial or religious bias on the parts of the teachers and police." Bachcell (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's a very reliable article. It is a blog. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Due to the fact that the high-profile public figure Richard Dawkins addressed this and many news articles now mention it it is irresponsible not to include mention of the people saying he did not make the clock. 75.72.163.145 (talk) 03:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

There's already a paragraph in the article about what Dawkins has said. Please look later in the article. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure that most people understand that when a 14-year-old kid "makes a clock", it doesn't mean they started from scratch using parts that weren't previously considered clock parts. It means the kid took some parts that are well known to be the parts for a clock (most likely the parts of a former clock that was laying around at home or something cheap purchased nearby as a clock or as a clockwork mechanism) and put them together in a different way and put it inside of a different-looking outer case. The mainstream reliable sources just refer to this as a clock he made, and I think that's also good enough for Wikipedia because that's the ordinary way to describe what he did. I happen to be very familiar with a class of kids who were recently given an assignment to make clocks as a cross-subject art/technology/recycling project at their school. No one got arrested, and no one got a bad grade for using parts that were previously used as a clock, and the resulting clocks were later used as decorations at the school and at home. It's not misleading or incorrect to refer to that process as "making a clock", especially when you're talking about a clock-making project of a 14-year-old kid, and that's how the reliable sources generally refer to it. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

From the initial news report on the subject - as written by the reporter believed to have first covered (originated) the story, (scroll down to original story, the article has been updated several times, below "Box of circuit boards" heading and embeded DallasNews video; italics mine): "Ahmed’s clock was hardly his most elaborate creation. He said he threw it together in about 20 minutes before bedtime on Sunday: a circuit board and power supply wired to a digital display, all strapped inside a case with a tiger hologram on the front." The video (an interview of the student) includes search results displayed for "Vaultz tiger pencil box" and image of similar apparently used - perhaps much like Vaultz item VZ00384, measuring 5.5"h x8.5"w 2.5"d, and I just noticed (until now had not looked at the link posted by Cwobeel earlier on) much the same as the Reuters article photo.

On a side note (of possible use for the page), an article in The New Yorker has more detail concerning Dash's involvement, how the original story had caught his attention and started publicizing: "created an online form where people could send messages of support for Mohamed and suggestions for how to encourage his creativity", started tweeting, how the (#IStandWithAhmed) hashtag was trending within hours, etc.

References

99.170.117.163 (talk) 08:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

BarrelProof Nobody thinks he built a smelter and forged his own parts, but neither do they think that buying a clock and putting it in a box constitutes "assembly" of a clock. The challenge comes from a blog, so may not be reliable, but it does raise the question. Do we have a reliable source actually suggesting he did something other than put a clock in a box. One of the key themes is this is a bright inventor, unfairly maligned. Do we have a single shred of evidence that he is a bright inventor?--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

When someone is 14 and they put something together in 20 minutes before going to bed on Sunday night (as described in the Dallas Morning News) and the thing can tell time, that's called "making a clock" if they're 14. That's what many many reliable sources have been calling it, and none of those writers really thought he started with individual resistors and capacitors and LEDs. The act of putting it together that way is also reasonably called "assembling" it. Whether he's a bright inventor or not is a different question. His dad says he's really bright and he likes to tinker with electronics and has fixed some things. Hooray for that – I'm glad he has a dad that doesn't call him stupid. Nobody says he's not bright. But nobody says he's the next Nikola Tesla either. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

You're right: nobody is saying he is the next Nikola Tesla, but that doesn't mean he's not! As I've posted elsewhere, except for pure research, new electronic gadgets are made by re-purposing existing components. Even if all of the clock components came from one clock, he "made" something when he reassembled those components in a different case than the original. He may have changed the design a bit too, but that hasn't been covered by the sources. Either way, to a 14-year-old, he "made" something that was different than what existed before. In any case, the incident is notable as much for the reaction as for the initial actions that started it all, no matter how those initial actions have been spun by school officials, police, and the media. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  22:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

It seems that Ahmed did not "reassemble those components" or "change the design." From the Make article and other sources, it seems like he just put the complete internals of the purchased clock into the pencil case, without any changes at all. That's not really "making a clock." When a teenager says "I made a clock," that usually means soldering together components from a kit. Presumably this is why his engineering teacher was only mildly impressed. -- 120.23.251.194 (talk) 23:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't explain why the teacher then thought that it was a bomb, or why all these famous people would praise him after his arrest. You know, these people don't praise every nerd who makes their own clock. Epic Genius (talk) 23:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The engineering teacher didn't think it was a bomb. The engineering teacher thought other teachers might think so (which is why the student was instructed not to show it to other teachers). Why all these famous people would praise him after his arrest is a good question, but I don't believe we have WP:RS on that. -- 120.23.170.176 (talk) 00:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think people would care so much about the clock's resemblance to a bomb if he wasn't Muslim, per NBC. Epic Genius (talk) 01:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that's true; a trawl through the news finds dozens of arrests of white non-Muslim shoolkids over the years for things that were perceived by their schools as bomb threats (not to mention 7-year old Josh Welch, who was suspended in 2013 for biting a pop-tart into a gun shape). The only evidence that religion was the key factor in this particular case seems to come from interviews with Ahmed Mohamed and his family. Given that the claim to have "invented" a clock appears to be dubious, I'm not sure that those interviews can be taken as 100% factual without supporting evidence. Possibly the article should simply report claims made by Ahmed, his family, the school, and the police, without attempting to decide the fine details of what actually happened. We are likely to see a lawsuit arising from this case, so those details will probably get resolved in court eventually. -- 120.23.34.59 (talk) 03:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

He's the next crazy guy that talks to a pigeon? :-(

Anyway, it really doesn't matter whether he made it at home, at school, in the car, or on Mars. It should just mention that he made it, since that's right. The OP would be correct if you could buy an already-complete Lego building at a store, but since it was the pieces, not the completed clock, that was bought at the store, @RaymondLull is actually wrong. Anyway, the completed product is different than what was purchased at the store. Epic Genius (talk) 22:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

No one's saying he's a genius. If he were, he would have built a clock out of an LED panel and an arduino like I did when I was his age ;). But I digress. The clock alone is not what's important, though it certainly romanticizes the event. --Monochrome_Monitor 22:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The reaction by the media, President Obama, Mark Zuckerberg, Twitter, and Microsoft, framed Mohamed as a promising inventor who made a clock and was then arrested, perhaps due to his Muslim heritage. This has been and continues to be the dominant narrative, with Ahmed being a guest at Google's Science Fair today and his clock called an "innovative" science project by Time Magazine. As it stands this article supports that narrative, save for the portion where Richard Dawkins' reaction is mentioned. I tried to add mention of the several people who questioned that Mohamed created anything but these were quickly deleted and called vandalism by BarrelProof. The articles I cited have been extremely widely discussed in comments sections on news websites and on Reddit, and have been picked up by several news websites. This is an important part of the reality of this story and questions the narrative of an innovative young Muslim who created something great and was then attacked by an alarmist culture. It is very strange that BarrelProof will not allow these important matters to be adequately addressed in the article except via the Dawkins portion. Whether or not he created the clock should be discussed directly in the article. The best place is in the Arrest section after Dallas Morning News portion on the construction of the clock. Otherwise, a section on the clock itself should be created, as others have mentioned in the Talk. This would create a balanced reading of the article. Currently it is unbalanced and biased. 75.72.163.145 (talk) 04:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't call your addition vandalism. What I said was that you put it into the wrong place in the article, that it was partly redundant with other information already in the article (since the article already contains a paragraph about what Dawkins has said), and that it contained WP:WEASEL language. It was also not so well written. The reactions and criticisms of later commenters belong later in the article, not spliced into the middle of the basic description of what happened. There is nothing in that section that says Mohamed's clock was innovative. In fact it appears that it wasn't really very innovative. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The wrong place? You mean the place where the "creation" of the clock is discussed? That's the wrong place? "Not spliced in the middle of the description of what happened"--yes, what possibly happened is that Mohamed made nothing at all and is now receiving national regard as an innovative inventor. My addition was well-written. You are not only suppressing widely-discussed extremely important information in a Wikipedia article but you insult those who try to include it! 75.72.163.145 (talk) 05:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

That's my thinking; others are welcome to express theirs. But I thought that inserting that opinionated commentary there was confusing to the story and repetitive with later stuff in the article. Opinions belong later, and we should be cautious about phrases like "Several people" and "Some believe". And your addition was referring to "Ahmed's claim that the clock was his invention", when no such claim had been mentioned prior to that point in the article. We should describe claims before we express opinions about those claims. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I also find it egregious that an integral part of this story is buried under Richard Dawkin's reaction. The evidence strongly points to it being an unmodified, but de-cased Micronta Alarm clock which has been well substantiated by verifiable part numbers. The original source has been widely discussed and substantiated. The explanation given for bringing the clock to school was that the clock was a misunderstood science project. To say this is not relevant only in the context of a celebrities reaction is clearly not objective. To continue suggesting that it was a homemade clock, and provide no further explanation is highly misleading and has no place on Wikipedia.

— 45.79.146.98 (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at the sentence I just added. What do you think of that? I think no one disputes the fact that this was not an especially creative accomplishment. As the original Dallas Morning News article said, it was something he threw together in about 20 minutes. I don't think he or anyone else ever really claimed otherwise, although he seems to have loosely used the word "invention" to describe it. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

It's correct that claims should be discussed prior to opinions on those claims. However, claims should not be stated as authoritative fact. For example, "In September 2015, Mohamed [...] was taken into custody by police, handcuffed and transported to a detention facility, fingerprinted, and suspended from school after bringing a home-assembled digital clock to show it to his engineering teacher." This assumes and states Mohamed's narrative and intentions as well established fact as opposed to his claims about his arrest. Key information throughout the article is only sourced from Ahmed's statement of events. The quote from the Dallas Morning News heavily implies that the clock was an assembly of several fundamental components (incl. circuit board, power supply, LCD) immediately after "...assembled a clock at his home" is again stated as fact. Taking 20 minutes to remove the original plastic housing is not the same as implying that a clock only took Mohamed 20 minutes to build on a Sunday night. Stating the build required assembly of a circuit board, LCD, and power supply implies that they were independent components that required some assembly, when there is no evidence that any assembly or soldering took place at all.

-- 106.185.29.90 (talk) 10:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

An IP has again added the purchased part with the Blog link and left a note accusing me of censoring based on personal narrative. Please have a look. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

To say it is a blog source and not reputable is simply not true. Artvoice is run by a publishing company and has 9 editorial staff, 8 columnists, a production, circulation and sales staff along with a business address with full contact information.. The editor who wrote the story has an engineering degree and is qualified to present the cited information. There is no reason to believe the article is less reputable than other editorials sourced simply because the url contains "blog", it is not a personal blog and the information has been widely discussed with part numbers and circuit board layouts that can be independently verified. Nobody is claiming the article is doctored or falsified. There is no reason to remove sourced information simply because it does not support a certain perspective or narrative. People have purchased similar model Micronta digital alarm clocks and taken them apart on video, which seems to buttress the findings in the cited article. There is no source showing it was home-made except Ahmed's claims which were not scrutinized by the media. A disputed claim should not be stated as objective fact, especially when source is not objective and isn't backed up by cited evidence.

-- 106.185.29.90 (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The article already includes these claims as reported by reliable sources. No need to add a blog. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Dawkin's is a second hand source, and not an expert on electronics. The type of clock is clearly not only relevant in the context of Dawkin's and other celebrity responses. The introduction summarizes events, not statements, and the citation is needed as a first level source. Disputed statements should not be restated as objective truth in the retelling of events.

-- 106.186.31.122 (talk) 16:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Another famous alarm clock

Not pertinent per WP:NOTFORUM

Air India Flight 182[2] An Air India 747 was blown up in mid air by Sikh nationalists using a bomb created by a Canadian mechanic fashioned from a car alarm clock and a 12V battery so that it could be contained in suitcase. Bachcell (talk) 20:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC) And how is a 30yr old plane crash relevant here? The article is not about the clock, but about the entire chain of events including the arrest and the further proceedings. ALarm clocks have been in use over the last century for various purposes, Good and Evil. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 21:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC) This is getting stupid. Even if you think the incident has been dramatized that's no excuse to demonize a minor. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Move Name Suggestions

I support a move to emphasize the incident rather than the child. Any name suggestions? --Monochrome_Monitor 13:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

How about Hoax bomb, the article mentions there's a Texas law about it. Raquel Baranow (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Lol, someone just made a redirect to Bomb threat. Google search shows many other "Hoax bombs", the threat is real! Raquel Baranow (talk) 18:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

A name change is probably in order, but any such change should be mentioned at AfD. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  22:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

To the Bomb threat article or to this article? Epic Genius (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC) Yhough Etamni could have meant something else, it's unlikely. Striking own comment. Epic Genius (talk) 23:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Where are you going to move it to? I suggest Arrest of Ahmed Mohamed. Epic Genius (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

That seems good. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Something like that. But I think the town should be included if possible. --Monochrome_Monitor 22:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Arrest of Ahmed Muhammad is great, actualy. I support such a move. --Monochrome_Monitor 20:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Photo

If there are concerns about the photo used, please take it to Commons [3] - Cwobeel (talk) 14:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 21 September 2015

Ahmed Mohamed (student) → Arrest of Ahmed Mohamed – Per WP:1E. The incident and its aftermath seem more notable than the boy himself. AFAIK, we don't have a separate article on the incident, which seems (currently) more notable than the boy who is at the center of it. To quote what Jimmy Wales said, "The point is that the *incident* is notable. But about this boy, we have no way to write a quality *biography*. Virtually nothing is known about him (partly because he's just a kid about whom there isn't a lot *to* know) as a person. The main thing we know is this one incident." —BarrelProof (talk) 03:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• No can do. He wasn't arrested, he was detained. [4] -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • What does that pdf file have to do with whether he was arrested or not? AFAIK, reliable sources have generally been saying he was arrested. That document doesn't say he wasn't arrested. According to the arrest article, "An arrest is the act of depriving a person of their liberty usually in relation to the purported investigation or prevention of crime ..." He was certainly deprived of his liberty by police officers, interrogated, handcuffed, and transported against his wishes to a detention facility. That is pretty much the textbook definition of being arrested. Please note that being arrested is not the same thing as being charged with a crime. That police press release says he will not face charges. It doesn't say he wasn't arrested. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
    • See anything in the PDF from the Irving PD that says he was arrested? No? See plenty of reliable sources correctly reporting "detained" rather than arrested? Yes? I, then, rest my case: he was never arrested, he was detained for further questioning. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
      • That is a press release from the police department that is attempting to put the police actions in the best light possible. It is not an objective third-party report with a neutral point of view. Its words were chosen to try to convince the public of the wisdom of the police action. Multiple different words can sometimes be used to describe the same thing, with both phrasings being basically accurate. As a matter of law and ordinary English, my understanding is that if he is not free to walk away and is transported against his will in handcuffs, he has been arrested. The police avoided using that word in their press release, but that doesn't mean the word isn't accurate, and their press release doesn't say he wasn't arrested. The Dallas Morning News article, for example, which is one of the main sources about this event, says he was arrested (in fact it's in the headline). —BarrelProof (talk) 03:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
      • There's no conspiracy here. If you honestly think there is, I doubt your objective-ability to edit this article in a NPOV manner. He wasn't arrested. If he had been arrested, the report would say he was arrested. Plenty of reliable sources have correctly reported he was detained. Chalk up another reason why news stories like this one should never become Wikipedia articles: we aren't news reporters and should not pretend to be news reporters. Add to that the poor choices editors make in an attempt to "scoop" the internet via Wikipedia by regurgitating poor, knee-jerk reporting from what are considered reliable sources and what do you get? Articles like this that should never exist to begin with (per WP:NOTNEWS) and then become nothing more than a giant clusterfuck of inaccurate, unencyclopedic, POV crap. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

        • I certainly agree that "there's no conspiracy here." I have no idea where that notion came from. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

          It came from this comment from you: "That is a press release from the police department that is attempting to put the police actions in the best light possible. It is not an objective third-party report with a neutral point of view. Its words were chosen to try to convince the public of the wisdom of the police action." You are claiming the police department has intentionally skewed the report to "convince the public" they were not in the wrong. You obviously have a POV against the Irving PD. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

          Not necessarily. I am just acknowledging that press releases are generally biased and not considered reliable for most purposes on Wikipedia. I see no conspiracy, but I see someone who is issuing a press release describing their own actions on a high-profile controversial topic. Such press releases, regardless of who issues them, tend to be phrased in a biased manner. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

          • I also checked the next six sources cited in the article (articles in the New York Times, Yahoo News, CBS, CNN, Washington Post, Al Jazeera). They all say he was arrested. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
            • They also all say he was detained. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
              • The main question here is whether the title should be about the person or about the event. Now I'm up to sixteen out of sixteen, adding The Guardian, Sydney Morning Herald, Mic.com, The New Yorker, Huffington Post, ABC News, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, CBC News. (I couldn't access the Wall Street Journal article without signing up for some kind of account.) The ones I was able to access all say he was arrested. People who are arrested are also generally detained. As I understand it, being detained generally means being held. It seems like somewhat of a synonym, although I think it usually doesn't include being transported in handcuffs and fingerprinted. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
                • This is one of the biggest problems with "reliable sources": because they have been deemed reliable, the misconception that they are also always right goes hand in hand. The good with the bad. They are reliable, not infallible. Just as many if not more reliable sources say he was detained. If he had been arrested, he would have been actually booked. He was never booked. Is there a mugshot? No? Then he wasn't arrested. Were his parents allowed to be in the room when he was questioned? No? Then he was never arrested (as when only detained for questioning, a minor isn't required to have parents present - if arrested, then parents are to be present). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
                  • Can you point to some reliable source that says that a person isn't considered under arrest after they are being held against their will and being transported in handcuffs and fingerprinted, unless some other things also happen? All of the sources cited in the article seem to say he was arrested, and none of them say he wasn't. (Now up to 19 out of 19, adding Uproxx, Christian Science Monitor, and Gawker.) —BarrelProof (talk) 04:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

"none of them say he wasn't." There are sources saying he was detained (and not saying he was arrested) in addition to the police report not saying anything about him being arrested. At the very least, we have a severe conflict between sources. At the worst, we will end up with an unencyclopedic article borne out of a violation of WP:NOTNEWS that will be inappropriately and inaccurately named. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I see no conflict between sources on that question. Essentially all of the sources say he was arrested. Some of them also use the word "detained". That's not a conflict. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's your reliable source, direct from Texas State law: [5]. What is described here is exactly what happened in this case. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

That language doesn't include the word "arrest" at all. It's off-topic (as well as being a primary source, like the police press release). —BarrelProof (talk) 04:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

"That language doesn't include the word "arrest" at all." No shit. It's because the juvenile in question was not arrested. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying that juveniles cannot ever be arrested? You simply referred to a section of law that does not use the word "arrest". It doesn't mean that children can't be arrested, and it doesn't mean that this particular kid wasn't arrested. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

More on the above as reported by the Daily Beast: [6]. Detained, not arrested. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations on finding one third-party secondary source (that isn't cited in the article) that doesn't use the word "arrested". It doesn't say he wasn't arrested, but it doesn't use that word. Instead it uses phrases like "questioned at the school, then taken in handcuffs to a juvenile detention center, where he was fingerprinted and interrogated without his parents present", and "violated Ahmed Mohamed's civil rights". My understanding, per the Wikipedia article on the topic, is that when a police officer deprives someone of their liberty and transports them against their will and detains them and fingerprints them and interrogates them while investigating them for suspicion of a crime (e.g., creating a hoax bomb), that is considered arrest. It may not be the filing of formal charges, but it's arrest. (I plan to stop replying here for a while, as I need to go do something else.) —BarrelProof (talk) 04:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)≤

Your understanding isn't of any import here. The facts are contained within Texas law. As far as finding third party sources that state "detained",, it's not hard to do. You are simply wrong on this. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

He wasn't arrested because in Texas, juveniles are not arrested. This is important in future job/college applications that ask "Have you ever been arrested?" - Ahmed can say no. Page 7 explains it and it would be BLP vio if we say it or use it. Twenty years from now, when he answered "No" to the arrested question and Google reports this as an arrest through Wikipedia, we have a problem. That document is a secondary source interpretation of law that is authoritative on the subject of juvenile justice in Texas and matches sources that carefully report the facts. Straight from the source: Taking a child into custody is not considered an arrest. (§52.01(b), F.C.) If asked, a child who has been taken into custody may truthfully state that he or she has never been arrested. --DHeyward (talk) 06:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• He was handcuffed and moved to the police station; it was the arrest and the detention. The rename of the article Event of Ahmed Mohamed, I suggest.Justice007 (talk) 06:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• I suggest reading the Handbook I provided and the quote Taking a child into custody is not considered an arrest. (§52.01(b), F.C.) If asked, a child who has been taken into custody may truthfully state that he or she has never been arrested. in the Texas AG's interpretation of juvenile law as well as the police press release and careful sources. It's not an arrest and sayin he was arrested is a BLP violation when it's clear he can say he was never arrested. This has long term effects. Juvenile law and procedures are different than your "freeadvice" source doesn't address. He was taken into police custody from school custody and that is not an "arrest" in Texas. --DHeyward (talk) 06:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

DHeyward, I do not have the problem if you entirely deny the world media reports that are published by law experts. The handcuffed is the arrest not the custody, or detention. What you are referring that depends on the events. We have to apply the Wiki policies in accordance with reliable sources that are breached.Justice007 (talk) 07:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Justice007: Taken into police custody does not preclude handcuffs. He was "in custody", not "arrested" because in Texas juveniles are not arrested. For adults, there is no distinction, for juveniles there is. The legal expert is the Texas Attorney General that wrote the secondary source for interpreting Texas law. That is the authoritative source. He was not arrested and can state that he was not arrested on job apps and college apps. Journalists are not legal experts and the secondary source from Page 7 explains it all. Claiming he was arrested is a BLP violation. He was not. As the document clearly says: Taking a child into custody is not considered an arrest. (§52.01(b), F.C.) If asked, a child who has been taken into custody may truthfully state that he or she has never been arrested.. Law regarding juveniles and adults are different. Twenty years from now when some HR type googles his name and this event claims he was arrested but he checked 'No' on the box and he loses his job opportunity, it's our fault. We are compelled to state in WP voice what the experts say and AG and the police report are top sources. --DHeyward (talk) 07:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

As I told you, it depends on the event how to describe the law. TheTexas Attorney General is not describing the arrest of Ahmed Mohamed that you figure outing yourself. We should respect, and apply the Wiki rules, not the law description that goes nowhere. The Attorney general does not describe the case of Ahmed Mohamed or it is published in the mainstream media referring that; I could understand. You are on the wrong way rather what state the Wiki rules.Justice007 (talk) 08:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure you are getting it. The wiki rules are dominated by BLP policy. He was not arrested. He cannot be arrested as a juvenile. Texas Law makes that distinction clear. "Custody of police" is accurate. "Arrested" is not. Juveniles are not arrested in Texas and no amount of wikilawyering of definition will changes that fact: Texas AG secondary source interpretation ->Taking a child into custody is not considered an arrest. (§52.01(b), F.C.) If asked, a child who has been taken into custody may truthfully state that he or she has never been arrested. Making the claim that he was arrested (a very negative BLP charge) when we have reliable sources that say it didn't happen and can't happen is a BLP violation. The police statement didn't choose identical language by accident [7] --DHeyward (talk) 08:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

We follow what the reliable sources say, not our interpretation of Texas law. Support naming this after the event. The individual is not notable, but the incident is. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC) Of the move options being presented, I favor Ahmed Mohamed clock incident. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

FFS, if reliable sources are wrong, we use WP:COMMONSENSE and don't repeat that which is wrong. This is an encyclopedia and encyclopedias supposed to contain facts, after all. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

FFS, anyone who is even vaguely familiar with law knows that there are frequently statutes that provide alternate scenarios - if not outright contradictions of each other. and we are not in the position to pretend to be Texas bar members who are familiar with the entirety of the state statutes to proclaim that there are none which may contradict the one being presented now. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

DHeyward, it is police statement to escape from the justice; custody does not mean to handcuff a child even harmless child while handcuffing itself means "the arrest". I am finished the discussion with you. Enjoy your AG description. I have no more pearls.Justice007 (talk) 09:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, the genie is already out of the bottle regarding the term "Arrest" the moment the news hit and people started talking/tweeting about it. At this point, it will not matter much unless every other article on the internet has the word "arrest" removed and the thought removed from the public's mind. ThurstonHowell3rd (talk) 13:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Genies are mythological and, in this case, "arrest" is as well, regardless of what the sources have regurgitated over and over again. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

It may be true, per the primary source identified by DHeyward, that "if asked, a child who has been taken into custody may truthfully state that he or she has never been arrested". But that same document also says very clearly that a child can be arrested. It does not say that a child cannot be arrested. The same child can truthfully state that they have been arrested. It is mere legalistic word-twisting. This is obviously true from that same document, which says "Texas law permits a juvenile to be taken into custody ... pursuant to the laws of arrest" on the same page, and refers to "a child's arrest" on p. 11, and makes similar references to children being arrested and arrest warrants for children in other places. We have 30 or so sources cited in this article that say this child was arrested, and no reliable sources saying otherwise. Moreover, we here on Wikipedia should use the ordinary meaning of words. We should follow what the independent secondary reliable sources say, not try to dig into primary sources to look for our own interpretation of legal language. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

He was indeed arrested, per the massive amount of sources that reported on the incident. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I am going with arrested as well. News shows talk about it being an arrest and at this rate when he shows up the late night talk shows they will be like, "so tell us about how you got arrested". And after this event has left the news cycle and replaced by something else anytime someone brings it up the only thing people will really remember and care to remember is "that kid who got arrested for bringing a clock to school." So yes, in the common vernacular he did get arrested. ThurstonHowell3rd (talk) 03:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Agree it should be moved but "arrest" is perjorative and not the crux of the notability. Being handcuffed and hauled to the police station was notable, whether we call than an arrest legally or not. To me its the Student clock controversy or something similar. This event has more serious overtones than the Balloon boy hoax but it is a similar "event."--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

"Legally", as far as Texas law is concerned, it wasn't an arrest. In this case, "arrest" isn't just pejorative, it's incorrect nomenclature. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

We have no reliable sources that say that. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

But we do. Texas law quoted directly from Texas law isn't a reliable source but online news that frequently gets it wrong is and should be seen as infallible? That's totally FUBAR. I do find it interesting that you finally admitted this [8] but immediately removed it [9]. That, plus some other statements you've made about this article and the events surrounding it tell me you have an agenda and possible WP:COI. If not that, you seem unable to comment about and edit this article without WP:POV. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

That mischaracterizes my action. What you call my admission of something was my insertion of "But it does not say that a child cannot be arrested." That's a true statement. The document quoted by DHeyward does not say that a child cannot be arrested. In fact, that document explicitly refers to "a child's arrest" on p. 11. The reason I removed it was that it was grammatically awkward and I thought the conversation had moved on, so I reconsidered my addition rather than trying to clean it up. Since you complained, I restored it (except removing the word "But" because it was grammatically misplaced). What possible agenda and COI do you think I have? I have none. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

This document on page 7 is a reliable secondary source that interprets Texas state law. It backs up the primary source of the police media release. Juveniles are taken into custody, not arrested. It's the definitive secondary source and has future real-life consequences as many applications ask "Have you ever been arrested?" BLP policy trumps lazy reporting and it's just as easy to say "taken into police custody." Juveniles are always considered to be in custodial care whether it's parents, the school or police. I did not read anything in that document that what suggest Ahmed was able to be arrested. In fact, the polie media release matches the outlined process exactly. Handcuffing is usually a standing police order that anyone in custody being transported is handcuffed with hands behind them and there is very little discretion. --DHeyward (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

That document is a primary source. It is a publication of the Texas Attorney General's office that does not mention Ahmed Mohamed at all. It does not say that a child cannot be arrested. It just describes what people are legally allowed to say, despite plain facts otherwise. It explicitly talks about "a child's arrest" on page 11. We shouldn't be researching legal documents that don't talk about Ahmed Mohamed to develop our own understanding of the law that differs from what the independent secondary reliable sources say about this topic. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

We shouldn't be calling it an arrest if that's not accurate. A lot of applications ask "Have you ever been arrested?" If there's even a hint that Ahmed can truthfully answer "No" we must not state in Wikipedia's voice that he was. That's a BLP violation. In 20 years we don't need to hear how Wikipedia's mistake lead to HR tossing his application because WP says he is lying by answering "No." the whole purpose of juvenile procedure is to protect them from stupid stuff when they become adults. --DHeyward (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support move to Detention of Ahmed Mohamed and trout @Winkelvi for making such a big deal over a trivial clarification. Epic Genius (talk) 14:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  Support move to Detainment of Ahmed Mohamed. Epic Genius (talk) 17:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Fuck that. In Texas, there's a huge, not trivial, distinction between the detention of a juvenile and the arrest of an adult. He was never arrested, he was detained. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

You're right that it was not "the arrest of an adult". To use the language of the AG publication that DHeyward is fond of, it was "a child's arrest", or if you prefer a different phrase from the same paragraph, a "juvenile arrest", because the person who was arrested was clearly a juvenile when he was arrested. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

See Detention (academia). In a high school context, "Detention" is a mild form of punishment that takes the form of students being required (but not actually physically forced with handcuffs or wrestling holds) to sit around in a boring place for a relatively brief period – e.g., have you seen The Breakfast Club? That's not what happened to Ahmed Mohamed at his high school. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't the arrest of a child, he was in police custody -- a detainment. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I might be OK with "Unpleasant experience of Ahmed Mohamed". Even "Detainment of Ahmed Mohamed" would be better than "Detention of Ahmed Mohamed", because what happened to him was not ordinary high school detention. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Wow, it looks as though I am getting flamed for my choices of title. Also, @BarrelProof, I don't think Unpleasant experience of Ahmed Mohamed is the best choice. The page Unpleasant experience of Ahmed Mohamed may refer to how Ahmed once got his teeth pulled by his dentist. Epic Genius (talk) 17:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

As long as we don't have any articles on Wikipedia about Ahmed's other unpleasant experiences, I don't think that's necessarily a problem. Also, if we can establish that this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC among his various unpleasant experiences that are discussed on Wikipedia, we could just name another article as "Unpleasant dental experience of Ahmed Mohamed" and keep this one at "Unpleasant experience of Ahmed Mohamed" (with a hatnote). —BarrelProof (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but still, "unpleasant" may not be a suitable title for another reason: it is a little POV. Epic Genius (talk) 17:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessarily POV. In fact, it's explicitly phrased to try to avoid any possible perception of POV. But I'll admit that there's something a bit strange about it that I can't quite put my finger on, and I'll also admit that I think it probably won't be the consensus outcome. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Arrest of Ahmed Mohamed - It was the arrest that made this notable. If there was no arrest nothing would have happened. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Texas doesn't call the limited time custody of juveniles an arrest. They aren't taken to jail. They don't see a judge. It's a BLP violation to call it an arrest. Specifically, they don't call it that because juveniles arrested for doing stupid stuff should not have to answer "Yes" on every application that asks "Have you ever been arrested?" And yes, it would have made news if he was just suspended from school for a clock. It's silly season, after all. --DHeyward (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• That argument has been already debunked above. Juveniles get arrested in Texas. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
• My highlights "Additionally, a juvenile court may publicly disclose information about a juvenile who is the subject of a directive to apprehend or a warrant of arrest and who cannot be located by law enforcement. [...] Now, the child’s school district superintendent and school principal must receive oral notification within 24 hours or before the next school day whichever is earlier, following a child’s arrest, referral, conviction or adjudication for any felony offense and for certain misdemeanor offenses. (§15.27(a) [...] According to an Attorney General Opinion, §15.27 of the Code of Criminal Procedure authorizes law enforcement officials to notify school authorities of all circumstances surrounding the arrest or detention of a juvenile.[10] - Cwobeel (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support move to Arrest of Ahmed Mohamed. I agree, I made a blunder when I created this article with it's present name. I intended to move it but it got AfD'ed before that. -_Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support move to Arrest of Ahmed Mohamed. A very good WP:OR argument has been made to move the title to "detention", but we must see substantial recognition of this in the sources to retitle the article. Actual sources headline the title "arrest", e.g. [11]. It doesn't matter what "arrest" means in Texas legalese; our article is written in English. However, out of BLP concern I do encourage people to paste together every scrap of argument that he was not really arrested, and to feature prominently in the lead paragraph that in legal terms he was detained rather than arrested, provided secondary sources have made this connection. Wnt (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support a move to Arrest of Ahmed Mohamed per nom. —  AjaxSmack  21:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support a move to Arrest of Ahmed Mohamed as others said above, unless Cuffed and Stuffed of Ahmed Mohamed would be better. ThurstonHowell3rd (talk) 04:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I believe that Arrest of Ahmed Mohamed will continue to be contentious, and, due to technicalities in his state's laws, may remain a WP:BLP issue. At AfD, another editor suggested Ahmed Mohamed clock incident which sounds much more neutral and avoids technicalities with the term arrest, while continuing to be a descriptive term for the contents of the article. I do agree that the current title violates WP:BLP1E. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  08:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support move to Ahmed Mohamed clock incident, which complies with BLP1E but escapes the issues over whether or not he was 'arrested' being debated above. Robofish (talk) 23:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support move to Ahmed Mohamed clock incident Title more accurately encapsulates the event without trying to go off on a tangent about different law terms and procedures. 2601:CD:4102:9A5D:740D:9BDB:4EA5:36F (talk) 07:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support move to Ahmed Mohamed clock incident - Most accurate description of event, makes the article about what happened rather than who it happened to (per WP:BLP1E) ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support move to Ahmed Mohamed clock incident or some other similar name. should not exist as a WP:BLP1E and the arrest titels are a bit too POV. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
• Comment – So far, there are 7 in favor of moving the article to the "Arrest" title, 4 to the "clock" title, and 1 (me) in favor of moving to the "detainment" title. Epic Genius (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

FWIW (and acknowledging that this is not a voting process), I get a slightly different count: 6 advocating "arrest" (me, Cwobeel, Rsrikanth05, Wnt, AjaxSmack, ThurstonHowell3rd), 5 for "clock incident" (TheRedPenOfDoom, Robofish, IP 2601:CD:..., ONUnicorn, Gaijin42), and 1 for "detainment" (you). I also acknowledge that the support for "arrest" was mostly expressed before someone suggested "clock incident", and that some of the comments by others not listed here can be interpreted as supporting some of these in spirit. I think perhaps Milowent and Etamni can be interpreted as supporting "clock incident". I don't notice anyone suggesting to keep the current name (just objections to specific alternatives). —BarrelProof (talk) 02:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Over in the AfD discussion, I notice quite a few more people suggesting renaming that aren't participating here. Again there is the same pattern of earlier support for "arrest" and later support for "clock incident". —BarrelProof (talk) 03:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

At this point in the discussion, the AfD was closed as "renamed" and the article was renamed to Ahmed Mohamed clock incident. That solves the WP:1E problem that led me to originally submit the request to rename the article, as the new name says the article is about the incident rather than being presented as a biography of the boy. The RM discussion can continue if necessary, but I think the current name is reasonable and would not mind if someone closes the discussion at this point. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Deletion?! No way!

This is a worldwide story, with policy implications.173.173.20.99 (talk) 04:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Either log in from the account you already have -- or -- if you don't yet have an account, get one, and your comments will likely be taken more seriously. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

May I suggest taking part in the deletion discussion, which is taking place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Mohamed (student), not here. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

That looks like a backhanded attempt at canvassing, to me. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

It isn't. I suggest to WP:Assume good faith. It's simply directing a person who wants to comment to the appropriate place where the discussion is supposed to take place. I would have made the same reply to someone who said the article is useless trash that should be deleted. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

It is. Suggesting someone who has two edits (neither of which are content edits) and is obviously for keeping the article go to the AfD and !vote is most certainly a form of canvassing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, if anyone who goes against your opinion is canvassing, then maybw you should assume good faith. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Overall narrative is imbalanced

A good amount of commentary contemplates this as a hoax or stunt. That is not adequately reflected in the article.173.173.20.99 (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Have some sources other than Richard Dawkins' musing tweets? Would like to review. We need some "serious people" considering the hoax idea before we want to put it in here. Everything is a hoax on the internet to someone.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The arrest itself was explicitly for "hoax bomb" not "bomb". So its somewhat of a valid point. The story is misconstrued on social media. Nobody thought he actually made a bomb. They thought he made a hoax bomb to cause some disruption. To extend further, yes, if he just disassembled and re cased an existing clock, then his motives become much more suspect.Gaijin42 (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

This should be objectively obvious, but due to the viral narrative surrounding the story, objective information is drowned out by social media and press statements. Many were early to jump on a media train as soon as it left the station, and now this Wiki is ruled by confirmation bias. The result is a controversial article which purposefully omits sourced facts in favor of un-sourced claims stated as fact if it doesn't agree with the original media coverage or Ahmed's statements. It is highly unethical to remove sourced and independently verifiable information in order to maintain a bias.

-- 106.184.2.207 (talk) 13:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Arrested

99.999% of all sources describe an arrest, and we should follow the sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with this point. If the sources says so, then it must stay. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

What an idiotic stance. WP:COMMONSENSE most certainly applies here. Reliable sources from Texas state law state he couldn't have been arrested. The police report never says he was arrested. Plenty of news sources also say detained. But yes, let's go with reliable news sourcesthat support personal agendas because they always get it right, right? Idiotic. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey, please WP:AGF and play nice. Show me reliable sources that do not call this an arrest. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Most, if not all sources use "arrested". Here is the BBC, a highly reliable source: [12] Texas police have decided not to charge a 14-year-old Muslim boy arrested for bringing a homemade clock to school. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The BBC is not really a reliable source for non-English news. I recall that they ran the Nigerian cannibalism hoax as straight news without checking any of the facts. -- 120.23.230.137 (talk) 07:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The BBC doesn't trump the Texas Attorney General' interpretation of juvenile law. Page 7 describes the language and specifically what taken into police custody means for juveniles. There may be other ways to take into custody (i.e. warrant or involuntary committal) but the Press Release by Irving PD uses the exact language outlined in the Attorney General' interpretative, secondary source, guide. The problem with using "arrest" is that if there is even the slightest hint that it wasn't an arrest, and Ahmed can truthfully say he's never been arrested, we are committing a BLP violation by saying he was. For BLP reasons, we choose the least harm to the subject and calling it an "arrest" when it is disputably not an "arrest" can cause irreparable harm to his future. "Have you ever been arrested?" is a common question on applications. In 20 years when all the news is archived, do we really want some HR person googling "Ahmed Mohamed arrest" and the only hit is this page alleging he was arrested for making a "Hoax bomb" and makes him look like a liar for saying "No?" I would the answer is self-evident that "No, we don't." --DHeyward (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

For WP:BLP we have to follow the sources. We are not doing a disservice by reporting what sources say. On the contrary. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, most sources say "arrested". Winkelvi, you should stop thinking of this literally and to the letter. Epic Genius (talk) 19:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

That's your opinion. Personally, I've always had this silly notion that encyclopedias are to contain literal facts. But maybe that's just me. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

My opinion, or your opinion? Yes, your opinion is silly, because this is a crowd-sourced encyclopedia, so it should be what the people think. Texas law be damned, we should include what reliable news sources think!!

(Yeah, just joking. Seriously, though, you can't really cite Texas law as a source here because it cannot be verified for this particular case.) Epic Genius (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the secondary sources do trump your original research, even though it may be valid original research. Wnt (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Information cited from reliable references can come in various forms. Seems to me that an online source containing Texas law from a reliable source is certainly proper and citable. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, you can't verify Texas law unless you have a source on Ahmed. Epic Genius (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

While I understand the conundrum, we can't use original research in WP articles. We have to follow the sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Someone keeps deleting Arrest of Ahmed Mohamed and claiming that it's a BLP vio. Well, apparently, there are more Google hits for "arrest of ahmed mohamed" than for "detainment of ahmed mohamed". Epic Genius (talk) 20:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

What I am reading is that the difference between "detention" vs "arrest" lies if a police officer take an individual into custody. So in this case, "taken into custody" as expressed in the police press release is equal to describing an arrest. Basically, an arrest occurs when police officers take a suspect into custody. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Page 7 of the Texas 2014 juvenile justice handbook says it very clearly: Texas law permits a juvenile to be taken into custody under the following circumstances: pursuant to an order of the juvenile court; pursuant to the laws of arrest;[13] So he was taken into custody pursuant of the laws of arrest. Split your hairs all you want, but "arrest" is 100% accurate in this instance. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

So there we go. It is not a BLP violation because by law, Ahmed was taken into custody by means of the rules for arrest. Therefore, he was technically arrested. Epic Genius (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

yup. Here is the statute [14] - Cwobeel (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Nope. They observed an act in their presence that they believed would be probable cause for an arrest of an adult. That "rule of arrest" allows them to arrest an adult on that charge without a warrant. They have to meet the probable cause burden and statutes regarding arrests but juveniles are not arrested for that offense. --DHeyward (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Taken into custody is 100% synonymous with arrest? On what planet? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

In Texas, it's not detention so much as custody. Juveniles are in custodial care. When Police take custody (in this case, from school custody to police custody), the actual offense is delinquency and custodial intervention takes place. If he was over a certain age, that goes away and the adult faces full penalties of law and goes through criminal court. The underlying cause of the police taking custody is an action that would have been an arrest-able offense if the juvenile was an adult. Juveniles are always in someone's custody. Juveniles have certain rights but not all rights afforded adults. A juvenile can be taken into custody, for example, for truancy and delivered to the school in handcuffs if that is their policy. Juveniles don't get jury trials. Juveniles can only be held up to 6 hours before being released to their parents or a juvenile court places them in a juvenile center. Juveniles are also not brought to a jail. They aren't left alone. And because there is no prosecution in this case, his fingerprints and photos will be expunged in 10 days. The penalty for an adult that commits a "Hoax bomb" threat can carry a long sentence, but for juveniles, it's only delinquency and the adult penalty has no meaning. "Hoax bomb" is the pretext for taking custody but it's not the offense or penalty he would have faced. Juvenile law is different and the fact that he can truthfully say he was never arrested is key. An 18 y/o High School Senior would have been arrested for the actual "Hoax Bomb" crime, brought to jail and face a judge regarding release. The adult cannot truthfully say they weren't arrested. --DHeyward (talk) 21:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

That is covered in the statute The taking of a child into custody is not an arrest except for the purpose of determining the validity of taking him into custody or the validity of a search under the laws and constitution of this state or of the United States. So he was indeed arrested. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

No, that's the procedure they operate under. Police powers of arrest center around crimes. When they take a juvenile into custody using rules for arrest, it's because the underlying act would have been a crime if an adult had committed it. Delinquency is what is adjudicated though. Police would be scrutinized if they took him into custody for "Hoax bomb" but didn't have probable cause. That's a "rule of arrest." There are very defined laws as to when police need a warrant or when they can arrest on the spot. If they observe the crime, they can arrest an adult for that crime and, using that, they can also take custody of juvenile. The juvenile is not charged with felony "hoax bomb", they are brought to juvenile court for delinquency and there is no jury. --DHeyward (talk) 21:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

We can get into a discussion on the nuances of Texas juvenile law, but we should follow the sources as a better alternative. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The Texas AG's interpretation that it wasn't an arrest is the definitive secondary source. Ahmed can truthfully say he was never arrested. Why is that hard? Do you understand that stating he was arrested is a BLP violation if there is doubt? Considering the AG's view, the term "arrested" is negative and poorly sourced and needs to be avoided. Doesn't matter how many sources get it wrong. --DHeyward (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no BLP violation, as the person involved said in more than one interview that he was arrested, same as many reliable sources. We need to put the legal nuances aside and follow the sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

That same law summarization document written by the Texas AG, which doesn't mention Ahmed Mohamed, also refers to "a child's arrest" and a "juvenile arrest" and "the arrest or detention of a juvenile" and a "warrant of arrest" for a juvenile, which are phrases that clearly acknowledge that a child can be arrested. The AG legal summary document also says that such an individual has the legal permission to later deny that they were arrested, but that's not the same thing as saying that it's not possible for him to be arrested as a matter of practical reality and as a matter of the phrasing used elsewhere in the same document. The document Winkelvi calls a "police report" is not a police report – it's a police press release (which is also a primary source that doesn't say Mohamad wasn't arrested). Mohamad himself says he was arrested. Let's stop playing amateur lawyer here and trying to create our own WP:SYNTHESIS interpretation of the law and plain English phrasing based on primary source documents. Let's use the plain language of the independent secondary reliable sources that talk about what happened to Ahmed Mohamad. We have 30 or more such sources cited in the article that say he was arrested. We have zero such sources that say he wasn't. He himself says he was arrested. Outside of Wikipedia, there doesn't seem to be any controversy over that question. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

For the legally inclined, here is some good material [15] - Cwobeel (talk) 21:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Which says he wasn't arrested. --DHeyward (talk) 21:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Which says he was. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

For the record, the majority of editors and reliable sources, and even laws, state that Ahmed was arrested, no question there. And as @BarrelProof says, Wikipedia is the only place where such a huge argument is happening. Why? Epic Genius (talk) 23:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, its huge in the conservo-blog-o-sphere because putting a kid in "detention" for a clock comes across as at least two levels less racist than "arresting" a kid for having a clock. This appearance of "we are not as racist as everyone thinks" is important. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Detention, as in school detention, is also factually incorrect. Detainment isn't much better, because it's politically correct. Epic Genius (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Surely the accurate wording would be something like "he was handcuffed and detained by police." If children in Texas are not technically "arrested," then we should not use the word "arrested." Ahmed Mohamad may think he was arrested, but he's hardly a legal expert. And, as pointed out, the legal distinction may become important down the track. -- 120.23.230.137 (talk) 07:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

you say "toe-may-toe", the rest of the world says "arrested". that Texas law has a quirk of terminology for what it does to minors is pretty much irrelevant. Even the TEXAS newspapers , that would be well aware if there was any actual differentiation, utilize the world-wide common terminology for the act. Houston Chronicle: "The 14-year-old Irving ISD student was arrested. " Dallas Morning News: "Irving’s police chief announced Wednesday that charges won’t be filed against Ahmed Mohamed, the MacArthur High School freshman arrested Monday after he brought " Austin Statesman: "Irving police arrested MacArthur High School freshman " El Paso Times :A 14-year-old Muslim boy has been arrested in North Texas . we do not utilize WP:EUPHEMISMs or WP:JARGON. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I think this will resolve it once and for all. See comment from Irving Texas Mayor Beth Van Duyne, who said that the police report describes the event as "Arrestee being in possession of a hoax bomb at MacArthur High School"' [16]. So he was indeed arrested. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't look like a reliable source. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Why not? It is a conservative outlet, but I don't think that it will be not verifiable. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Article about Glenn Beck interview with the mayor

@BarrelProof: You may be confusing the police media release with the police report. "The police report describes the event as "Arrestee being in possession of a hoax bomb at MacArthur High School", with no further information about the interaction" is what the source says. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

You seem to have somewhat misquoted it. What it says is "The available police report describes the event only as, '...Arrestee being in possession of a hoax bomb at MacArthur High School.'" (differences in boldface, and including "..."), and there is no phrase at the end saying "with no further information about the interaction". Perhaps the source was changed after you quoted it? We're talking about this article, right? —BarrelProof (talk) 23:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

That source doesn't seem very reliable. It is obviously written in a very opinionated way and wasn't properly proofread (e.g., its opening sentence contains the ungrammatical phrase "refused to released records"). That source seems to treat everything Ms Van Duyne says as revealed fact rather than just neutrally reporting that this is what she said – e.g., it consistently uses terms like "revealed" and "noted" and "pointed out" rather than more neutral language like "said" (see WP:SAY), and it puts quote marks around the word "clock", calling it a "so-called 'clock'", and it refers to the family's reaction as their "refusal to amicably resolve the situation" and says they "rushed" and that Obama "rushed". That is not neutral language. I think the writer of the article may be mischaracterizing the media release as the "police report", just as some editors have been doing here on this Talk page – and may be somewhat misquoting it, although the basic spirit of his comment is true that very little real information about what happened has been released by the police. I think it's obvious that the actual report submitted by the police officers for the police department's own record-keeping purposes would say more than that about the incident. (If not, then the police officer who filed the report should be dismissed, because a proper police report should contain a lot more information than that.) Is there a police report that's available? The article refers to the "available police report", but I'm not aware of such an available police report. If it's available, I'd like to see it, so I can look for that quote in it and see if that description of it is correct. That article doesn't claim the writer had access to any special information that's not available to the public, so I doubt the writer really has the ability to quote from unreleased police documents or to say exactly what they say and do not say. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I can see you read the article, but you missed this important piece: The mayor has access to the police report and she complains that she can't release it because the subject is a juvenile and his parent are blocking the release (or at least footdragging). So, why to doubt what she saw in the report? - Cwobeel (talk) 22:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

There are several problems with that: 1) the article doesn't say "The mayor said the unreleased internal police report only says ...". Instead it says "The available police report describes the event only as ...". It is reporting this information as fact, not as something someone else said. 2) it uses the word "available", so it is saying this "police report" is available, but no such police report seems to actually be available that uses that exact quoted phrase. 3) It's so slanted and poorly written that I don't trust its accuracy. 4) What it describes is so close to what the press release says that I think it's actually referring to the press release and just somewhat mischaracterizing it by calling it a police report and is slightly misquoting it. 5) A proper police report would not fit that description, since any proper police report would contain more detail. Also, I don't think that sentence is really necessary or helpful to the Wikipedia article, so we should just leave it out. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Description section

Shouldn't there be a section on the thing itself? You know, how it appears, the size, wires, Tandy clock, etc? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Probably. But the "oh wait he actually just took apart an 80s alarm clock" story is just making inroads in the news, so few RS's report it. Also, no original research. --Monochrome_Monitor 22:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

We have a few sourced facts, right? It is made of a pencil box appearing as a miniature brief case. Anything else? Some facts from the widely publicized image would be OR, but still, there is obviously a household plug on a black wire. The wire to hold it shut is black. The clock is screwed to the inside of the case. Black interior. Size? I mean, can't we state a few obvious facts? It's like having a picture of an particular island with a mountain in the middle and not being able to add the mountain fact to the island article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the description would be that important, though we can add alt text for the image. Epic Genius (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

IMO, the clock is not the issue, neither it is at the center of the event. The arrest was, and probably the only thing notable. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about that. Everyone is discussing whether or not it looks like a bomb. So, the appearance is important. Will visitors to this article think it is a full size briefcase, or a "Vaultz" brand pencil box, significantly smaller?[17] Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

7 3/4 inches. Felt interior with mesh pocket. Exterior aluminum reinforcement with steel corners.

References

The size is important, but the actual components aren't, unless you want to make something like this yourself. If so, be my guest, but most readers on Wikipedia won't go to this article to look for "How to make an alarm clock that looks like Ahmed Mohamad's". Epic Genius (talk) 23:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Visitors come to the article to see what all the fuss is about and get details. The size and other details about the appearance are important -- inside, outside, wires, clock, the whole thing. What it looks like is at the heart of this whole thing and the reason for all the fuss. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure. Just find a source that can be used. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

A source? What's that? Like a spaghetti source? Hollandaise source? Seriously though, I hope in the next little while, more details about the appearance will hit the media and be enough for a section to be created. I just wanted to get the ball rolling. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

A source, like an instruction manual, perhaps? Oh wait, I heard Ahmed designed it himself. Seriously though, WP:V applies. Epic Genius (talk) 00:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I have a feeling what will be a best seller for Halloween costumes this year. ThurstonHowell3rd (talk) 00:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Let me guess. Darth Vader? Clocks that inexplicably look like bombs to some people, but are quite apparently innocuous? I like Darth Vader. Epic Genius (talk) 00:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps careful use of IAR might be called for. The original post in the "blog" where the particular clock-radio was identified, including a link to the radio shack catalog where it was first sold, while not normally a proper source, might be a qualified source for the specific purpose of describing the clock and the apparent origins of the components. If used, it would be important not to bring over any opinion from that blog (unrelated to a description of the clock), given that the discussion there is just as polarized as anywhere else, nor any of the comments about the original post, for the same reason. (Disclaimer: I posted comments there myself, under my Disqus account, with the same user name as here). Etamni | ✉ | ✓  00:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Darth Vader? Too digital, I want old school, Flavor Flav! Yeahhhhhhhh Boy!!!!!!! ThurstonHowell3rd (talk) 00:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

No good source that says it was a Radio Shack model xxxxx? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Is this any good? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Obviously not, see WP:SELFPUB. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Let's wait and see. Sooner or later, if people show interest in what the clock looks like, a good source will pop up, and it will include a description of the clock. By the way, I really like Stormtroopers as well. Epic Genius (talk) 01:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

"Spaghetti source", that's hilarious. (oops NOTFORUM)--Monochrome_Monitor 02:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

NOTFORUM, eh? Oops, we don't care. Did I mention that I like spaghetti? Epic Genius (talk) 02:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Real spaghetti is good. Once I tried some of that Chef Boyardee spaghetti in a can. Was nasty....Should have taken it back to the store and gotten my 75 cents back. ThurstonHowell3rd (talk) 03:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: Perhaps this source will convince you which model clock was involved, even if the source, as a blog, is not good enough for WP. I don't agree with certain suggestions (regarding motive) made therein, but I believe his analysis of the clock parts is probably spot on. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  08:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

That is a WP:SELFPUB, and not usable in WP. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM

I feel bad for Chef Boyardee. He's supposed to be some great chef but now he's known for his canned goods vaguely resembling food. It's quite sad. --Monochrome_Monitor 22:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC) Frankly, Monochrome et al., Wikipedia is Not a forum and this is getting pretty tiresome. The ingredients of the can are a matter of fact – they're listed on the label and required to be accurate by law. But any speculation about how good the sauce tastes or how skilled the chef is, or how original is his recipe or what his feelings are about his so-called "creation" – that belongs in a separate category that needs to be clearly identified as subjective commentary and speculation. The chef puts out a reliable product, that that's what counts when you're trying to fill the stomachs of children. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC) Based on all the purse swinging on this page, this is a forum. As far as filling the stomachs of children, despite being known as picky eaters at times, children are not known for their culinary palate.ThurstonHowell3rd (talk) 13:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC) We should probably restrict future posts at this thread to the subject of reliable sources about the case and clock, and whether or not a section is warranted. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, I believe that a separate section is not warranted due to WP:NOTHOWTO. We are not showing the readers exactly what is in the lunchbox or whatever it is. We are basically outlining the main parts of the clock, and these can be summarized in a sentence. Not even a full paragraph is needed. Epic Genius (talk) 19:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

If good sources can be found that provides a detailed description, then I believe the opposite per my comments above "...Visitors come to the article to see...". It would not be a violation of WP:NOTHOWTO. Describing a canoe is not the same as saying how to build it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Clock Section

The likely reality that Mohamed did not make the clock but transferred the internal components of a Radio Shack clock to a pencil case is being covered by the mainstream media. Attempts to add this information are either deleted or moved to the reactions section. As it stands the article reads in a very imbalanced way. It's as if it were written in the first few days following the story, excluding new developments and only mentioning them in the "Reactions" section. As mentioned by myself and others in the Talk there needs to be a clock section to address the clock itself, which is central to the entire story. This will balance the article. The clock section should follow the arrest section. Also any citations of the original electronics experts sources are immediately deleted and called unreliable sources, yet the media has picked up these sources and they are influencing the discussion in the mainstream news. 75.72.163.145 (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree if you can find a source that doesn't use criticism over the "invention" (as someone who only took one semester in electrical engineering but is fond of obsolete technology, I can confirm this looks a lot like an old ass alarm clock disassembled, but hey no original research) as a segue of saying "he wanted to get arrested" or "CAIR set the whole thing up" or the like. Those would be not RS. Here's hoping such a source actually exists. --Monochrome_Monitor 22:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's a repackaged old-ass Radio Shack alarm clock in a pencil case with a tiger hologram on the front. Nobody's really questioning that, and Mohamed himself never even really claimed otherwise. He himself said it was something "really small" and the original DMN article said it was something he slapped together in about 20 minutes. Using sloppy kid-speak, Mohamed used the word "invention" to refer to the result of his little tinkering project. That was an incorrect use of the word, because it's not what a mature educated adult would call a real invention, but it's not necessarily an indication of a massive intentional fraud. The facts can go in some place describing the clock. The opinions and interpretations should go in the section about reactions and opinions. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Even if that's not what he meant, it was widely reported as a "invention" or "home-made", which are misleading. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Different people mean different things (in different contexts) when they refer to making and inventing things, and "making" seems looser than inventing. And people often try to say generous things about the efforts of children. If it was a 23-year-old student that showed it to his engineering teacher and referred to it as an invention, it'd probably get very a different response from "That's really nice" – probably something along the lines of "so what's so inventive about it, and why are you here?" —BarrelProof (talk) 02:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The material in the "clock" section is speculation by some people, and it belongs in the reactions section, where I moved it. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, I don't think that The Daily Caller is a reliable source, and neither is a self-published YouTube video. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't really seem like speculation to me. Reading serial numbers and looking at circuit board patterns is not speculation. I also don't think Mohamed or his family or anyone else has really denied any of that. Although originally self-published, my understanding is that it has been picked up in some secondary sources. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

It is speculation because these people don't have access to the box or its contents and are making an assessment based on a photo. As for secondary sources, I only see WND and the Daily Caller, both of which are not RS. Any mainstream news organizations covering the hoax conspiracy? - Cwobeel (talk) 04:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Fox News is. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Fox News is reporting on the conspiracy? Where? - Cwobeel (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Fox News reported on it, huh? Have they declared Irving a "no go zone" yet? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Here, it's a good story. Raquel Baranow (talk) 21:46, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

And by the way, the issue is not the "clock", but the response of the school administration and police what triggered this entire thing. Of course, some fringe sources are alleging that this was done in purpose to trigger that response, yet another conspiracy theory, as if we need more of those... - Cwobeel (talk) 04:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Of course the clock is the issue. The clock is the entire issue. In order to not see this you would have to be remarkably biased or willfully blind. The entire media storm and narrative relies on Mohamed being an intelligent young inventor who made a clock from scratch only to be arrested due to Islamophobia in a backward Texas social climate. Why would Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Twitter--cutting edge tech companies who employ some of the world's best and brightest reach out to a 14-year old who put the inside of a 1980s Radio Shack clock into a pencil case? The reality of the clock undermines EVERYTHING about how this story has been marketed. It is strange and distressing that you consistently downplay the importance of the clock's authorship. 75.72.163.145 (talk) 04:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

It's exactly the clock. The article narrative starts off with his Engineering teacher saying it's nice but keep it hidden. Why do you think he told him to hide it? It's not rocket science to understand why that teacher said that. The teacher should have kept the clock and utterly failed Ahmed. He obviously didn't think it was a bomb but knew it looked like one. --DHeyward (talk) 05:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The clock is not the issue. Its the official reaction to the clock (the handcuffing and police detention of a non chrisian non white minor which may not technically be called an "arrest" because Texas law states that arrest of a minor is called "detention"), and the reaction to the official reaction. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

He was arrested under suspicion of bringing a hoax bomb to school. I shouldn't have to explain this, but imagine if it were socially acceptable to prank people with fake bombs, and it happened all the time. The fact is, it is a significant crime to bring a suspicious device to school. The obvious question in this case, was he arrested because he was muslim, or was their probable cause to detain and question him of his motives? In order to answer that question, we need to know about the clock. You are trying to bury the lead because you want people to presume the motives for the arrest to suit your agenda. - 106.186.31.122 (talk) 11:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

If you bring something to school that looks like a bomb then I would desperately hope that a teacher would raise an eyebrow and report the issue for the safety of all of the students and faculty. The idea that we even refer to what Mohamed brought to school as a "clock" is absurd because before this story broke nobody would look at that thing and call it a clock. It looks far more like a suitcase bomb than a clock. Who would look at that thing and call it a clock? Certainly not the average English teacher or Police Officer. This simple reasoning and sanity was completely lost in the media storm, which brushed the appearance of the clock under the rug (only Maher had the balls to question the appearance) and sensationalized what happened as a young inventor being racially profiled due to Islamophobia. The claims of racial profiling and Islamophobia were never investigated but dominantly reported as central factors. We've heard nothing from the school and nothing from the Police. Mohamed was portrayed as a young Muslim genius who built a digital clock from scratch and was wronged by a racist country.

Some of the most influential tech companies in the world and *gasp,* The President, responded to these "facts" by endorsing Mohamed with free handouts, internship offers, guest visitations to science fairs. These endorsements by tech companies who widely employ ivy-league educated engineers and international geniuses hinged on the idea that Mohamed was, you know, actually a smart kid who had CREATED something himself. These endorsements by huge tech companies and The President convinced the viewing public that Mohamed must actually be a smart inventor and a victim. Quite ridiculously, it appears that he did absolutely nothing at all but unscrew the plastic case of a 1980s Radio Shack clock and put the contents into a Vaultz pencil box [1-3]. That is why the authorship of the clock is so important. If Mohamed isn't smart and made nothing, then he is some random 14-year old who brought what looks like a bomb to school and a teacher raised an eyebrow, then the police did their due diligence to preserve the safety of the school and rule out a threat.

1. http://blogs.artvoice.com/techvoice/2015/09/17/reverse-engineering-ahmed-mohameds-clock-and-ourselves/
2. http://www.latinpost.com/articles/81030/20150922/ahmed-mohamed-clock-allegedly-a-purposeful-hoax-potential-fraud-case-says-judge-napolitano.htm
3. http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/22/professor-calls-ahmed-mohameds-clock-a-fraud-video/

75.72.163.145 (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

":If you bring something to school that looks like a bomb then I would desperately hope that a teacher would raise an eyebrow and report the issue for the safety of all of the students and faculty. " you mean like taking action to evacuate the building? yeah, that is what one would expect. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Opinions

This is starting to look like a biased article that needs supervision the same way Scientology did. I've seen my edits reverted twice by Rsrikanth05 who insisted "Irving, Texas reportedly has had a long history of Islamophobia and racial profiling." remain in the heading even using mic.com is barely known site to further this. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ahmed_Mohamed_(student)&diff=prev&oldid=681840809 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ahmed_Mohamed_(student)&diff=prev&oldid=681845802

Also note Mahar and Dawkins made opinions, Dawkins opinions were on twitter. The "opinion piece" removed was published in The Dallas Morning News where the incident took place and the largest publication in the area

Ooooh. Mic and Salon are now lesser known eh? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Mic hardly belongs in the heading or to prove that Irving has a history of Islamophobia and racial profiling. And why not add all commentary then from all left wing sources, of course you'll remove any disagreements like you did a law professor's opinion cause you don't like the source source.Harpppyiemojo (talk) 18:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Accusing me of being biased is not going to help anything. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, just because a site is lesser-known doesn't mean that the site is not valid for use as a reference. Saying "Irving, Texas reportedly has had a long history of Islamophobia and racial profiling" is a fact, not an opinion. An opinion would be "Irving, Texas reportedly had a long, undesirable history of Islamophobia and racial profiling."

In fact, I think the OP has an opinion himself. Maybe he's a closet Muslim? ;) Epic Genius (talk) 18:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Who me? No way. Everyone knows my religion. It's a matter of public record. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Ummm.... Sikh? --Monochrome_Monitor 20:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I was being facetious :). I didn't see anything about religion on your page. Just that you are apparently fluent in a lot of Indo-Aryan languages, which is pretty awesome considering the geographic separation of some of these languages. I'm also a bit confused how you are simultaneously a "native speaker of Indian English" and a "near-native speaker of English". Anyway... --Monochrome_Monitor 20:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

My religion was stated way back in 2012 on some talk page as Hinduism. As for languages, I intend to say that I can speak Indian English fluently, but am a bit sucky with other variants. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Indian English is a perfectly valid form of English. I'm still amazed how you know both tamil, kannada, and marathi though. That's friggin awesome. Myself I know English. I can read the Hebrew, Arabic, Greek, and Russian alphabets though. But I usually don't know what the words actually mean. So yeah. Not as cool.--Monochrome_Monitor 16:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

It is never a good idea to segregate "criticism" and "support" positions. Best is to have the responses interspersed for NPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

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)

AFD closed and article renamed

I have recently closed the AFD discussion. My conclusion from that discussion is that this page should be renamed and focused on the incident itself rather than be presented as a biography. As such, I have renamed the article to Ahmed Mohamed clock incident. This title is not necessarily a definitive choice and the RM discussion on this page should be allowed to continue to reach a final conclusion. In accordance with the AFD result, please adjust this article as necessary to focus on the incident itself and avoid any irrelevant biographic elements. Dragons flight (talk) 10:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

If the article must remain, the rename is the best alternative. The article should not be a bio. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I posted something on WP:ANRFC. An uninvolved editor needs to close the above RM, which conflicts with the above page move. Epic Genius (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I updated the introduction with facts.

I wrote that the Vaultz Locking Pencil Box was the one that looks like a briefcase so people don't get confused with other models like this one: http://www.vaultz.net/media/catalog/product/cache/10/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/v/z/vz00471.jpg

So it is going to be: in a miniature briefcase style Vaultz Locking Pencil Box[2]

— Anarcocapitalista1981 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC).

@Anarcocapitalista1981: Please see WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, and know that this article, being related to a living person, is under discretionary sanctions as set by the Arbitration Committee. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

He just disambled a commercial clock and placed the guts into a pencil case, what's wrong with the truth?

1) This is Thomas Talbot, who is arab and an electrical expert analizing the device: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEmSwJTqpgY 2) This is a video that shows how it looks when you take the guts of a commercial clock and place it in a pencil box: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHk_6Vh4Qeo 3) Another forensic analysis was referenced. 4) Even when i'm not judging Ahmed intentions (maybe it was a prank), the truth is that he placed the electronics of a commercial clock into a pencil box, so I don't know why you guys keep saying is a home-made clock, which isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarcocapitalista1981 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you have reliably published sources with a reputation for editorial oversight for discussion about article content? this is not a WP:CHATFORUM. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/21/nerds-rage-over-ahmed-s-clock.html
• http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/barbara-kay-seeing-islamophobia-everywhere
• http://www.techworm.net/2015/09/richard-dawkins-sparks-backlash-after-questioning-ahmed-mohameds-motives.html

Gaijin42 (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

He didn't just disassemble something into a pile of non-functioning pieces. He came up with an idea, found an appropriate case, found an appropriate internal mechanism, figured out how to mount the parts in the case, and put all of it together in a way that enabled the result to function as a cool-looking nifty decorative clock with a tiger hologram on the cover. That all seems basically undisputed, regardless of whether someone is an Arab or electrical expert or not. There are words that apply to the concept of selecting basic design elements and figuring out a mounting technique and obtaining the component parts and mounting the parts in a case to produce a cool-looking fully functioning clock that is different from the clock or internal clock parts that you originally obtained, and two of those words are "assembling" and "making". Some people might even call it "inventing" (especially if the person who did all this is a kid), although that might be a bit of a stretch. I'm not saying it was an especially elaborate creation or an incredibly creative accomplishment, and neither is anyone else, and in fact it seems like something someone might be able to accomplish in about 20 minutes before going to bed on a Sunday night (oops! that's actually exactly what's reported to have happened – what a coincidence!), but the result is a home-made clock. Actually, I think it would take me significantly more than 20 minutes – I would estimate about 3 hours, but that's just me and I can sometimes be a little slow. And even if you think you're right, the edit warring is not appropriate. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• "He came up with an idea, found an appropriate case, found an appropriate internal mechanism, figured out how to mount the parts in the case, and put all of it together in a way that enabled the result to function as a cool-looking nifty decorative clock with a tiger hologram on the cover."

Absolutely none of that is undisputed. I would like to see sources which prove he somehow found an appropriate internal "mechanism" (from somewhere) that required any assembly. As far as mounting, only the LCD is mounted to the back with two screws. You clearly did not review the cited source before deleting it. There are videos of people reproducing near identical clocks in 20 seconds by simply removing the enclosure from a generic radio alarm. There is no evidence that the parts were sourced from different devices, or that any soldering or de-soldering happened at any point. The grommet is still attached to the 120v plug, the exposed transformer is dangerously hanging next to the printed circuit board which includes the manufacturers button layout to set the alarm clock. The 9v battery backup, although unused is still wired as well. In fact, no component found in a commercial alarm clock has been removed or altered. You can not mix-and match the printed circuit boards shown in the photo, to make statements suggesting otherwise is not only unsupported by the evidence, but it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of PCB design. Every component from the original clock is visible and does not appear to be modified in any way. If you have reliable evidence that he found "internal mechanisms" somewhere and arranged them in a new way, I would welcome to see the source. I repeat, removing cited information is unethical and it appears that you have not even read the source before deleting it.

-- 106.186.31.122 (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

By "internal mechanism", I'm referring to the interior parts of an old digital clock, of course. Perhaps "components" would have been a better word than "mechanism", since it wasn't mechanical. I didn't say those parts themselves needed assembly. The assembly was the mounting of those parts into the pencil case (which may have also had a hole cut in it for the display). —BarrelProof (talk) 19:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

In that case, I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. If you're saying that the act of screwing the LCD to the inside of the case qualifies as assembly, I'm not sure I would agree. But certainly that would remain factually consistent with the statement that his clock consists of exposed circuitry of a Micronta digital alarm clock inside of a pencil box. If we can't agree on what constitutes home-assembled, at least we can objectively describe what it is precisely.

-- 106.185.29.90 (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, mounting the internal elements into the case (and figuring out how to do so) is assembling it. As Wiktionary says "assemble" means "to put together" or "to gather as a group". The result was a home-assembled clock that was different from the old boring-looking clock that he disassembled. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The problem is to describe it simply as home-assembled is misleading, and implies that the technical portion, the clock, was an assembly of more basic components. - 106.186.31.122 (talk) 11:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Most of these sources are already covered in the article. See the Responses section. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• Essentially its like my mom claimed she made a lasagna when she actually just defrosted some pre-made crap and plopped it onto a new plate. The facts behind the clock's "invention" are dragging a bit in the media, hence our treatment is likely to take time to catch up.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Pics of mom and/or lasagna? Heyyouoverthere (talk) 19:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

If it was your kid and they combined sauce and pasta that were purchased separately and cooked it, then they definitely made you lasagna, and you should try to appreciate it, even if they messed up the whole kitchen in the process. Especially if it was their own idea and they weren't following a recipe.—BarrelProof (talk) 17:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, the incident is not about what he built, assembled, invented, or put together. The incident became notable because of the response by police and school administrators, and the response by notable people about his arrest/detention - Cwobeel (talk) 17:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The problem is you can not delete information because you feel it "isn't important." Regardless of what you feel to be the most important part of the story, it is not up to you to delete other information and create a one sided narrative. This appears to be confirmation bias, whether intentional or not in the editing out of select facts and it is unethical.

-- 106.186.31.122 (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Nope. It is Wikipedia policy to present the content/views in the proportion that they are held by the mainstream academics. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

This is not about proportion, this is about omitting a single key fact to maintain a bias narrative of events.

-- 106.186.31.122 (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, we follow the story as the reliable sources present the story. You must establish that the point you wish to cover has a significant place in the coverage as presented by the reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

And I repeat, the source provided is more than sufficient to establish that the components came from a Micronta clock. It is a significant part of the story which if left out, would require un-sourced conjecture based solely on hearsay and Ahmed's personal testimony. No evidence has been provided that somehow the printed circuit boards shown were assembled from multiple devices. I shouldn't need to tell you that 80's PCB's found in manufactured electronics are not mix-matchable. The button layout on the printed circuit board is clearly from a Micronta alarm clock, and would not work to set the alarm, dimmer, snooze and other functions if wired to the circuit board of another clock. Never-mind that there is additionally a logo and serial number visible on the main circuit board, which has been published and discussed in the tech community, and to censor that fact is a massive editorial breach of ethics. You should not censor information because you want to paint a clear narrative from your perspective. This is a classic case of ethics. So many people jumped on the viral media train two minutes after it left the station, and now this Wiki is ruled by heavy-handed confirmation bias.

-- 106.185.29.90 (talk) 19:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

WTF are you talking about? The Micronta clock bit is IN THE LEAD SENTENCE. And no one gives two shits about that - What made the news and what people are still interested in and disgusted about is that the school and police nabbed a Muslim kid who had a clock. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You well know that a lot of people care about the device brought to school, or we wouldn't be having this conversation. The repeated removal of this information is clearly vandalism. A few words to explain the actual device when it is introduced is appropriate. A couple editors have injected their bias by describing it as home-assembled and repeatedly deleting sourced information to the contrary.

-- 106.185.29.90 (talk) 22:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Quite the contrary, if he had brought a clock made out spit and bitumen or one put together from bits of this and that or one purchased from a prop store NO ONE WOULD HAVE CARED OR KNOWN. It was only that he was taken in cuffs and fingerprinted for bringing a clock that anyone has paid any attention. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

If, as Dawkins says below, the kid just took apart a clock and assembled it in a box in 20-minutes before going to bed; then why did he bring it to school? “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?” Raquel Baranow (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The why is irrelevant to this article. This talk page is not a discussion forum to speculate on motives. Any further forum discussions will be refactored. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

no motives are being discussed by correctly identifying the clock, Raquel is correct that it is a central part of the story as the reason for bringing what appeared to some as a hoax bomb was that it was a science project. It's not enough to say someone was arrested for bringing a homemade clock. It's sensationalist and misleading, besides critically, it's not true or supported by evidence. Stop deleting sourced facts simply because you don't want people to consider certain information central to the story. The entire story is about a clock mistaken for a hoax bomb, if you don't accurately describe the clock, it's just narrative. You shouldn't presume he was or wasn't profiled, you should just present the facts as they are reported. It's not your job to decide to censor information that doesn't support your narrative. Stop vandalizing and don't remove the disputed tag until this is resolved.

-- 106.185.29.90 (talk) 23:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Why did a 14 year old bring a clock to school? BECAUSE HE IS FUCKING 14 YEARS OLD AND THATS THE KIND OF SHIT 14 YEAR OLDS DO.

Again, he could have brought anything to school and NO ONE WOULD CARE. The only reason to it got press was that the 14 year old Muslim boy was dragged off by police in handcuffs FOR HAVING A CLOCK. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You're clearly inserting your own speculation and POV and then trying to actively censor information that you view as inconvenient. There is nothing about motive in stating that Ahmed's clock was assembled from a Micronta digital clock. You've already decided the motive is he is 14 and you are deleting anything that doesn't suit your narrative.

-- 106.185.29.90 (talk) 23:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

No I am not speculating. 14 year old boys bring shit to school every day and not one person cares.

We reflect what the sources state about the subject in the manner and emphasis that they do. So what specifically based on what sources do you wish to add or change about the article?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• Dawkins, again, "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." Read more in today's Independent. Raquel Baranow (talk) 18:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Annnnnnd this relates to our article.....? How? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@Raquel Baranow: What e are discussing here, Dawkins' opinions are already included in the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You have zero proves that he put together parts of different clocks, just his word. But Thomas Talbot, the expert who dissected the picture and did one of the forensics said: "I see no evidence that this is any creation whatsoever or that there was any modification or even assembly of anything, to have made things out of a kit for example. This is simply taking a clock out of its case." In this video the kid describes the artifact as "his invention" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mW4w0Y1OXE Honestly if you want my opinion, I think Ahmed is a sweet boy who delude and believe to have invented something like in this interview where he claims to have built CPU's (wow!) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avAatzhL4m4 but as someone said, in wikipedia opinions don't matter and the fact is that there is no sign of manual soldering in the picture and every expert say that there is no evidence of modification, or assambly. 188.78.213.149 (talk) 14:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

So what reliable sources are you bringing to support what specific content in the article? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I really fail to understand what we are discussing here, this talk page is not a forum. The article clearly states that the device was a clock made from parts, and we also have in the article the different opinions on what that clock was made of. We also have commentary from Mohamed explaining what he did and how long it took him. That is all we need in the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Lead

The lead is no longer a summary of the article, and includes undue weight material expressed in Wikipedia's voice. Tagged accordingly. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the opinion stated as fact in the lead, but left the other dispute tag as the lead does not reflect the article's content as needed per WP:LEDE - Cwobeel (talk) 21:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I have attempted to summarize the article with an end sentence that encapsulates the responses by politicians, media personalities and tech CEOs. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Interview

@75.72.163.145: why are you removing text related to the interview with Larry Wilmore? It is relevant material. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

If there is no response and a discussion, that material will be restored. Wikipedia is built by collaboration, and discussions are needed to arrive at consensus. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

You were tacking extraneous information onto the series of vital events leading up to the confiscation of the clock. This section should be unmuddied with extraneous information. Your odd addition also seemed related to a narrative you were pursuing, in light of the war you have been waging over the past few days against users referencing the Artvoice article and its contents.75.72.163.145 (talk) 04:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

What war? The Artvoice and other Make bloggers comments are in the article, one of them added by me. The issue being discussed is the material on that interview on national tv. I will restore it. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The micronta clock speculation in lead is undue

The text based on the Artvoice article, does not belong in the lead, and can't be presented without full attribution and in Wikipedia's voice. Moved to the response section with full attribution. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

It is clearly not speculation, and stating that the clock is home-assembled in the lead is misleading and sounds like a statement of fact. - 106.185.29.90 (talk) 23:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The clock was home assembled, and there is no dispute about that, given the preponderance of sources. If he used a Micronta clock or something else, that is an opinion. What you are doing is disruptive editing, by taking a single source, and using that source to make a claim of fact and without attribution, and not only that but doing that in the lead. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Makezine, who have been strongly supportive of Ahmed, and invited him to their events, nevertheless note that his clock is revealed "less as a combination of miscellaneous parts wired together into a timepiece, and more so as simply the guts of a standard digital alarm clock." Via a link, they also endorse the "Vaultz Locking Pencil Box" comment. I think there's now a clear consensus among technical commentators as to the nature of the clock. -- 120.23.214.158 (talk) 02:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

These are still opinions (wich may be valid or not), but in the lead it is stated as a fact in Wikipedia's voice, which is not acceptable, and while the majority of sources are not reporting on these opinions. It is WP:UNDUE and unacceptable for the lead, per WP:NPOV. BarrelProof, TheRedPenOfDoom, others: can you please weigh in on this? - Cwobeel (talk) 03:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The issues to weigh are 1) i am not familiar with Make Make - is it a reliably published source with a reputation of editorial oversight? 2) claims cannot be used out of context of the source, here the source is quite clear "Ahmed should be proud of his build. All 14-year-olds possess curiosity about taking things apart and putting them together; this is integral to learning and growing, which allows us to understand and master technology. It’s an extremely unfortunate situation that none of his teachers were able to understand the build, nor his intention to connect with them and find someone to foster his creative desires." so that needs to be addressed and the claim cannot be presented in a manner that implies something else. 3) how widely is observation being covered in the mainstream sources? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 08:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

How is that an "opinion" when there is a logo and part number on the components, and the clock has been identified. That's not what opinion means, words have meanings. The origins of the components are not subjective. "Headline consensus" does not trump the current technical consensus. -- 106.186.31.122 (talk) 07:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

As far as home-assembled not being debated, I would say that there is some-debate whether 2 screws to fasten the device to a container constitutes home assembly. Assembly seems to suggest that parts of the technical device were brought together from more basic components, and that is definitely misleading. -- 106.186.31.122 (talk) 07:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Look, the Micronta stuff does not belong in the lede, because the preponderance of sources do not cover any of it. I have left on the lead " after bringing a digital clock he put together from parts in a locking pencil box", which is factually accurate. The Micronta ideas and comments from Make magazine, bloggers, etc. is already in the article's body. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

That is not factually accurate, and it is entirely misleading. What "parts" did he put together the digital clock from? A digital clock and a box? It makes no sense. This is a clear misrepresentation. - 106.186.31.122 (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Read the current version of the article, please. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

"He had brought to school a home-assembled digital clock to show to his teachers. It was made of clock parts packed into a locking pencil box. "

The problem is *home-assembled digital clock* is misleading because it implies the actual clock mechanism was assembled from more basic parts, which is an un-sourced claim not backed by any independent electronics analysis. - 106.186.31.122 (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you are splitting hairs here, he assembled a clock from parts from another clock. No big deal, and it was done in 10 to 20 minutes before going to bed. In any case, the clock itself is not what this incident is about. Also note that what you call an "independent electronics analysis" was made from a low resolution photo, and has not been covered in any mainstream source for that obvious reason. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

People have suggested that although the clock wasn't his invention, it constitutes an original creation in a loose sense by virtue of being stylistically different. I think it's more fair to say the clock was a manufactured clock with changes made to its outward appearance. However we can state that in a neutral tone I would be receptive to. -106.186.31.122 (talk) 18:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

As far as the photo analysis, it is fairly low resolution, but the letters and numbers on the main board can still be identified and the overall layout and button board are sufficiently visible. -106.186.31.122 (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The opinions of these bloggers and engineers, are already included in the article. So, I don't understand what you are arguing for. The lead is not not the place to litigate that issue. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Here is the full text of these opinions:

According to a report in Artvoice that analyzed the police released photo of the clock, the device was a Micronta digital clock assembled in a Vaultz Locking Pencil Box An article in Makezine said that they were "charmed by the innocence of the build" and commented that the clock was "less as a combination of miscellaneous parts wired together into a timepiece, and more so as simply the guts of a standard digital alarm clock", and that Mohammed should be proud of his build. Thomas Talbot, an adjunct professor at the University of Southern California, who posted a YouTube video where he discussed a photo of the clock, in which he said Mohamed "never built a clock" but removed the plastic case from a commercial alarm clock and put it into a pencil case. Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst Andrew Napolitano speculated that 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. In an interview with Larry Wilmore, Mohammed said that he has built more complicated stuff "like CPUs and soldering them", but that the clock was simple, using some parts that were scrapped off so that it was easier, and put together in 10 or 20 minutes.

References

- Cwobeel (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The current lead] is neutral and leaves the details about how the clock was made to the article's body. Hope this address all concerns expressed. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Of course, I support including these opinions, but they need to be fully attributed, and not in the lead.- Cwobeel (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The comments from the blog and Make website, are now included in the Responses section. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

It is a slight improvement in neutrality, but "built into" should be "inside." - 106.186.31.122 (talk) 18:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Hold on, who deleted the picture of the actual clock from page? - 106.186.31.122 (talk) 18:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Brief mention of Gawker story

I removed this sentence about Gawker's story because it makes apples-to-oranges comparisons with this situation. I'm not saying nothing from the story couldn't somehow be used in the story, but up to this point what's said about it is very misleading. For instance, the mention of the “inert bomb” incident that Gawker talks about makes it sound like to a Wikipedia reader that another student even made an ACTUAL bomb, but received no punishment (so by implication, OF COURSE Ahmed was discriminated against). That leaves out as the Gawker story notes that the student made the bomb under a teacher's supervision, and the teacher was disciplined. That suggests, without any information provided in contradiction, that the school and/or police's investigation concluded that the fault for the situation squarely rested on the teacher, not the student, which really doesn't support by contrast that Ahmed was unfairly treated. And you have to wonder why Gawker even used such an example, except, again, to try to suggest however weakly that a teenager who wasn't Muslim did something worse by building an actual bomb and was let off. Again, not to say categorically that Gawker's article couldn't be used, but that more care needs to be taken in that case not to misrepresent the situations it discusses and how they truly do or don't compare to this one. Psalm84 (talk) 00:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• What's the link to the Gawker story? Heyyouoverthere (talk) 02:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

@Heyyouoverthere: here it is:

Gawker compared the situation to various other instances of students bringing homemade clocks to school, but without any punitive response, as well as an incident in 2002 when a student made an inert bomb and carried it to school but was not suspended.

References

- Cwobeel (talk) 02:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Irving Mayor's response

I question the need to highlight Irving's Mayor's response, as being more notable than the response from other politicians. For NPOV, we should include the Mayor's comments alongside all other politicians. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Since the school and the police are legally restrained from speaking, the local mayor is the closest thing we have to a response from the "other side." That makes it more notable than the responses of uninvolved politicians. -- 120.23.228.56 (talk) 02:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• I don't have time right now for a longer reply, but in short, what's reported of her response all has to do directly with the incident itself. Line by line:

-Irving Mayor Beth Van Duyne defended the actions of the police and the Irving Independent School District, stating that they were following the procedure set when a potential threat of criminal act is discovered.[20]

Point: as the top official in Irving ("where the buck stops"), and privy to the inside information, she believes proper procedure was followed. If something should turn out differently, which would reveal her to be a liar and there was some cover-up, her statement here would get her in serious political trouble, at the least. She's putting her career behind this.

- Van Duyne, appearing on Glenn Beck's TheBlaze TV, said there was one-sided reporting of the interaction between Mohammed and police,

Point: she knows this is a national and even international controversy, and she's putting her career and reputation on the line again to say that the story that's been in the media isn't correct.

- saying that they are unable to release records because Mohammed is a juvenile and his family has refused to allow it.

Point: this is important information to include. I'd also like to see if AM's family has responded to this, or been asked about it.

- Van Duyne said that from the information she had seen, Mohammed had been "non-responsive" and "passive aggressive" in response to questions from police officers,

Point: again, her conclusion based on the information that she's been privy to, and on which she is staking her career and reputation. This is the *essence* of the problem that the school officials and police claim they had with Mohamed, their rationale for all they, so it's important to include it as their side of what happened.

- and that Irving's police chief and other police officers, as well as teachers and school administrators, were receiving death threats as a result of the controversy.[21]

This information could arguably go elsewhere. The article is a work-in-progress and could use some tightening and cleaning up.

- Van Duyne attracted questions of Islamophobia in 2015 when she supported a bill which would "prohibit judges from letting agreements reached under foreign laws stand if they would trump someone’s rights." Although the bill did not name any particular religion, Muslims in Irving felt that it could interfere with Sharia dispute counseling services offered by local imams.[22][23]

This could stay in the article, whether here or elsewhere, it's hard to say. Most likely here. Psalm84 (talk) 02:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I have not problems with including the text, but having it highlighted in its own section is WP:UNDUE. There are more notable people than her weighing on the issue. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

It isn't wp:undue because the essence of the article is the incident itself, and she is mayor of Irving. It doesn't matter if there are more notable politicians and other people commenting on the story, because they aren't a direct party to it as she is. Ahmed Mohamed and his family too are even less notable than the mayor, but for the incident, yet their perspectives are included because they are a party to this too, of course. The incident comes first in importance. The public reaction, including comments by important people who who aren't directly involved, comes second. Do you see that there is Ahmed and his family's side, and then there is the side of Irving officials? Do you see above the information that she reveals, which is directly connected to the incident? It fills in blanks that we had in what we knew about the incident. I would move to a different section, though, the information about the death threats received. Psalm84 (talk) 03:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

In Irving, does the mayor have the right to study confidential police investigation documents and evidence? Has she specifically claimed to have special access to non-public information on this case, or is she just providing an opinionated commentary about public information that's essentially the same as what everyone else has access to? —BarrelProof (talk) 06:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Has been awhile since I've been in a long Talk page discussion so hope I'm formatting right. First, I changed back the grouping of the mayor's statements with the other officials. I didn't notice last night it had been changed. It makes far more sense. And on the mayor, just briefly right now, the presumption has to be that she does have legal involvement, barring some really unusual city arrangement. For starters, there is talk of a lawsuit by Mohamed's family, and that would impact the city for sure. As an official too, it should be presumed that she has heard more about the incident and not inappropriately, but because of her position as mayor, and that appears to be the case. She is giving the city's side.Psalm84 (talk) 10:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The mayor has been one of the most discussed parts or the story when it broke, singled out repeatedly in the news as "the most Islamaphobic" mayor in the country when the story first broke in headlines from boingboing, rawstory, dailybeast, and dozens of other publications. Whether she has special access to information doesn't necessarily mean she hasn't been a central figure in the story and commentary of Islamaphobia in Irving, Tx. -- 106.186.31.122 (talk) 07:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

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

It seems to me that the people who have deleted the picture of the device are arfraid of future generations thinking that might look like a horse. OOps did I say horse? I meant clock, of course... because that's what it looks like. 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)