Talk:Ahmed Mohamed clock incident

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

"Just remember: There is no spoon"[edit]

This article is a showcase example of ridiculous political theater overwhelming common sense here on Wikipedia.

As regards evidence: just zoom in and take a close look at the photo of the "clock Ahmed built." It is merely a fully-integrated circuit board with a clock display. He "built" nothing...he took the integrated circuit out of its case, and re-installed it in a much larger case than necessary, with a cord wrapped around it. He 'assembled' absolutely nothing in terms of electronics.

Photo link: https://img.thedailybeast.com/image/upload/d_placeholder_euli9k/dpr_2.0/c_limit,w_585/fl_lossy,q_auto/v1/articles/2015/09/21/nerds-rage-over-ahmed-s-clock/150920-briquelet-ahmed-theories-embed_aeb19a

Why are people who clearly don't know a clock from a calculator stating that there is "no evidence" that there is a hoax? It is in fact obviously a hoax.

Ah, yes. We must cite sources...how else could we think intelligently. So here: Despite the author's dismissiveness (and clearly, not technically qualified opinion), the technically qualified objectors to this entire farce do speak very clearly on the matter in this "uncooperative witness" article -- https://www.thedailybeast.com/nerds-rage-over-ahmed-mohameds-clock .

This is all an absurdity. As the article above states, "what have we become as a society (FIFY: "...that can't think?"). The fact that the parents' lawsuit was dismissed "with prejudice, with the plaintiffs bearing all costs" should be in the header; the fact that it is not once again points toward the ridiculous political polarization of this entire farce.

104.15.130.191 (talk)

As an engineering nerd it actually drives me nuts seeing people lie about this 'clock'. If I open a machine and dump it's contents from it's plastic case into something it doesn't mean I invented, or built, or made, or reassembled anything. It means I put it in a different container for some reason. For example, my PC runs inside a draw. It doesn't mean I invented a PC. It means I put the PC in the drawer because it saves space. But I suspect you're right, OP. There does seem to be a heavy POV spin to this entire article. Which is a pain in the ass because I wanted to use an element of it for a paper but looking at the rest of it I think the chance of finding viable sources is not going to happen. :( 121.210.33.50 (talk) 08:25, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Intent.[edit]

Police determined that he had no malicious intent, and he was not charged with any crime.[2][3]

Trying to find any evidence that the police determined the intent of someone for a paper. Neither of the sources provided indicate that the police determined anything other than 'they do not have enough evidence to charge him with a crime at this time.' If the above statement is true can someone please provide an actual source for it as it would be a rare example of police actually determining intent, especially without trial. If it's false, then it probably should be removed. 121.210.33.50 (talk) 08:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

It's in the cited reference (original link was broken, so I found a new link to the same article): "Police said Wednesday they have determined that Mohamed had no malicious intent and it was 'just a naive set of circumstances'." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

"Alleged hoax bomb."[edit]

Belatedly: While the "alleged" here helps, I don't think this is sufficient caution for a WP:BLP, since it implies that someone credibly made those allegations and that this was why he was arrested. That appears to be attempting to summarize this part of the article: Irving Police Chief Larry Boyd said that "the officers pretty quickly determined that they weren't investigating an explosive device", and that Mohammed was arrested over the prospect that it was a "hoax bomb". But that definitely isn't sufficient to describe it as an "alleged hoax bomb" in the first paragraph (the police, as far as I'm aware, never publicly alleged this, since they had determined that that wasn't the case by the time the story blew up); in the first paragraph, we should just describe it as what it was. And the second sentence that used "alleged" was both weirdly passive-voiced and again oversells the idea that some unnamed person made serious allegations against him - "claimed" by who? Are they still claiming it? In that part, it's better for us to be specific about what the police say they believed and when. --Aquillion (talk) 08:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

this article reads like a propaganda piece[edit]

This reads like his lawyers wrote it. Absolutely not anywhere near a NPOV or fairly covering the controversy/criticism of his "hoax bomb"/clock. The tiny little section of criticism of the leftist non-sense claims is then further laced with "conspiracies" to poison the whatever tiny bit of water was in the well 71.89.114.35 (talk) 00:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)