Talk:Ahmed Mohamed clock incident/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Linking "CPU" within a quote

I linked CPU to Central processing unit within this text in the article and it was reverted per WP:LINKSTYLE: he has built more complicated items "like CPUs and soldering them". I disagree that it should not be linked. Linkstyle says: "Items within quotations should not generally be linked; instead, consider placing the relevant links in the surrounding text or in the "See also" section of the article." (emphasis added). Should it be linked or not. Many people don't know what a CPU is. Raquel Baranow (talk) 19:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Then, maybe paraphrase and include the link instead of a direct quote. (BTW, this is not a forum; your link about jokes was refactored). - Cwobeel (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

That entire quote is a bit nonsensical. It reads like he is claiming to have built CPUs. I call that either an extraordinary claim or very poorly done paraphrasing. Jbh^Talk 19:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd leave it at "more complicated items" and drop the CPU's claim altogether. I don't think anyone reporting it are qualified to assess such an extraordinary claim. I'm not sure they would know what a CPU is. Even less confidence that it's the same CPU we have an article on. --DHeyward (talk) 20:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done - Cwobeel (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

It was a direct quote: Mohamed added later: "It's really simple to me, because I've built more stuff that's very complicated, like CPUs and soldering them. But the clock was simple, and some of the parts were scrapped off, so that's how it got easier." (Source) Raquel Baranow (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

You guys are taking it as if he is claiming to have built an i7 or something. Anyone with electrical and technical knowledge can build a "CPU". It just depends on what it's being used for. 1's and 0's turn into commands of some sort. zap zap space space zap. Just let it go and quit looking for more conspiracy theories. Dave Dial (talk) 23:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Wow... I do not even know what to say to that other than whoever blue linked CPU was obviously prescient regarding the need for readers to know what one is and what it consists of. No conspiracy here, likely just a nervous kid saying whatever popped into his mind and having a goof immortalized by a reporter too passive, too uncritical or too ignorant to know the absurdity of the quote they published. Jbh^Talk 23:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

We should keep the whole quote. Tex249 (talk) 00:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

In case my silent assent to the removal of the 'CPU' material was not clear - cut it unless it gets more coverage or he repeats the claim. There are many more important things to worry about that actually effect the narrative. Jbh^Talk 00:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@DD2K: why do you see conspiracy theories? He obviously misspoke. He didn't build a CPU. He may have soldered one to a board. We used to have discrete component CPU's that people could make. Nowadays, a student would write code to simulate it, or at most, implement the code in an [FPGA]] but microcontrollers and CPUs are so easy to come by, no one would craft it. Synthesizable code for CPUs implemnted in FPGA'a are also readily available. Paraphrase it and eliminate the obvious misstatement so he doesn't sound techically illiterate because he's not. --DHeyward (talk) 00:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Or he is. Why is that possibility off the table? Tex249 (talk) 00:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

It is not off the table so much as it is irrelevant as it has not been the subject of mainstream reliable source commentary. Jbh^Talk 00:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

We are going to use the Nightly Show are a Reliable Source to say that the kid built more complicated devices, because that makes him seem technically literate. But the same source is not a reliable source for the quote that we base that statement off of, because that might make him seem technically illiterate. Tex249 (talk) 01:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Simply looking at the clock and the types of devices he is reported to have made shows him to be more a tinkerer than particularly technically talented. The CPU statement is so far out there that we can, barring him repeating the same or similar extraordinary claims, assume that he simply misspoke or was misquoted. The discipline issues and related material are something I agree should be in there but the way you went about putting it in was not appropriate. There is already some proposed text in the article history as well as a long section just above discussing that material. Jbh^Talk 01:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

A lot like DHeyward mentions above, when I saw it a few days ago I figured he meant "wiring to" CPU's and just dropped a couple of words from a live interview. Various products exist that can reasonably be described as CPUs and are intended specifically for this sort of tinkering. Or he could have meant it more colloquially and been referring any integrated circuit. I agree with the consensus above that "he said he had built more complicated items" is a reasonable and faithful paraphrase. I believe another article by a reporter who had been in his home mentioned a homemade radio, so we might be able to dig that up if we really needed an example of "more complicated." I think it would be over-detailed for an encyclopedia, though. VQuakr (talk) 02:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Raspberry Pi is the current maker space favorite. I'd be impressed if he were at that level of tinkering and it's no where near the actual design of an ARM core (which is relatively easy but not for a single 9th grader). MIPS is an open code CPU and it's semester level group project at university for a FPGA. --DHeyward (talk) 07:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

More elaborate gizmos

@DHeyward:, sorry if I am missing it in the extensive conversation above, but can you please recap the reasoning for this removal? VQuakr (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

That was a very useful piece of information, because it sets the context for Mohamed's behavior. I would revert, but instead I'll wait to see arguments for exclusion beyond the edit summary Misleading at best and article is being discussed on talk.) Why is it misleading? - Cwobeel (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

That article talks about how thick his discipoline file is. If we are going to cherry pick in an attempt to frame "context of his behavior," there is also the "been there, done that" aspect of being in front of the principal facing discipline which could arguably explain his "passive-aggressive" answers. None of those teachers were surprised he was in trouble, just surprsed it was over a gizmo. The title summary is Before Ahmed’s fame: fantastic inventions and a fight with authority. If we are going to use the article to explain his gizmos, we need to also explain his fight with authorities. Otherwise, we are synthing a "context" that the source is not providing. --DHeyward (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Then add the first amendment stuff if you want, without bias. But deleting is not an option. I could do that, but I leave it to you to take a stab at it. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@DHeyward: I addressed the "file size" removal citing WP:BLPGOSSIP, which I have also mentioned above. That policy section does not appear to apply to the section you removed; can you explain the removal in the context of policy? We already discuss his alleged harassment by students and administrators elsewhere in the article. @Cwobeel: I disagree with your statement "deleting it is not an option." What to include is subject to editorial discretion within the context of our policies; for example WP:BLP mandates that certain material be removed immediately but says little about what must be included. VQuakr (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@VQuakr: The reason I started the discussion above was to discuss the DMN article which, by it's summary title juxtaposes his previous troubles against his tinkering. WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH is why we can't cherry pick that one statement. It synthesizes an umplication that his middle-school teachers were surprised by his suspension, They were not. They were not surprised because he has a long history of suspensions. The teacher that was interviewed tlked about a suspension that was long enough that he had to send his assignments through the district. The only way to mention their surprise is to add context that he was frequently suspended but rarely for electronics (it's not clear if the projector remote led to a suspension). I don't have a good way to do it, so removal is necessary. THat source needs to be used as it is presented, not as a source for cherry-picked facts. Leaving it out is better than mischaracterizing it. --DHeyward (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The attempt by you and a couple others to paint him as 'something other' is despicable. One can read the articles in these sources the way you have read them, but in order for that to be the case, one would have to have an extreme bias. Such an extreme bias that that person should be barred from editing any BLP article on this project. Dave Dial (talk) 18:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In my opinion "some teachers were puzzled" is much the same quality report as the people asking the, obvious, question of 'why would a kid make something that looks like a stereotypical bomb'. If a source with named individuals with quoted statements there may be something to put in but "some teachers" can be, and likely are, puzzled about several things and 'elaborate gizmos' do not look like the initiator for a bomb to the lay public. There is a huge difference between 'elaborate gizmos' and a box with big red digital numbers in the public perception and people will react differently to the two. The article is biased enough by putting the people who wonder what the kid was thinking in a 'hoax and conspiracy' section.

Yes, this does set the context for his behavior but so does the bullying and other discipline issues. It is just one serves the preferred narrative of the article and the other does not. Every teacher has seen the bullied kid who acts out in an anti-social way for example the girl who is always called a slut and one day says "No, *this* is me being a slut" and does something unfortunate or well... Columbine. All of the information provides context. We need to be careful of the attribution and presentation of all contextualizing information. Jbh^Talk 18:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: FYI, it doesn't look like a bomb, stereotypical or otherwise, to me. The purpose of my saying that is not to get into yet another forum-like discussion but just to give some context that not everyone has the same impression as you regarding what is obvious. You mention further down this thread that you were expecting to be arguing on the other side; honestly I would not have expected to be on an "opposing side" from you on this either. Maybe that means one "side" is horribly wrong, but I think it is more likely that it means that the two sides are not as far apart as they seem. So, BLP requires us to be extremely cautious about adding contentious material and NPOV requires us not to add exclusively positive material. The solution is to edit methodically and accept slow progress on the article. Which is fine; there is no deadline. Agreed? VQuakr (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

"NPOV requires us not to add exclusively positive material." Correct. But, every time someone tries to balance things out and add something reliably sourced and not in the realm of "positive", certain editors pull the WP:FALSEBALANCE policy card and then revert what was changed or added. It's beyond frustrating. It's labeled those editors as "Kool-Aid drinkers" on the interwebs [1] and has put this article on the ridicule radar. -- WV ● ✉ ✓

@VQuakr: Definitely agreed. I wish we could just stub this for three months until the immediacy and resulting passions die down. I guess the excitement of 'breaking news' gets more people interested and ultimately leads to a better article but I will never be really convinced Wikipedia should document current events. Jbh^Talk 03:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well said. Given the BLP implications, efforts to present these viewpoints and their context should err on the side of caution. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

(ec) DD2K Knock off the personal attacks. The source is what discusses his discipline. Read it. No teacher was surprised that he was suspended because he had been suspended for weeks in middle school (Ahmed's own words). I read them exactly as they are written and as they are summarized in the title. He was no stranger to being in trouble and no stranger to pranks that kids play. It misses the whole point of the article to simply say his teachers were surprised he was suspended, because no one is surprised he was suspended, just surprised it was for a gizmo (though, he got in trouble for the projector gizmo prank). --DHeyward (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The nature of BLP, for the better or worse, is that it sets a higher bar for potentially-defamatory material. The statement that they were surprised that he was suspended for this because he has brought in far more elaborate gizmos is not defamatory; the your reading that "nobody was surprised" that he was suspended and the focus on his previous suspensions is potentially defamatory and therefore requires a higher standard to show that it's relevant. --Aquillion (talk) 18:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

First you advocated for including the suspensions, which I did add reluctantly. Now you want to add stuff that paints the actor in a negative way. Why? - Cwobeel (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

While we must ensure BLP claims are well sources we must not use BLP to present a false picture of the situation. The "higher standard" is publication in RS. It is met. The argument of DUE is possible but that needs to be based on content neutral criteria not what 'makes him look bad' vs what does not. That is the very definition of bias. Jbh^Talk 18:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

No, we lack an WP:RS stating that the prior suspensions are relevant. The way you keep putting them into the article (as people have said above) implies that his previous suspensions provide a reason for his current suspension -- especially since you keep putting them into the section on his current suspension. This usage is a that the sort of conjectural interpretation of a source forbidden under WP:BLPREMOVE. Additionally, WP:BLPGOSSIP requires that we consider "...whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." All of these apply to controversial claims (like the unsourced implication you are making that his previous suspensions are relevant to this one.) Everyone here wants a true and accurate picture of the situation; the issue is that some people (like myself) feel that focusing on his past suspensions gives a false and inaccurate one, since it amounts to stringing together bits of his history pulled out of articles in order to commit WP:SYNTH in a way that vilifies him. Obviously you disagree, but WP:BLP requires, in situations like that, that we step back and reach consensus before including the disputed material; it does not encourage you to keep re-adding it the way you just did. --Aquillion (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that the same thing can be said about the whole 'other gizmos' and teachers being surprised about him being suspended because of an electronic gizmo. The missing context is he was disciplined for some of these other gizmos and for other pranks. If the observations of his middle school teachers are relevant to the article, and I feel they are, then the behavior they are basing their comments on is needed to avoid bias. The teachers themselves, by commenting on his past behavior in middle school, 'open the door' BLP wise for the information.

The information is. of course, of interest to a person reading the article. There is a big difference between a kid who has a history of pranks with electronics and run ins with authority and some quiet kid who never gave the administration a reason to think he might be pulling a prank. That information is just as relevant as the bullying, being called "ISIS boy" and his sister being falsely accused of wanting to blow up the school. That that information allows an independent reader to make an informed judgement about the incident is the purpose of an NPOV article. The material should be replaced as I see no policy based reason to require its removal and NPOV issues that speak for its inclusion. Jbh^Talk 19:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem I see is an attempt in conservative media trying to portray the actor in a negative way, which may be the reason why some editors (hope I am wrong) may be trying to follow that narrative here. For example, this from Fox News “The techy teenager may not be as innocent as he seems” [2]. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the conservative media is nuts and I really expected to be arguing on the other side of this debate when I started following this talk page. However, the material I have been discussing is all from The Dallas Morning News - the site that has been debunking the conservative media. There is enough material that show the boy in less than pristine light for example:

• “He was a weird little kid,” said Kubiak, now 62 and retired. “I saw a lot of him in me. That thirst for knowledge … he’s one of those kids that could either be CEO of a company or head of a gang.”
• Discussions of politics or religion sometimes turned to his resentment at the powers that be.
• “This kid was being pushed. At least he thought he was being pushed,” Kubiak said. “He’s got a habit for attracting or being in situations — being on the outside.”
• “I told you one day I’m going to be — and you told me yourself — I’m going to be really big on the Internet one day,” Ahmed said.
• All from [3]

I am very concerned the reaction against the nut bars on the right have caused the article to be unable to move beyond the 'victimized Muslim boy who built a clock and got arrested for it'. There is more than enough material in mainstream RS to begin to cast doubt on that narrative. While no one has drawn the picture they are reliable reporting the dots. While we must not connect those dots if RS find them important and relevant enough so must we. Otherwise we are creating a kind of walled garden where only the information that supports one narrative is embraced and all other reports are dismissed or denigrated. That is the editorial strategy of FOX not Wikipedia. Jbh^Talk 19:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Yep, FOX used some of those same things. They editorialized one picture, the Daily Beast editorialized another picture. Just because FOX used information does not make it somehow tainted - the editorializing is what is tainted. Jbh^Talk 19:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I took some time and read the article in its entirety. I fail to see how this article presents a narrative such as the one you describe. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The easiest way to see the issue is that there is now information in mainstream RS which indicated the school administration was reasonable to expect that he was pulling a prank, that he had a history not only of 'helpful tinkering' but of pranks. That there were ongoing, long term issues or bullying and, possibly as a result of that, he felt persecuted not just by students but the administration. That a teacher, who is very familiar with him, feels "He’s got a habit for attracting or being in situations". All of these things, which are not addressed in the article, can be read by a reasonable observer to show that this child might fit a profile of a student who is at risk of acting out.

We can not and should not draw that conclusion unless and until a RS does but anyone reading this article as it stands gets a very skewed view of the circumstances leading up to this event and therefore gets a possibly skewed idea of why the school reacted as it did. It is not our place to filter out this information. It is directly relevant to the background of the event and many here are worrying so much about saying something that might cast this kid in a poor light that they are forgetting this article is about the event and all of the context around it. Jbh^Talk 22:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cwobeel: If you are editing because of an attempt in conservative media trying to portray the actor in a negative way, you may want to read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. We are not here to counter nonsense in conservative media or take a side. It seems you are defending a narrative because it conflicts with so-called "conservative media" rather than working towards a RS and NPOV article. --DHeyward (talk) 07:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I could argue the opposite. If you are editing in an attempt to correct the liberal biased narrative of the mainstream media, you may want to read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I can live with the current background session [4]]. Shall we move on? - Cwobeel (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The clock display and other parts

For a brief period the article referred to a "digital readout visible on the outside of the box". Do we have any sources that actually talk about this issue? In particular, was the pencil box modified (e.g., by cutting a hole in it) to make the readout visible when the box was closed? Were the internal workings of the clock attached in some way to the box (e.g., by screws or glue)? Was the digital display the same one that came with the rest of the parts of the same clock? Had any of the other parts been swapped out or disassembled and then reattached? Do we know any of this? I haven't noticed any real answers to these questions in reliable sources (or even in unreliable ones), but I'm not following the story especially closely, so it seems possible that the information is available somewhere. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I haven't seen a source that stated the display was visible with the case closed. There's this, which contains some analysis: "the electronics 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." the article summarizes, "we’re also charmed by the innocence of the build.... 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." VQuakr (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

That addition was actually my error - I had written it originally, thought I deleted it, but it wasn't deleted at all. For a time, there was thought that he had cut a hole in the case so the display would show outside the case (which clearly would have made it cooler - who wants to see a clock with the guts visible?). At any rate, leaving it in was unintentional. I have no issue with it being removed because it is incorrect information. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Bias in "Hoax allegations and conspiracy theories" section

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

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

The Dallas Morning News And

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In regards to the "hoax" questions, I wonder if "The Federalist" in this article here would serve as a good source. The article there cross references the original article in the Dallas Morning News, CNN, MSNBC, and several other "serious" sources. The article itself points to several of the questions in the incident itself, as well as notable discrepancies in Ahmed and his family's account of the incident and the creation of the clock itself. While it does not outright say that Ahmed is "fake" per se, it seems to be a well researched piece that at the very least addresses some of the concerns felt by many in regards to what has been reported. Kitsunedawn (talk) 11:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The author has written a verifiable article based on facts, that raises reasonable questions about the credibility of the account of the incident, unlike the extreme claims discussed in the Hoax section of our article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The Federalist? Are you kidding me? How is that a significant viewpoint? It is not. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Bob K31416: I guess I completely disagree about that article. It seems more reminiscent of the kind of stuff that conspiracy theorists like to introduce at other classic conspiracy theories articles, which follow the pattern of 1. Why doesn't a situation match my preconceived expectations? 2. Hoax! It is hard to assess a source without a proposed specific text it would support, but I am having trouble imagining what encyclopedia article text that article could be used to support. VQuakr (talk) 19:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

For those following this discussion, note that these two responses of Cwobeel and VQuakr suggest that they are unable to criticize anything specific in the article and only speak in generalities, which aren't useful. So their comments in this regard are ignorable, but on the other hand, their weak responses suggest the strength of the author's points. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Baloney. These are speculations and commentary by a highly partisan source. Not worth considering in the context of the large number of high quality sources available. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Wow. I pointed out the issues that make it unlikely the source presented is usable, and then noted that I can only reply generally since no specific article text has been proposed that it would support: we are here to discuss improvements to the article, not critique every point in every source presented. The onus is on the person proposing article text to get consensus for it. Your reply is that I only addressed the article generally (yes, that's what I said) and fallaciously stated, their weak responses suggest the strength of the author's points. VQuakr (talk) 00:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

You have to question why an editor would believe a blog with a bunch of "Have you stopped beating your wife?" style numbered questions, with obvious fallacious reasoning, is a reliable source that deserves answers. Dave Dial (talk) 00:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Considering the tone of the above responses, it would be quite an uphill battle to get any of the info into the article, but it certainly deserves to be there. My wish list would be to have a section in the article regarding questions about the account of the incident, reasonable questions like those in this source. As is, we just have a section with the worst conspiracy theories and allegations.

I strongly recommend that editors read the article. I found it quite good. The link might be getting lost in the cacophony here, so here it is again.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/09/23/6-unanswered-questions-about-ahmed-mohameds-clock/

--Bob K31416 (talk) 01:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem with putting these 'questions' in the article is that they provide UNDUE framing bias - by asking the question we imply an impropriety, maybe not intentionally but that is how it can be read. Any breaking story with a limited source pool is going to have inconsistencies but they can be introduced in several benign ways - misquotes, misunderstanding, misspeaking, confusion etc. There are also several obvious reasons for not releasing records that are not nefarious as well - privacy, and legal concerns/advise come to mind. Those are not the answers a 'questioning piece' implies.

If several mainstream RS start asking these questions then they need to go in. If major news outlets like NYT, WaPo, Time, Newsweek etc. start asking these questions they should go in. Those kinds of outlets will have used their editorial judgement to balance the negative implications of directing public attention to 'behavior' and 'inconsistencies' vs the public interest and we can be confident they have, in their opinion, a strong public interest reason for drawing attention to those issues. The Federalist is a much more partisan publication and I am much less confident in their balancing test. Jbh^Talk 01:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the questions in the article are normal ones for researching the story. At the end of the Sep 23 article the author writes,[5]

"All of these questions may have perfectly reasonable and unsurprising answers. But before we can get the answers, the media must ask the questions. Before this incident goes any further, members of the press should be asking the Mohamed family to clear up these uncertain and confusing gaps in the story."

Then a little over a week later on Oct 1 there appeared in the Washington Post an article titled Clock kid keeps ticking — and so does media interest, which said,

"But the media had more questions. How had a problem seemingly easily explained in a classroom with a few words — It might look like something else, but it’s a clock — ended in Ahmed’s arrest? And, well, why didn’t Ahmed’s clock look like a clock?"

So maybe we will see more questions in the mainstream media, and hopefully more answers. But as for answers, maybe not. At the end of the Washington Post article was,[6]

"Mohamed and his attorneys have not replied to The Post’s requests for comment."

So let's see how the story develops and hopefully we can get something that a consensus of editors will allow in the article, either questions with commentary, or answers. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Waiting to see how things shake out will be good. The WaPo article shows mainstream media is starting to question the initial narrative and start asking questions. We should see how that pans out.

I think we should be talking about the threats the police have been getting as described in the Washington Post article above. That is part of the whole "event" as well. Right now this article simply reads as a BLP1E that has avoided deletion by adding the word 'incident' to it. Jbh^Talk 16:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: we mention the death threats police and the mayor have received in the opinions/politicians section. I agree it should be retained/expanded in the article, and I think it should be moved to the "reactions" section (or at least somewhere other than "opinions"). VQuakr (talk) 17:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@VQuakr: Thank you. I had missed that. Yes, it should be in the 'reactions' section of the article. I can not see a death threat being classified as an 'opinion' :) Jbh^Talk 17:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Suspicious language

Under the subsection Opinions/ Politicians, there is a quote that is only found within this wikipedia article and it's meta footprint, 4 google results. So it essentially is creative writing and should be edited and or removed. Just the language of the supposed quote does not make sense, with it saying the attorney general said "unjust arrest", which says he has already prejudged and declared it unjust. That is in itself unjust.

"the civil rights violations that took place during the unjust arrest of Ahmed Mohamed." Electricfabric (talk) 03:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

That quote comes from an open letter signed by 29 members of congress, addressed to the DOJ. That is significantly outside of Wikipedia's meta-footprint. I agree the sourcing of the quote should be more clear, though. VQuakr (talk) 03:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Here is the source: https://up.wiki.x.io/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/40/9-23-15_DOJ_Letter_on_Ahmed_Mohamed.pdf/page1-1275px-9-23-15_DOJ_Letter_on_Ahmed_Mohamed.pdf.jpg - Cwobeel (talk) 03:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Primary source. Not useable unless a secondary source has covered it. --DHeyward (talk) 16:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

There [7]] - Cwobeel (talk) 16:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

That's where all the language for the article should originate and with attribution per the source. --DHeyward (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT - Cwobeel (talk) 17:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@DHeyward: we already cite the secondary source in the article. I am unclear on what would need fixing here. VQuakr (talk) 18:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

at no point did officials exhibit any concern that the clock was dangerous

@MarkBernstein regarding your "no harm" revert, I do see harm. The wording here (as well as various memes on the internet) bring this up as an indictment of the actions of the school/police, that they just wanted to harass the kid, but didn't think it was really a bomb. But they are explicit that they didn't think it was a bomb, so why would they. I think this is a BLP concern towards the administration/police as it is an accusation against them. The source makes this distinction "Some, with false innocence, ask: What if Mohamed’s clock actually had been a bomb? (As many have pointed out, nobody ever believed he had a bomb, or else they would have called the bomb disposal squad.) The more conspiracy-minded ask: What if Mohamed’s father, who is a vocal advocate for ending Islamophobia, cooked up the idea to get media attention and money?" but we do not putting this non-sequitor directly into the "intentional hoax" section as if it is somehow relevant to that accusation - the source explicitly separates this point from the "conspiracy theory" and so should we.Gaijin42 (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I would not object to moving this line to Ahmed_Mohamed_clock_incident#Suspension where it is actually on point to the initial analysis of if it was actually a bomb. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Police were going to charge Mohamed with making a hoax bomb but could not prove motive, which is an element of the offence. Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Your statement is true, but does not appear to have anything to do with them thinking the device itself was dangerous. Just because I can immediately tell a device is not dangerous does not mean you did not intend to make me think so (you could just suck at making hoax bombs). Gaijin42 (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Raquel Baranow: Not quite correct. Juveniles are only adjudicated for delinquency. The underlying offence is a pretext for taking juveniles into custody ("rules of arrest" allow for police to immediately seize a person without a warrant if a misdemeanor is commited in their presence). Also, even for culpability, negligence is the minimum culpable mental state. The requirement for an adult would be that a) another person was alarmed or fearful and b) the perpetrator of the "hoax bomb" did know or should have known it would cause fear. In a juevenile proceeding those pieces might be relevant at the hearing but the entire process is different as are the penalties (for adults it's a misdemeanor, for children it's "delinquency" and state can respond as necessary up until he's an adult. --DHeyward (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Have you seen one of these Vaultz pencil boxes? 2 1/4" x 8 1/4". [8] Tiny pencil box.... - Cwobeel (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that they were or were not really concerned about it being a hoax bomb. Im just saying that the statement by salon is irrelevant to the section in which it is currently in the article, but could be more appropriate somewhere else. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The violation is that it is a clear WP:SYNTH. Slate observed that at no point did officials exhibit any concern that the clock was dangerous. implies that "dangerous" is an element of the violation. It is not. It is synthesis to join this observation with any action taken by officials. The question authorities had was "Did you intend to scare people?" and the response was passive/aggressive "It's a clock." Without a clear answer, they had probable cause to arrest as it caused enough alarm by the teacher to inform the school principal, seize the clock, and alert the school resource officer who observed the fear and the clock. Whether that fear was justified or not, is debatable. If he had brought a road flare to school, had it taken by a teacher and upon questioning just repeated "It's a road flare", the result would have been the same. It's not dangerous but "dangerous" has no bearing in the investigation of "hoax bomb." Like internet threats of rape and death, it's the fear it generates, not whether the person who made the threat is dangerous. --DHeyward (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Minor distraction. Let's stay on topic, please

they had probable cause to arrest} So finally you agree that he was arrested. Good. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC) No, it's a the technical side of "rules of arrest". They can take a juvenile into custody under the "rules of arrest" since it would have been an arrestable offense if he were an adult. "Misdemeanor in the presence of police" is arrestable without a warrant. As a juvenile he was taken into custody with the possibility of facing a delinquency hearing. The adult offense is background information. I know juvenile law baffles you but it's important to know what happened to him and what exactly he face. For example, hoax bomb is a misdemeanor and time in jail is a maximum of six months I bleieve for an adult. Ahmed potentially faced four yesrs in a juvenile detention facility for delinquency. That's the difference. Children aren't treated like adults unless they charge him as an adult which requires a court ruling. --DHeyward (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Yeah, right, whatever. I think we have have discussed that subject to death already. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@DHeyward: I am unclear on how this would violate WP:SYNTH; Slate, not Wikipedia, makes the connection between the lack of danger and hoax/alternate theories. @Gaijin42: the motivation of the school and police officials has been widely speculated upon throughout this event, and as noted in the article some individuals have received death threats. I agree that we need to be very cautious about not doing harm to these individuals per WP:BLP, but I am unclear how this particular sentence is damaging to any individual. It is taken from a source refuting hoax theories and used in a section about hoax theories, in a paragraph refuting those theories. This seems to me to be an appropriate use of the material. VQuakr (talk) 18:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

VQuakr Its from a source talking about hoax theories, but explicitly used as a contrast to the hoax theories (which are introduced in the next sentence in the salon article). The way it is used here it reads as a counterargument to the hoax interpretation (which is the interpretation used by the school/cops at the time of detainment), when the source is making no such argument. Its placement causes the issue, not the content itself. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Allegations of previous suspensions?

Where does the history outline here [9] fit? --DHeyward (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

Also Dallas Morning News [10] --DHeyward (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In case anyone was confused this is NOT a case of careful wordsmithing, but rather a hatchet job which DOES violate multiple content policies including BLP. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

you only need [11] because the others are merely reporting what the DMN ran. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Your combativeness in this page is not useful. If you don't like WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:BRD, there maybe this project is not suitable for you.- Cwobeel (talk) 02:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

No doubt several feel the same about you. Have you left "this project" yet? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Nope. I am doing the work and working towards consensus. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

But this [12] is a violation of WP:V and as a consequence a violation of WP:BLP. The suspensions were unrelated to "tech-pranks" as you wrote. Please thread with care when adding content to an article about a living person. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

As all the sources writing about these suspensions are based on the original reporting of The Dallas Morning News, it is fitting we use the facts described in the source and not the commentary in the other sources as I did here. I still believe that is unnecessary detail. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

From the Washington Post article, which is more clear and focused than the Dallas News article,[13]

"The Dallas Morning News was told that Ahmed came into the school district in sixth grade with almost no English, but soon was fluent. That he was indeed an electronics whiz — but one who was sometimes bullied because of his religion, called 'ISIS boy' and suspended for defending himself in a hallway fight. That when he was disciplined — for infractions such as building a remote control to turn off a classroom projector or blowing bubbles in class — he once recited the First Amendment. [First Amendment - Religion and Expression. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.] 'This kid was being pushed. At least he thought he was being pushed,' Kubiak said. 'He’s got a habit for attracting or being in situations — being on the outside.' "

--Bob K31416 (talk) 09:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• It is pretty clear that to appropriately represent the context of the coverage, we are WP:COATRACKING from the actual subject of this article, the reactions to the handcuffing and interrogation of a 14-year-old who brought a clock to school. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The following background material about Mohamed from reliable sources about the clock incident, was removed by an editor per WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK,[14] which anyone who reads that policy page and that essay page wlll find not to be true. I suggest reverting the removal.

Mohamed was an electronics whiz who has a school history of being disciplined for various activities such as installing a remote control to make a classroom projector malfunction on command and blowing soap bubbles in class. His seventh grade teacher said, "He’s got a habit for attracting or being in situations — being on the outside." He also made a battery charger to aid a tutor whose cellphone went dead. The Dallas Morning News commented that "[s]ome of these creations looked much like the infamous clock — a mess of wires and exposed circuits stuffed inside a hinged case, perhaps suspicious to some." According to The Guardian, everybody in middle school knew Mohamed as "the kid who makes crazy contraptions", and who fixed electronics classmates brought to him, earning him the nickname "Inventor Kid".

References

--Bob K31416 (talk) 11:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

BTW, considering the present state of the editing environment here, I'm not going to put more time into this. --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Just one more thing, since editors don't seem to take the trouble to read Wikipedia pages that are referred to, which is why some editors can make false use of them, here's the lead of WP:COATRACK essay.

A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but has been edited to make a point about one or more tangential subjects. The nominal subject is treated as if it were an empty coat-rack, and is obscured by the "coats". The existence of a "hook" in a given article is not a good reason to "hang" irrelevant and biased material there."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 11:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Which is precisely what is going on with this content. The kid's middle school record played no part in the outrage that the world expressed at a 14-year-old being dragged off in cuffs for bringing a clock to school - which is the purported subject of this article. If the world now gets as outraged as the anti-Muslim right wing blog-o-sphere about "Why wasnt that 12-year-old arrested for bringing a bubble maker to school??" Then it would be appropriately linked. But i am pretty sure it is equally likely to be framed as "Yep, another example of even in middle schools where a white kid acting up in class gets a talking to and Ritalin, the brown kid gets a suspension record to build the school to prison pipeline."-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think you are missing that context matters, specifically the context that led to him being detained. If you are going to discuss "Islamaphopia" as a cause then, as sources start reporting the broader context of why the schools might have been concerned with his behavior, we need to report that. Right now there are suppositions throughout the press that he was detained because he was Muslim but it has also been reported that it is not uncommon for other kids, of any race/religion, to have similar experiences. Now we are beginning to see that he might have been on the school administrations radar for prior pranks and, more importantly, being subject to continual racist bullying. Trying to force the narrative into the original 'innocent Muslim kid gets arrested by mean cops for innocent project and has his creativity crushed by bigoted school district' is being shown to be just as wrong as 'scary Muslim brings hoax bomb to school to terrorize community'.

As the sources report more context and nuance we must do the same and not be carried away by the preconceptions developed in the first hours of this incident. Framing the incident as 'boy handcuffed for bringing clock to school' is just that framing and can carry even more bias and POV than any words used. Jbh^Talk 13:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course context matters and that is why the middle school info doesn't. It did not play any role in the context of outpouring of public disgust at the 14-year-old being dragged in cuffs to the police station for bringing a clock to school which is what this article is about. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Pardon me for jumping in mid-conversation, as it were, but "boy handcuffed for bringing clock to school" strikes me as simply factual; where do you see 'framing' here? There is certainly a lot of spin surrounding this issue, but I see your sentence as fairly straightforward. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 14:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

"outpouring of public disgust at the 14-year-old being dragged in cuffs to the police station for bringing a clock to school" is framing - very biased framing at that. The can also be framed as "Muslim boy persecuted by 'Islamaphobic' school' - which is what the prior statement assumes. It can also be frames as 'Absurd results of zero tolerance policy in schools' or as 'School administration reacts to possible bomb hoax by bullied child in completely appropriate manner'. More properly it should reflect all of these things in proportion to RS reporting. Limiting the article to "outpouring of public disgust" biases the article because it prejudges all other narratives. Individual editors opinions on the proprieties of what occurred should not matter, although based on what I have read here they do - very much. We need to document any changes in RS analysis of the event. If we can talk about bigotry we must also talk about the other things which contributed to the school administration's and law enforcement's decisions as and how RS report them. Doing otherwise presents a skewed version of reality and is not encyclopedic. Information will likely be coming out for weeks that changes the narrative and we must not let preconceptions effect how the, possibly changing, narrative is presented. Jbh^Talk 14:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Multiple sources have reported on the interview with the Dallas Morning News as noted above. The issue is that you don't get to solely decide which "context matters." The WaPo believes that this material is relevant enough to write about. The context is that this isn't the 14 year old's first encounter with discipline. Specifically, in one instance, he's been involved enough that he felt comfortable to challenge the principal's authority by reciting first amendment rights. It's illuminating that, even at his young age, he was capable of civil disobedience which led to Saturday detention. It's a different perspective than just a "scared little boy" narrative. A different enough perspective that those sources highlighted it. --DHeyward (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "scared little boy" narrative, but I agree that the background about previous bullying is useful. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

They don't belong in the 'suspensions' section, at the very least, since nothing in there connects them to his current suspension -- speculating (or implying) that they're the reason the police were called is WP:SYNTH. The bubble machine is already covered; I don't feel that we can really go into detail on his previous suspensions while respecting WP:BLP without a source that explicitly ties it to the clock incident, since this is meant to cover the clock incident itself and not to serve as a general biography of Mohamed or everything he ever did. --Aquillion (talk) 18:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Can't talk about other times that the kid was suspended for other devices that he built on an article about him being suspended from building devices and bringing them into school. But we do NEED to talk about the other devices that he built. Tex249 (talk) 23:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The issue is that there's a risk of people dropping every embarrassing incident they can find in his past in the article in an attempt to make him look bad via WP:SYNTH. We can highlight such things by citing or quoting or referencing people who have connected them with this incident directly, but we can't turn it into a WP:COATRACK for every negative thing any Wikipedia user digs up -- even if you feel it's relevant, we need sources for that to avoid a situation where the overall result of all that synthesis violates WP:BLP. Other parts of the article don't pose the same risk. --Aquillion (talk) 00:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't dig up anything. This isn't "original research", its in the Washington Post. You know, that conspiracy rag. Tex249 (talk) 00:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no synth here. From the lead of the Wikipedia policy No original research, "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." The Washington Post article Clock kid keeps ticking — and so does media interest is clearly such a source, as indicated by the beginning of the Washington Post article.

"The saga of the clock kid, now entering its second month, keeps on ticking.

In September, Ahmed Mohamed, a 14-year-old freshman at Irving MacArthur High in Irving, Tex., was arrested for building a device thought to be a bomb until it turned out to be a clock."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 01:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that mention of the past discipline problems which have been covered in RS belong in the article and that the latest version of that which was just added is a good one. Psalm84 (talk) 01:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

6 users favor this being in the article. 4 oppose it. Tex249 (talk) 22:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Tex249: we don't generally vote. In particular, we don't count votes in a narrowly-split discussion and declare the side with 51% the "winner." VQuakr (talk) 03:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

3/5ths is not 51/100ths. This has been discussed an a clear consensus has been established. Tex249 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed split of Police detention section

In a recent edit I split the Police detention section into two sections [15] and it was reverted with the comment "Not an improvement" [16] . The reason I split it was because half of the original section Police detentionwas about Ahmed Mohamed's clock at school, and the other half was about the police detention, so calling it all "Police detention" doesn't properly describe the contents of the section. Here's what the result of the split into the sections Ahmed Mohamed's clock at school and Police detention looked like [17].

I'd like to restore the split and would appreciate opinions on this matter so that we can see what the consensus is. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I support in principle, but such splits can cause convoluted problems when there are elements that don't fit perfectly into just one or the other cleanly. I don't see any such problems now, but they may develop as more details are available, so I reserve the right to change my opinion later :) Gaijin42 (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Gaijin42, I don't think your comments can be used to support the split. In fact, I'm not sure what they can be used for. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I just now changed the section heading from Police detention to Clock and police detention. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Whoops. I had a typo in the section heading, which Mandruss fixed. Thanks Mandruss. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I think detention is misleading and difficult to understand. It may cause confusion when reading through since this article is partly about a school's reaction, I think custody is much better. Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 02:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

As far as rewording Bob K31416's wording (detention vs. custody): what Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors said above. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors, Could you explain your remark, "It may cause confusion when reading through since this article is partly about a school's reaction...". --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's not be coy. The word detention has very clear connotations in connection with school disciplinary actions in addition to police detainment. It's confusing to the average and possibly uneducated reader. For this reason ALONE, custody is a better word, let alone actual accuracy with regard to the respective definitions. Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 03:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors, Honestly, it's not clear what you're trying to say. In schools there is a punishment called "detention" that doesn't involve police. Is that what you mean? If so, "police detention" clearly doesn't mean the detention punishment imposed by schools. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's be absolutely clear because words mean things. "Detention" is during investigation of a crime. At the school, Ahmed is in the custody of the school. He was "detained" when police started investigating under the rule governed by a Terry stop. Police have reasonable suspicion of a crime and are merely investigating. They can "detain" for as long as reasonable. This is similar to a detention at a traffic stop (adults aren't free to leave but they aren't under arrest either). At some point, the police developed "probable cause" to take custody of Ahmed and take him to a juveniles center where he is processed and released to his parents. The police forward the probable cause statement to prosecutors to see if they wish to pursue a delinquency hearing. They did not which triggers a destruction of all photographs and fingerprints (unlike adults where an arrest is forrever and fignerprints/photographs/DNA are retained forever). After police took custody, it is imprecise to call it a detention. There are very clear demarcations of detention, custody, etc. Juveniles are always "in custody" of someone whether a parent, a school, police or juvenile justice facility. --DHeyward (talk) 03:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but -- "detention" isn't really the word. It's detained, actually. To me, it makes sense to go from clock (beginning) to custody (end of event), hence my change of wording to "Clock and police custody". -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks like there is disagreement and complex considerations regarding custody and detention. So how about using something else that doesn't involve these issues. For example, "Clock and reaction involving police"? --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your commitment to compromise, but in this case it is not necessary. Unfortunately, every other editor to comment here is in favor of custody over dentention. It might be time to consider that this is actually a better outcome for the article and for our readers and to stop trying to push a different agenda. Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 04:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

stop trying to push a different agenda. - WP:AGF - read it - learn it - live it. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

"Detained" evolves into "Custody." It's where the passive-aggressive responses meet."Detained" ended when handcuffs where put on and he was transported. The police took custodial control from the school and after processing returned it to the parents. For adults, there are very different rules regarding questioning under "detention" (Terry stop) vs. "Arrest." For one, questions can be broad and no Miranda notice is required. An officer can ask you if you have drugs in your car during a traffic stop. They can ask you you if they can search the car. They can ask you to perform a field sobriety test. It's pre-arrest and the presumption is that the person can not answer, not participate and decline - whence no Miranda warning. Once the officer takes a person into custody and they are no longer free to leave their custody, all the interview warnings kick in. Contrary to TV shows, Miranda warnings are never given pre-custody. For adults, it means they have already been arrested before they will ever hear a Miranda warning. For ahmed, his questioning at the school is pre-arrest. The police are ascertaining whether a crime has been committed. If someone chooses not to participate, the police take the next step from "reasonable suspicion" to "probable cause." This is basic U.S. police procedure set by precedent by SCOTUS. The police had the clock, the statement by the teacher that it looked like a bomb and no exculpatory statements by Ahmed. The took him into custody and both the police the school notified his parents. At station, under Miranda and with his parent present, is when he went into more detail. He was then released to his parents and no further action took place. It's a red herring to say he was entitled to parents and lawyers during an investigative Terry stop questioning. Nothing that happened at school required representation or a parent. It's important to demarcate when Reasonable suspicion invoked a Terry stop detention and when Probable cause was established to take him into custody. Read the links as they are very important for U.S. jurisprudence. --DHeyward (talk) 05:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Terry stops and arrests are actually very complex, and there is a lot of grey area as to what situation you are actually in. It would probably require having this case be taken to actual court (probably on false arrest charges?) to find out for sure. See also Death of Freddie Gray and issues about when his arrest actually began. However, these are terms of art, and for the media to not distinguish between the choices is not unexpected. We should perhaps clarify that we are using the terms in a laymans fashion, and provide links to the relevant standards to avoid misleading the reader, but us getting pedantic about which state Ahmed was in is going to end up being WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. People can be handcuffed but not arrested, or be under de-facto arrest while just talking. See United States v. Rabbia "Whether a Terry stop has escalated into a de facto arrest depends on a number of factors, including, inter alia, the location and duration of the stop, the number of police officers present at the scene, the degree of physical restraint placed upon the suspect, and the information conveyed to the suspect. "Gaijin42 (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Kubiak quote, teacher views on history.

A while back someone edited this in with little comment or discussion:

Mohamed was viewed by teachers at his middle-school school as an electronics enthusiast with a history of being disciplined following various incidents. Among such incidents was using a hand made remote control to cause a classroom projector to malfunction on command. When interviewed, his former seventh grade history teacher Ralph Kubiak stated, "This kid was being pushed. At least he thought he was being pushed. He's got a habit for attracting or being in situations — being on the outside."

There are several problems with this change. The sources don't support the sweeping statement about how Mohammed was viewed; additionally, the quote from Kubiak is pulled out of context from a much longer discussion of Kubiak's views on the subject (here). I don't think it makes sense to highlight that quote so dramatically; this isn't a WP:QUOTEFARM. What does it add that isn't covered elsewhere in this article? --Aquillion (talk) 10:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the previous version. Much better. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Through the work of various editors, including Cwobeel, I thought we had reached agreement on this item and there was some stability, and now this. Very disruptive. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I too thought this had been worked out and would go so far as to say the material has been removed against consensus. The quote is a pretty good summary of Kubiak's views - it is not like we used 'He is the kind of kid who will become a CEO, or the leader of a gang'. Kubiak's view is WP:DUE because he is presented as a teacher who Ahmed long term and regular contact with - friend, mentor, whatever - Kubiak is qualified to express an opinion about Ahmed. Jbh^Talk 17:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with that. Also note that Cwobeel increased the size of the original version of the quote by adding the part, "This kid was being pushed. At least he thought he was being pushed." Whether we put back the original version of the quote or the quote increased by Cwobeel is OK by me. Note that the original version of the quote without the part added by Cwobeel is "He's got a habit for attracting or being in situations — being on the outside." The first part is quite pertinent, so we could abbreviate it to "He's got a habit for attracting or being in situations...". This would also address Aquillion's concern about WP:QUOTEFARM, which if one reads that section is about not having long quotes. We could also look at the rest of the paragraph which contains quotes of articles rather than people, which is usually discouraged in Wikipedia in favor of paraphrasing. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Either of the two are fine, or anything else which sums up Kubiak's impressions of Ahmed. He is one of the best sources available to give context to his school behavior and he is said to have had a sympathetic rather than antagonistic relationship with Ahmed. Jbh^Talk 19:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Suspensions language

This language "Prior to the clock incident, Mohamed was suspended several times" is unacceptable as the suspensions listed in the sources requires context (such as the suspension for blowing bubbles in the bathroom, and the suspension for reacting to an apparent bullying. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, the sources list two suspensions, one for blowing bubbles and one for reacting to an alleged bullying. That is not "several" - Cwobeel (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

This was the previous version, now restored, that provides accurate representation of previous suspensions:

According to The Dallas Morning News, Mohamed's discipline record "was thick by some accounts." There were several instances where Mohamed was suspended while in sixth grade, once for blowing soap bubbles in the bathroom, and another time when he reacted to an alleged attack in the school hallway by a schoolmate. During that time, Mohamed "was complaining of bullying — not just by students, but by staff", reportedly for being Muslim. After reviewing a letter of support from a family friend and meeting with Mohamed, the school principal overturned the suspension.

References

- Cwobeel (talk) 19:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Compare with Prior to the clock incident, Mohamed was suspended several times, which says nothing about the nature and context of these suspensions. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The language from the sources says "several weeks of suspensions". If we're going to talk about context, is it not also important to mention that several of the disciplinary actions that he earned were for similar incidents? Tex249 (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Not really. The suspensions listed were for blowing bubbles and for fighting in the hallway with an alleged bully. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring over wording

Dave Dial is edit warring over wording. Why, I don't know, since the changes I made are not controversial, are not in conflict with the sources, are nowhere close to original research (as he claims), remove redundancies, and are grammar and tone improvements. Constructive comments from others would be great, attacks and claims of bias from Dave Dial (or anyone else) are not. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• Because you have removed 'arrested' from the article again. Even though Talk page consensus has it that the majority of sources have described the subject as being arrested. Dave Dial (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You are saying that your reason for edit warring, and being over 3RR iin 24 hours time, and blanket reverting everything I edited is because of one word? That makes no reasonable sense. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@DD2K: we are not bound to use the raw majority of sources, particularly if a technically inaccurate term is widely used by popular press but better sources disagree. Can you link the discussion or discussions that achieved consensus for use of the word "arrested"? VQuakr (talk) 19:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• (ec) I definitely feel your changes are controversial, and I'm a bit surprised you reverted repeatedly to try and keep them in place -- clearly you were dramatically rewriting the lead, which can usually be assumed to be a controversial edit in an article like this. As for specific wording, I object to all of your changes. I don't see any improvements whatsoever to them, and several things stick out as weird -- you changed " arrested by police and taken" to the longer and more clunky "taken into custody by local police and transported"; you changed one part to the grammatically-incorrect and awkwardly-worded " The teen had had brought a home project to school that day:" You changed the fact that he had brought it to show "to show it to his teachers" (which is not contested in any of the sources and universally reported as fact) to "The student claimed he brought it to school to his teachers", which is a flat WP:NPOV violation (since NPOV requires that we never present facts as opinions.) You changed "confiscated the project" (which is how it was widely reported) to the vaguer and euphemistic "took possession of it"; you changed "The police were called" to the slightly-wordier and more vague "Law enforcement were contacted". You removed "he was taken into custody, handcuffed" which is well-cited in the article. Your other changes, mostly small grammatical tweaks, do not seem to improve the section at all. As a general rule, you should assume that dramatic changes like these to the lead of a hot-button article are controversial, but in this case your changes clearly broke WP:NPOV in a few places, made the grammar appreciably worse in others, and generally were not an improvement. Trying them once under WP:BOLD was all right, but it's silly that you revert-warred to keep them in place once it was clear people objected -- discuss your changes one at a time, not in a big sweeping rewrite. --Aquillion (talk) 19:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Option A

In September 2015, Ahmed Mohamed, a Muslim Sudanese-American high school freshman at MacArthur High School in Irving, Texas, was taken into custody by local police and transported to a juvenile detention facility under suspicion of possessing a hoax bomb. The teen had had brought a home project to school that day: a digital clock built into a locking pencil box. The student claimed he brought it to school to his teachers. Mohamed's English teacher, believing the clock resembled a bomb, took possession of it and reported the student to the school's principal. Law enforcement were contacted and Mohamed was questioned for an hour and a half, after which he was transported to a juvenile detention facility where he was fingerprinted and his photograph was taken. Following this, he was released to his parents. The incident was not pursued further by juvenile justice authorities, however, the student was suspended from school for three days.

Option B

In September 2015, Ahmed Mohamed, a Muslim Sudanese-American high school freshman at MacArthur High School in Irving, Texas, was arrested by police and taken to a juvenile detention facility under suspicion of possessing a hoax bomb. He had brought to his school a home project, where he had reassembled a commercial digital clock inside a locking pencil box, to show it to his teachers. His English teacher, believing the clock resembled a bomb, confiscated the project and reported him to the school principal's office. The police were called and Mohamed was questioned for an hour and a half. He was taken into custody, handcuffed, transported to a juvenile detention facility, fingerprinted, and his photograph was taken. He was then released to his parents. The case was not pursued further by juvenile justice authorities but he was suspended from school for three days.

• I have to leave for awhile, to go shopping and some other stuff. But the obvious answer is B, Wink has purposely removed 'arrested'(even after a long protracted effort to remove mention was rejected earlier), and added 'claimed' to the lede, implying the subject is lying. Dave Dial (talk) 19:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
• B per my numerous objections above. Every single change Wink made was for the worse, in some cases introducing WP:NPOV issues or grammatical errors where there were none before. --Aquillion (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

If you want to refer to me, please use my actual user name. Thanks. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• B per Aquillion's step by step reasons for the numerous reasons why . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
• The change of "He had brought to his school a home project" to "The teen had had brought a home project to school that day" seems like a straightforward fix of awkward grammar. I am unconvinced that "arrested" is the best word choice since we strive for accuracy. I do not think we need to qualify "to show it to his teachers"; Mohamed did indeed bring it to school and voluntarily show it to at least one teacher, so this seems like a straightforward factual statement to me. I have little opinion on most of the 2nd paragraph changes, except that I think "He was taken into custody, handcuffed..." should be retained. VQuakr (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

ETA - just made a tweak to the grammar. If anyone disagrees, ping me and I will self-revert. VQuakr (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

ETA 2, ok, reverted by BarrelProof. My goal was a grammar fix as the sentence is bad right now. How about, "He had brought a home project, a reassembled commercial digital clock inside a locking pencil box, to his school to show it to his teachers."? It would be better still if we could communicate the sentence without saying "to" three times... VQuakr (talk) 20:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it's better to have somewhat awkward phrasing than to have misleading or incorrect information. The version I reverted said it was "a commercial digital clock inside a locking pencil box". It wasn't a complete commercial clock inside a pencil box. If it was, he wouldn't have gotten in trouble for it, because a complete clock would look very clearly like a clock. If you opened the pencil box and saw a clock inside it instead of seeing a bunch of wires and circuit boards and other electronic parts, no one would say it looked like a bomb. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@BarrelProof: what do you think of the rephrasing I suggested immediately above? I think it addresses your concern. VQuakr (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

That seems OK to me (as phrased in the "ETA 2" note above). —BarrelProof (talk) 20:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

About the use of "arrested", it was the best word I could come up with at the time when trying to fix a different aspect, and it's a word that has been used in essentially all of the reliable sources that this article is based on (more than 30 of them), and it is used in the Texas AG's summary of juvenile law, which refers to "a child's arrest". To me it seems rather strange for us to twist ourselves in knots trying to avoid using that word, when it seems universally used without question or comment in the reliable sources. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• My suggestions:
• "The case was not pursued further by juvenile justice authorities but he was suspended from school for three days." This could be much better worded and have encyclopedic tone by using "however". Example: "The case was not further pursued further by juvenile justice authorities, however, the student was suspended from school for three days." As well, using "the student" puts the focus back on the incident rather than the child and removes an overuse of pronouns "him", "his", "he".
• "a Muslim Sudanese-American" Why is this in the opening sentence of the lede? Wasn't it agreed upon a week or so ago that the article wasn't to focus on the minor child but the incident? That in mind, his nationality/ancestry should be in the second paragraph, not the first.
• "He had brought a home project, a reassembled commercial digital clock..." More overuse of pronouns. Nothing wrong with either using his last name here or "the student".
• "to his school to show it to his teachers." A better, more mature use of language here would be "The student had brought from home a commercial digital clock he had reassembled into a locking pencil box with the intent of showing it to his teachers". Further, continuing to call it "the project" is misleading. The clock wasn't a project ala something assigned from school that he labored over, rather, it was something he did in 20 minutes' time before going to be the night before.
• "confiscated the project and reported". "Confiscated" is quite loaded and leads a reader to visualize a forced, abusive seizure of something bad. If, in fact, as so many have you have been taking pains to make this article sound like, there was nothing "bad" happening on the part of the student, then removal of that word will work much better. If you are working to make the police sound like brutes (which would be POV, of course), then the word should stay. If you want it to be NPOV (which is policy), "took possession of" is NPOV and more accurate.
• "to the school principal's office." Offices are inanimate spaces. He was reported to the principal, not the office.
• "The police were called and Mohamed was questioned for an hour and a half. He was taken into custody, handcuffed, transported to a juvenile detention facility, fingerprinted, and his photograph was taken. He was then released to his parents." Better, more encyclopedic wording: "Mohamed was questioned for an hour and a half, after which he was transported to a juvenile detention facility where he was fingerprinted and his photograph was taken. Following this, he was released to his parents."
• That should do it for now. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I do not understand why you find the use of pronouns problematic. For example, in the first paragraph no other antecedent has been listed so "he" is unambiguous. I think "confiscated" (to use one's authority to lay claim to and separate a possession from its holder) is completely accurate and dispassionate. I do not see how it is a loaded word. VQuakr (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• Winkelvi asks: "a Muslim Sudanese-American" Why is this in the opening sentence of the lede? Wasn't it agreed upon a week or so ago that the article wasn't to focus on the minor child but the incident? That in mind, his nationality/ancestry should be in the second paragraph, not the first. You quite seem to miss the point that "the incident" is the overreaction of the authorities as yet another example of the school-to-prison pipeline for brown kids. His ethnicity is a vital component to the reaction that made "the incident" notable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

"You quite seem to miss the point that "the incident" is the overreaction of the authorities as yet another example of the school-to-prison pipeline for brown kids." Ah, I see. So this is really about POV editing to right wrongs perceived as racist? Could you be editing and commenting any more for the wrong reasons and against policy? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, "righting the wrong" of attempting to remove the key feature of racism from an event that has racism as a key feature. It would be like discussing a peanut butter and jelly sandwich without discussing peanut butter. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I love how you only bitched rather than said anything positive, VQuakr. It's just so helpful and collegial. (yes, that was sarcasm) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The lede was right before the last flurry of changes. - Cwobeel (talk)

Is he Sudanese-American? I thought he was a Sudanese immigrant living in America but I haven't seen anything that would indicate his nationality is different than his fathers. Is there a source that explains it? --DHeyward (talk) 02:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, "arrest" is problematic because he can truthfully say he was never arrested as a juvenile. That's straight from the Texas AG's handbook. When an employer googles his name and Wikipedia article says he was arrested and his job application says he was not, we are defaming him. He was not arrested and it's a serious BLP issue to claim he was arrested. Also, handcuffing isn't specific to Ahmed. Everyone, whether it's a psychiatric hold trip to the hospital or taken custody is handcuffed with hands behind their back (i.e. it's redundant to say handcuffed). That's a policy and order for police and discretion is allowed only for medical reasons. --DHeyward (talk) 02:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

We have been over this. A rose is a rose is a rose even if some statute says "it is not a rose, it is a perfooldoodle." ALL the reliable sources, even the ones from Texas, call what the police did "arrest" . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Your original research notwithstanding, in Wikipedia we follow the sources. He may not have been legally "arrested", but that is what the overwhelming number of sources describes it as. The handcuffing may have been done as police said "to guarantee his safety and the safety of the officers", but it was the single most important aspect that triggered the coverage of the incident: the photo of a nerdy-looking kid in a NASA T-shirt being handcuffed. This is an article about the incident and the uproar it generated, and not an article to split hairs about the difference between "arresting" and "detaining" a juvenile. As for Mohamed's future, he will always be remembered as the kid that got arrested from bringing in a clock to school, no matter what we say in this article. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia protects living people and we exercise discretion, not blindly follow potentially libelous sources especially regarding alleged crimes. Especially minors as they have even more protection than adults regarding privacy. Claiming he was arrested in WP's voice based on breaking news stories when it's clearly impossible for Texas 14 year-olds to be arrested is a BLP violation. Breaking news stories are by definition primary sources. There is no record of an arrest. There are no fingerprints or photographs (they aren't sealed, they don't exist). We have witnesses that saw him being taken into custody that described it as an arrest but we cannot state it in WP's voice. If a job application asks if he was ever arrested as a minor, he can truthfully answer "No." Wikipedia should not be making claims contradicting to that - it's libelous. No matter how many flat earthers say the earth is flat doesn't make it so and such specious claims need attrinution. --DHeyward (talk) 14:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Given the thousands of sources that refer to the detention as an "arrest", there is no need to attribute POV. If you still have concerns, you may want to post a thread at WP:BLP/N - Cwobeel (talk) 14:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ummm... This "There are no fingerprints or photographs (they aren't sealed, they don't exist)." seems to be directly contradicted by what we have in the article [He was] "handcuffed, transported to a juvenile detention facility, fingerprinted, and his photograph was taken". RS are using "arrest" and us going to the Texas legal code to say it was not an arrest is original research. If we are going the OR route it is worth looking at our own article on arrest where it states "The question whether the person is under arrest or not depends not on the legality of the arrest, but on whether the person has been deprived of personal liberty of movement.". I have no strong feelings on the term but your reason for removal on BLP grounds seems very weak to me. Just as we must follow the sources on the background of the incident we must follow the sources on how it is described. Basically we need some RS describing how he was not arrested before we can go against the ones that say he was. Jbh^Talk 15:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. We are splitting legal terms' hairs here. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Arguing that "taken into custody" and "arrest" are the same, means we should go with the less controversial term. Why would you oppose "taken into custody?" It has been that way for a while. Also, no one has provided a source that he is American or wants to be, He immigrated from Sudan 3 years ago. I see no sources that indicates he is an American or wants to be or considers himself to be. --DHeyward (talk) 15:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding "Sudanese-American" versus "immigrant from Sudan", NBC refers to Ahmed as Sudanese-American (repeatedly) and says he is "from Irving". CBS also says he is "from Irving". I have seen other sources that say his "family comes from Sudan" without saying whether Ahmed himself is from Sudan (another and another) or that his father "immigrated here from Sudan" (another) or that he is the son of immigrants or that his grandmother immigrated with the rest of the family years ago, but these don't refer to the boy as an immigrant. Overall, looking at the sources in the article, so far I have found three reliable mainstream sources that refer to Ahmed as Sudanese-American and two that say he is from Irving, and none that say "he immigrated from Sudan 3 years ago" or that even explicitly refer to him as an immigrant from Sudan. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Second paragraph of Before Ahmed’s fame: fantastic inventions and a fight with authority:

"Ask at Sam Houston Middle School, where the boy from Sudan mastered electronics and English, once built a remote control to prank the classroom projector and bragged of reciting his First Amendment rights in the principal’s office.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 00:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Same article says: "The boy showed up at the school in sixth grade with almost no English: bespectacled, small for his age and far from the continent where he was born." (emphasis added) Born in Sudan. Raquel Baranow (talk) 00:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for that. It's unfortunate that the other sources were so vague! – or wrong – or maybe it's just me, but I wouldn't say a kid was "from Irving" if he just arrived from Sudan a few years ago. I had noticed something saying he needed to learn English, but I thought it might just be because his family didn't use English at home. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Where someone is from, depends on the time of the context. In the present case, for the time of the context of the clock incident, which is recent, one would say that Ahmed is from Irving. For the time of the context when Ahmed began middle school, one would say that he was from Sudan. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

As a follow-up to this discussion, as noted below, there is a Daily Beast article that clearly says the boy is an American citizen. Also per below, "According to the 6th and 7th paragraphs of a 2011 Washington Post article, Ahmed's father was an American citizen, and had been in the US for two decades." Together with the other sources that refer to the boy as Sudanese-American, it appears that he is a U.S. citizen. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Thread at BLP/N Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Ahmed_Mohamed_clock_incident - Cwobeel (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The Subject As Other

We currently (Oct 6) describe the subject in the following way: "Mohamed, who is Muslim of Sudanese descent...". We do not say that child actor Jerry Mathers is a Christian of English descent. We don’t say that Kim Kardashian is an Christian of Armenian descent. We don’t say that abortion-clinic assassin Scott Roederer is a Lutheran of German descent. They’re Americans; we call them Americans. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. That said, because there were accusations of Islamaphobia as a result of the incident, his religion needs to be mentioned. I don't, however, believe it needs to be mentioned so early in the lede and should be mentioned only in relation to the accusations (which have yet to be proven or substantiated at all). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes agree that the is problematic, but better than the previous version. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

* Previous version: Mohamed, a Muslim of Sudanese descent,

* Current version: Mohamed, who is Muslim of Sudanese descent,

Also, we don't know if he is an American citizen. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

He is a U.S. citizen. See here (Daily Beast). He was also described as a Sudanese American (e.g., by Public Radio International and CNN ("a Sudanese-American Muslim"). We should describe him as Mohamed, a Sudanese American from a Muslim family or somesuch. I do agree that is is important to describe him as an American. Neutrality^talk 02:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

And an extremely biased article in the Daily Beast it is: "the most Islamophobic part of the country" (based on what data?); "People were standing up to anti-Muslim bigotry directed against a nerdy, 14-year-old high school student named Ahmed Mohamed" (this bigotry has been verified and proven by whom, when, and how?); "Why would a homemade clock get him arrested, you may ask? It shouldn’t, but his last name is Mohamed and he lives in Irving, Texas." (again, based on what empirical evidence is this entire town anti-Muslim? was there a trial? a survey taken?); "The town’s mayor, Beth Van Duyne, is a “a hero among a fringe movement that believes Muslims... are plotting to take over American culture and courts”," (according to the Dallas Morning News - which has been quite obviously biased toward Mohamed since the story broke - and they know this about the mayor, unequivocally, how?); "Van Duyne recently championed a law to prevent Muslims from imposing Islamic law" (and championing against Sharia Law is a bad thing because it's so inclusive? so accepting of any other religions?); "The message in Irving is clear: If you are Muslim, anything you do might be a plot to destroy America." (wow and wow -- would Wikipedia be able to include content that said this?); "Apparently, no one in Irving, Texas, can believe a Muslim doesn’t want to blow things up." (wow and wow again -- the problems with this statement, and so many more in this article are obvious). Unbiased, reliable source that we should trust? I think not. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

According to the 6th and 7th paragraphs of a 2011 Washington Post article, Ahmed's father was an American citizen, and had been in the US for two decades. So if a reliable source, such as NBC as I recall, says Ahmed is a Sudanese American, it's believable because Ahmed is the son of an American citizen. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. It is now corrected in the lede. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The article states the father is a citizen. It doesn't say if the entire family are citizens. Further, if - as has been reported numerous times - Ahmed Mohammed knew no English three years ago, moved from Sudan three-or-so years ago to the U.S., that sounds more like he wasn't an American citizen when he arrived in this country. His father being an American citizen and in this country for longer than Ahmed has been in this country doesn't mean Ahmed is a citizen. Especially if the father became a citizen after Ahmed's birth in Sudan. What's more, the father, according to the WaPo article, states he declared himself a candidate for the president of Sudan in 2010. How could he do that as an American citizen? Something doesn't just doesn't add up with your reasoning based on that one article, Bob K31416. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

That's not my point. We have reliable sources that say Ahmed is a Sudanese American. Like you, there was a question in my mind about whether that was believable. In my case, at least, that question arose because it looked like Ahmed was in the US for only 3 years. I later found that if he didn't have a US citizen parent, he couldn't become a US citizen until he was 18.

I now find that Ahmed's father was a US citizen and was in the US for two decades as of 2011. So now I don't have a good reason to question the reliable sources that say Ahmed is a Sudanese American, even if he's only been in the US for 3 years and he isn't 18, since he could be an American citizen because his father was. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

And what the so-called reliable sources are saying does not wash based on him running for Sudanese president. Sorry, but that puts a huge question mark over the whole citizenship issue in my mind. There are just way too many things with this story that don't add up. I don't care what "reliable sources" have reported on it. I realize that my doubts have nothing do with how the article will be edited, but still -- I just see a lot more questions with the whole incident, backstory, and follow-up stories after the incident than real, credible answers. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything there for me to respond to, so I'll end by saying that you're entitled to your opinion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Do we have any reason to ask whether he is an American citizen? I do not recall seeing the question raised in the lede for KimKadashian. Also, does Sudanese descent illuminate anythingabout the incident, or is a way of saying "black" that is more emphatic in insinuating "not a regular American"?MarkBernstein (talk) 00:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Check your privilege. You sound like the American sports announcer that kept referring to an Ethiopian athlete as African-American. Ahmed lived in Sudan until 3 years ago. He lives in America but we have no sources that he is or wants to be anything other than Sudanese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.44.192 (talk) 01:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes we do: Public Radio International and CNN - Cwobeel (talk) 03:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, those are breaking news stories and therefore primary sources. How would they verify such a thing without an interview? This is the kind of reflexive wordsmithing that goes unchecked. Like "African-American" being a euphemism for race, rather than nationality. For example, regardless of a rather large number of sources that say otherwise, Nelson Mandela was not African-American. Ahmed needs to be the one that identifies as "American" (and he may) but it seems presumptuous to assume he is. His father is described as a "Sudanese immigrant" which seems more likely for Ahmed as well. Citizenship is not a rapid process nor necessary but unless he self-identifies as American and wants to be identified as American we should probably stick with Sudanese immigrant. For the same reason, I wouldn't call him a "Texan." --DHeyward (talk) 04:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

With that line of argumentation, the entire article (and 100s of thousands' WP articles) should be scrapped as it is exclusively sourced to news stories. The father immigrated to the US 35 years ago, and your presumption that they are not citizens seems to me to be bordering on xenophobic. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh please. The restriction is on "breaking news", not news. I have no presumption that he is or isn't a citizen or American. Nor do I think it matters. It seems you believe credibility hinges on whether he is "American" or not (and I suspect you would object to "Texan"). As someone who works with a very diverse multi-national work force and also as someone who has brought family members to the U.S. on the basis of naturalized citizenship (and Ahmed's case sounds exactly like a sponsorship after his father obtained citizenship as greatly speeds up the process for those entering the country legally) - A) I wouldn't presume Ahmed identifies with a culture that has led to (in his own words) "weeks of suspensions" and bullying regarding his religion and national origin. It's sad that you think his credibility hinges on it (and you need to rethink Xenophobia). B) There are many people in this world looking to tie people to an identity as if it enhances their character. The label "American" means nothing. It's a point of pride for some groups and a mark of derision for others. Presuming the label is a net positive is quite the narrow, xenophobic world view ("'murica, fuck yeah"). "Immigrant from Sudan" is factually correct. "Sudanese" is correct. There is nothing negative about being born in Sudan and moving to the U.S. to live with his father. Being called "American" or being called "Texan," however, is an identity that may confer both positive and negative attributes of which I am not willing to assign to Ahmed unless he also identifies with it. If you feel comfortable replacing "American" with "Texan" in the article, do it because he's as "Texan" as he is "American" . If not, xenophobic is no place to be writing an article and maybe you should start with basic facts instead of trying to create credibility based on such a narrow world view that "American" adds anything to credibility. --DHeyward (talk) 06:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

not useful
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yes, the story of the "white Texans overreact to a brown boy who took a clock to school hauling him to the police station in cuffs as yet another example of the school-to-prison pipeline" has at its core the issue of race. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC) That's the narrative? http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/150916162853-muslim-student-arrested-clock-crop-large-169.jpg Does this officer know? --DHeyward (talk) 05:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC) Wow! POV much? JbhTalk 14:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

In point of fact, Wikipedia frequently identifies as American people who reside and work in the U.S. -- especially if they happen to be light-skinned. This conforms with conventional usage; many museums will identify Chagall as French, and we identify Camille Pissarro as a "French Impressionist painter" [[18]]. Whether the subject is Moslem or Jewish or Quaker seems utterly irrelevant since this incident concerns his detention or arrest, and that cannot legally be affected in any way by subject’s religion. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

You might be correct that his arrest cannot legally be affected by his religion. Unfortunately, however, some sources seem to think his arrest may have been illegally affected by his religion. Illegal effects are still effects, and there have certainly been allegations that the actions of the police in this matter were illegal – e.g., there is such an allegation in the letter from the 29 members of Congress, which alleges that Mohamed was deprived of his civil rights by not being allowed to have his parents present during questioning despite repeated requests. His family's religion (and race and national origin) is a significant part of the discussion in the reliable sources, so I don't think it should be removed from prominent mention in the article. In fact, by removing that information from prominent mention, we would be indicating that we have decided it is irrelevant, and that would be a POV decision. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The apparent or alleged belief that the subject was Moslem should certainly be discussed in the appropriate place. It should not, however, dictate how we characterize the subject in the lede. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The fact that he is a practicing Muslim is undisputed. It has been reported by numerous sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, his national origin and religion should definitely be in the lede, because that is a major element of what is noteworthy about the topic. Much of the coverage in the reliable sources has been about those aspects of the incident. In the last day or two, that informatoin has been moved from the first paragraph to the third one, which I think is OK, but it should not be removed from the lede altogether. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The fact that he has curly hair is undisputed too. It's not clear that it's germane. Would we term him a Christian in the lede if he were a practicing Episcopalian? MarkBernstein (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Are there a lot of reliable sources that discuss the curliness of his hair? If many reliable sources referred to a boy having curly hair or being a Christian or Episcopalian as a major element of explaining what was notable about the incident in which the boy was involved, I hope we would include that in the lede also, and I think we would (one way or another). Unless we mention it, the discussion of racism and Islamophobia in the lede is very confusing, as there would be no explanation of what those things have to do with an incident involving a boy's clock at a high school. The reader might think that was about the boy being racist or anti-Islam, for example – it would be completely disconnected. Much of the reason the incident became so notable is that the treatment of the boy was (rightly or wrongly) blamed on the fact that he's a Muslim from Africa, and the article needs to explain that. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I get what you're saying, but coverage has focused heavily on that aspect of his background, and generally speaking our weight has to reflect that coverage. (Although I'll note in passing that his Sudanese descent is mentioned in the lead and not in the article -- we have sources for it, but they're not explicitly used anywhere, so we should probably fix that.) We're supposed to reflect mainstream coverage in reliable sources, which sometimes means reflecting these cultural biases. Beyond that, in this case his background is more relevant than in the other examples you gave, because many sources have said they believe he only got in trouble because of his race and religion; those things are obviously central. Maybe they shouldn't be (maybe this shouldn't have happened in the first place!), but we have to reflect the coverage and situation we have and not the coverage and situation we wish we had. --Aquillion (talk) 19:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, we're supposed to reflect 'mainstream reliable sources. Emphasizing that the subject is a scary brown non-Christian not-very-American is (unfortunately) the standard practice on right-wing sites. And now on Wikipedia too. The appropriate way to address this, @Aquillion: would be to avoid characterizing the subject in this way in the lede, but to characterize the reaction: "Many sources attributed the response of the Irving, Texas police to the subject’s Moslem face or Sudanese-American ancestry." This places the onus where it belongs while declining to pigeonhole the subject as somehow less American. He’s a student at a Texas public school: he’s a Texan, period. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you got things back-asswards here, Mark. There is nothing wrong with being a 14 year-old Muslim of Sudanese decent. The reason for the 'profiling' accusations are based on this fact. There is nothing wrong with tinkering with electronics and being interested in how those things work. Many of us took things apart and (attempted)put them back together as children. To withhold his ethnic and religious background deprives readers of the reason the child was supposedly profiled. Dave Dial (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@DD2K: The child wasn't profiled: he was interrogated, handcuffed, and detained -- all for tinkering with electronics. I agree that the beliefs of the faculty and police about his racial and ethnic background are pertinent and should be covered with regard to the faculty and police. They are not pertinent to the lede characterization of the subject. We have a systemic tendency to view white anglo-saxon protestant men as the norm here and to document deviations from that norm; this does the project no credit and, as here, could easily lede us to pander, or to seem to pander, to racists and xenophobes.MarkBernstein (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Not just right-wingers saying he's a scary brown foreign-born Muslim. Even if it's about left-wingers alleging that Ahmed was abused by anti-Islamic racist right-wing xenophobes, one cannot understand key aspects of the notability of the topic without understanding that the fact that Mohamed is a Muslim of Sudanese descent – even if both of those views are wrong. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I think MarkBernstein arguments have merit. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I have attempted to work into the lede, MarkBernstein's suggestions. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

And I reverted it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

MarkBernstein, Just to clarify your position, do you think that the issues of Islamophobia and racial profiling regarding this incident, are not a sufficiently important part of the topic to keep that info in the lead? Here's the info in the lead that I'm referring to.

"When news of the incident went viral on Twitter, it sparked debates about racial profiling and Islamophobia, as well as prompting a number of hoax allegations and conspiracy theories."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 21:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks like you answered my question with your recent edit that I reverted. The consensus is against you here. Under the circumstances, please get consensus before making any such changes. That goes for Cwobeel too. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Ummm.... is this page not subject to 1RR? It looks to me like the consensus favors Cwobeel. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Re being subject to 1RR, not as far as I know. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

BTW, the change that you made and the change that Cwobeel made were not discussed here prior to the edits by both of you, which is somewhat disruptive, albeit not intentional. Why don't you and/or Cwobeel put your proposed changes here for discussion and for getting consensus? --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Mmmm... I made a WP:BOLD edit, which you deleted. So the burden is on you to discuss and propose a different version. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Funny you should say that, Bob, because they were discussed here, right in this section. I proposed compromise language, Cwobeel added the compromise to the article. You reverted, pointedly. I modified Cwobeel's language to meet what I fancied was your objection, and you reverted again -- apparently failing to notice that I had already addressed your objection, making your edit summary false. Your tried to shut down discussion here by hatting the interchange where Cwobeel -- quite reasonably -- asked "where is this revision of my language?" Cwobeel's language meets every objection raised above; what precisely is the nature of your objection? MarkBernstein (talk) 22:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

My objection to your edit was expressed in the edit summary.[19] --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's amply represented in the sources. But how about this: At the time of the incident, Mohamed was fourteen years old. When news of the incident went viral on Twitter, it sparked debates about racial profiling and Islamophobia by commentators attributing the response of the school and police to Mohamed' Muslim faith or Sudanese ancestry. Politicians, technology company executives, and media personalities remarked on the incident. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

This discussion continued in the next section Sentence version in lead. (Please note it wasn't my idea to do that.) --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Astronomy night

The way this topic appears twice in the article is awkward. But I can't come up with a way to fix it. I've tried a few ways on paper but can't come up with a good edit.

So the answer is probably obvious and I'll feel like a dolt (but an appreciative one) when someone else solves it.

Somebody?

Thanks. David in DC (talk) 14:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I think Astronomy night is today, so let's wait and see if there is related coverage. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems to be on the 19th (see White House Astronomy Night). —BarrelProof (talk) 20:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, right. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Sentence version in lead

In the third paragraph of the lead, which version of the following sentence do editors prefer?

A. At the time of the incident, Mohamed, who is a Muslim of Sudanese descent, was fourteen years old.

B. Mohamed is a Muslim of Sudanese descent and at the time of the incident was fourteen years old.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 20:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Bob. Did not see this. I have attempted a different take on this. [20] - Cwobeel (talk) 21:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

That's OK. I reverted your change. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cwobeel:'s version is far better; it includes all the information discussed above while answering the problems raised in the previous section. I have rewritten it slightly in hope that it can serve as a better starting point for improvement. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@MarkBernstein: Where? - Cwobeel (talk) 21:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :: @Cwobeel:Here [21]. This is not a separate discussion and certainly should not be hatted: it is a NPOV alternative to the proposals above, neither of which is encyclopedic. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• I like A Raquel Baranow (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, A is the better of those two. The other one seems a bit hard to read. How about "Mohamed, who was fourteen years old at the time of the incident, is a Muslim of Sudanese descent."? —BarrelProof (talk) 22:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Why not? Because we don't say in any other article things like "Ted Cruz, a Christian of Cuban descent". - Cwobeel (talk) 22:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

If much of the notability of the topic is centered around those aspects, we should say something like that. As for Cruz, the second sentence of the article about him says he's a Hispanic American, and in fact it makes a big deal out of the fact that he's "the first Hispanic American to serve as a U.S. senator representing Texas", the second paragraph says "He was the first Hispanic ... solicitor general in Texas history" and that "Cruz is one of three Senators of Cuban descent", and the infobox says he's a Southern Baptist. So his ethnic background is mentioned three times in the lede (and his religion is there at the top too). —BarrelProof (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, sure ethnic descent is fine as it is relevant. But we don't cite his religion in the lead as a qualifier, because it will be unacceptable to say "Ted Cruz, a Christian of Cuban descent" or "Mohamed, a Muslim of Sudanese descent" . - Cwobeel (talk) 22:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Cruz's religion is hardly entirely absent from the description about him. It is listed at the top of the article in the infobox. His religion is also implicitly described by the description of his political position. Few Republican Tea-Party affiliates who are endorsed by the Republican Liberty Caucus and give speeches at Liberty University are likely to be much distant from the protestant evangelical movement. If he weren't Southern Baptist or something close to it, that would be surprising and notable (similar to the way his Hispanic background is mentioned three times in the lede). Ahmed Mohamed's ethnic background and religion are fundamental to what has made this story notable and were part of the "viral" "debates", and they need to appear in the lede in one form or another. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

More on that comment about Cruz's religion not being highlighted mostly because it's just so obvious from his politics: I took a look at the Mitt Romney article. Most people wouldn't expect a Republican to be a Mormon, so I thought I would check on whether that's mentioned in the lede of the article about him. Yes, it's mentioned over and over and over: "... Mormon missionary ... Brigham Young University ... Active in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ... the bishop of his ward (head of his local congregation) and then stake president in his home area near Boston ... Salt Lake Organizing Committee ... the first Mormon to be a major party presidential nominee ..." and the infobox lists two Utah addresses and BYU and has his religion as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)". Romney's religion is everywhere in the lede of that article (and he's just a Mormon – imagine what it would be like if he was a Muslim Republican contender for the presidency). —BarrelProof (talk) 23:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

But I guess you're right that "Muslim of Sudanese descent" may not be the best phrasing. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. In Romney you will not find "Mitt Romney, a Mormon". You will find stuff such as "Active in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". Massive difference. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Option C -

  At the time of the incident, Mohamed was fourteen years old. When news of the incident went viral on Twitter, it sparked debates about racial profiling and Islamophobia by commentators attributing the response of the school and police to Mohamed' Muslim faith or Sudanese ancestry. A number of hoax allegations and conspiracy theories were put forward as politicians, technology company executives, and media personalities remarked on the incident.

  - Cwobeel (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that Cwobeel's version is better, although I understand Bob's concern that it may be tying the conspiracy theories to those politicans, executives, media personalities etc. who have remarked on the incident. Attempting to address that, here's what I've typed in the article: "At the time of the incident, Mohamed was fourteen years old. When news of the incident went viral on Twitter, it sparked debates about racial profiling and Islamophobia by commentators attributing the response of the school and police to Mohamed' Muslim faith or Sudanese ancestry. A number of hoax allegations and conspiracy theories were put forward. Politicians, technology company executives, and media personalities remarked on the incident." PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

PeterTheFourth, First, thanks for correcting the false implication.

I think there's a problem in another part of that text,

"it sparked debates about racial profiling and Islamophobia by commentators attributing the response of the school and police to Mohamed' Muslim faith or Sudanese ancestry"

It's discussing only one side of the debate. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure- what is the other side that needs to be discussed (and does the version I implemented discuss it less than the prior version)? PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The newer version has a problem because it involves an accusation directed against the school and police, which is speculation and doesn't belong in the lead. Here's the original version which doesn't have that problem.

"At the time of the incident, Mohamed, who is a Muslim of Sudanese descent, was fourteen years old. When news of the incident went viral on Twitter, it sparked debates about racial profiling and Islamophobia, as well as prompting a number of hoax allegations and conspiracy theories."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 23:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

As I see it, the new version is an attempt to explain why Mohamed's religion or ethnicity is relevant, hence it mentioning the school & police's response in respect to it. What is the 'other side' of the debate that you believe is not being discussed in the new version? PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

(Please note in my last edit I added "which is speculation and doesn't belong in the lead". It should have gotten an edit conflict with your most recent edit but it didn't. The same thing happened with another edit of mine on this page. Not sure what's happening.)

Re "As I see it, the new version is an attempt to explain why Mohamed's religion or ethnicity is relevant" – That can be done without speculative accusations. For example,

When news of the incident went viral on Twitter, it sparked debates about racial profiling and Islamophobia because Mohamed is a Muslim with Sudanese ancestry.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 00:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

please consider this phrasing: "...because M is a Jew," That's a bit too chilling for Wikipdia, right? Besides, "because" is Reginald research. Fortunately, it's not needed. "When news of the incident went viral on Twitter, it sparked debates about racial profiling and Islamophobia ." I prefer PeterThFourth's wording, however.MarkBernstein (talk) 00:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

First off, you left out the speculative accusation part from the quote, which is still in the lead, "commentators attributing the response of the school and police to Mohamed's Muslim faith or Sudanese ancestry."

Regarding your criticism of my attempt to try to help that edit by removing the speculative accusation part, you may have a good point. But the edit needs to be fixed. You seem to be ignoring the problem with having a speculative accusation about the police and school in the lead, which is that their response was to Mohamed's Muslim faith or Sudanese ancestry, rather than a response to what they honestly thought may be a hoax bomb, regardless of Mohamed's religion or ancestry. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Would you prefer that we qualified commentators as 'some' so the reader is more clear that not all commentators attributed the school & polices reaction to Mohamed's religion & ethnicity? PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I considered that too, but the basic problem would still remain, which is highlighting a speculative accusation by some commentators by putting it in the lead. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe that covering noteworthy commentary in the lede, even if only opinion, is both acceptable and encouraged by policy. Do you feel that including this speculation is undue in the lede as it is not sufficiently covered in our reliable sources? PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Just so I know exactly what is stated in the policy you're referring to, could you give the excerpt and link here? --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure. WP:LEDE ("It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.) and WP:DUE ("Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."). PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Regarding to what extent the accusation was made, could you give some excerpts from sources that reported the accusation, and links to those sources? --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response. NPR: "[..] the case has raised questions over whether Mohamed was treated with particular suspicion because of ethnic and religious bias.". NBC: "[..] his family blame fear of Islam for his arrest [..]". Al Jazeera America: "Others piped in to say that the only thing Ahmed is guilty of is being a Muslim in America.". Rolling Stone: "Wilmore, of course, asked about Mohamed's arrest as well, but instead of delving into social injustice or Islamophobia in America, the host chided Mohamed [...]". Dallas News: "Asked if the teen’s religious beliefs factored into his arrest, Boyd said [...]"

These are the first five sources used in the article currently- all mention the notion that Mohamed was treated as he was due to his ethnicity or religion. Sources mentioning this are really not difficult to find. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. Although I pulled out of the discussion, I can make a last comment here for the work that you did at my request. Actual accusations are more strong than raising the question. The family made the accusation in the NBC source, and the existence of accusations by unnamed people was briefly acknowledged in the Al Jazeera source. In addition to those two sources of yours there is the letter by the 29 congressmen that makes the accusation. As I mentioned below, there was what appeared to be an accusation by the White House that turned out not to be the case upon further questioning by a reporter at that White House press conference. Actual accusations may not be much covered in reliable sources. BTW, I noticed that the item in the article is evolving through editing. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel's version (quoted above as Option C) is a good-faith effort, but I think it misses the mark. Especially when considering that this is placed as the last paragraph of the lede. It seems to say that first the story went viral, and then some people started debating about it and noticing that Mohamed was dark-skinned and a Muslim and they began speculating that there might have been some profiling involved. That's not what happened. The questions of race, religion, and foreigner treatment were fundamental to this story from the very beginning. That was all in the original Dallas Morning News story, and that is why the story went viral in the first place. These questions are the primary reason the incident is noteworthy. The story would never have become prominent if these issues were not involved. If this same thing happened to a Baptist Anglo kid in Texas, that kid's story might be unfortunate, but it wouldn't go viral and he wouldn't get invited to the White House. Twenty-nine members of the United States Congress, including key Asian-American and Muslim members, sent a letter to the DoJ saying that it appeared "that Ahmed Mohamed was systematically profiled based on his faith and ethnicity both by the Irving Police Department and MacArthur High School". These issues are fundamental to the notability of the topic, not something to be mentioned only in passing, pushed into the very tail end of the lede, or removed from the lede altogether. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

You may have a point there (with the exception of your speculation about a "Baptist Anglo kid"), but the lede is short, and we can't cram all of it in the first sentence. I'll look forward to a better version. Give it a go if you want. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't (yet) have a better specific suggestion. Kudos to you for putting something out there. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Note that the first two paragraphs are about the facts of the incident, and the third/last paragraph is about the reactions of people in the aftermath of the incident. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I think I'll just leave the discussion because it's become too time consuming for me. Too much needs to be straightened out. Sorry. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I gave it a shot: "News of the incident went viral – initially on Twitter – with allegations by some commentators that the actions of the school officials and police were due to racial profiling and Islamophobia based on Mohamed's Sudanese ancestry and Muslim faith." I think it's an improvement. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)But there is one nugget that I would like to share before I leave, that I recently found in researching accusations of religious and racial prejudice in this case. The New York Times quoted the following from a White House press conference.[22]

"This episode is a good illustration of how pernicious stereotypes can prevent even good-hearted people who have dedicated their lives to educating young people from doing the good work that they set out to do," said Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary.

But there also was the following in the same press conference, which The New York Times didn't report.[23]

Q Does President Obama believe bias was a factor because the young man is Muslim?

MR. EARNEST: Well, I think from this distance, it's far too early to draw that direct assessment from here. We have seen that local law enforcement officials have closed the case. And I think there are some difficult and penetrating questions that do need to be asked in pursuit of the information that you just presented.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 05:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

We follow what the reliably published sources have found worthy of discussion in the proportion they have found it worthy of discussion. What reliable sources have found the second comment worthy of discussion? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• Lead sentence: "In 2015 there was a massive public reaction that included allegations of racism and Islamophobia when 14-year-old Ahmed Mohamed was arrested for allegedly bringing a hoax bomb to school." followed with a paragraph about the details of the incident "Mohamed had reconstructed an electronic clock in a pencil box and brought it to school to show his teachers. School authorities called the police and Mohamed was handcuffed and taken to the police station. "etc. Then a paragraph about the reaction and conspiracy theory claims where we include his Sudanese and Muslim background as for why the reaction. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

That seems pretty good to me. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

How do we juxtapose Ahmed's written statement ("Police think it's a bomb") with our own wording that police never believed it was a bomb? --DHeyward (talk) 07:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the lead? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The incident was the clock showing and arrest, not the public reaction. For how to treat this in the lead of such topics where there is an incident and public reaction, see for example Shooting of Trayvon Martin and Shooting of Michael Brown. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

So, to justify removing all mention of race, religion, and public reaction from the first paragraph, you're offering two examples:

• Shooting of Trayvon Martin, which starts by saying an "African American high school student" was killed by a "mixed-race Hispanic man" (in its first sentence)
• Shooting of Michael Brown, which starts by saying an "African-American male, was fatally shot by ... a white Ferguson police officer" (in its first sentence) in a way that "sparked existing tensions in the majority-black city, and protests and civil unrest erupted" (in its second sentence) and "received considerable attention in the U.S. and elsewhere, attracted protesters from outside the region, and generated a vigorous debate about the relationship between law enforcement and African Americans, and police use of force..." (in its third sentence – all in its first paragraph)

Somehow, I'm having trouble following that. I believe that what caught the attention of the widespread community is the questions and allegations about the involvement of race and religion in the incident. That is what made it notable. The opening of the lede section of an article should clearly describe the key aspects that make the topic notable. Putting all of that into the third paragraph or later seems rather questionable. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's the first paragraph of each lead of the two articles I mentioned, so that editors can check BarrelProof's message and see whether it is a reasonable representation. Also, I added the first paragraph of the what the lead of our article has just been changed to by BarrelProof.

Shooting of Trayvon Martin

"On the night of February 26, 2012, in Sanford, Florida, United States, George Zimmerman fatally shot Trayvon Martin, a 17-year-old African American high school student. Zimmerman, a 28-year-old mixed-race Hispanic man,[Note 1] was the neighborhood watch coordinator for the gated community where Martin was temporarily living and where the shooting took place."

Shooting of Michael Brown

"The shooting of Michael Brown occurred on August 9, 2014, in Ferguson, Missouri, a northern suburb of St. Louis. Brown, an 18-year-old African-American male, was fatally shot by Darren Wilson, 28, a white Ferguson police officer. The disputed circumstances of the shooting of the unarmed young man sparked existing tensions in the majority-black city, and protests and civil unrest erupted. The events received considerable attention in the U.S. and elsewhere, attracted protesters from outside the region, and generated a vigorous debate about the relationship between law enforcement and African Americans, and police use of force doctrine in Missouri and nationwide."

Ahmed Mohamed clock incident

"In 2015 there was a massive public reaction that included allegations of racial profiling and Islamophobia when a 14-year-old boy, Ahmed Mohamed, was arrested at MacArthur High School in Irving, Texas for allegedly bringing a hoax bomb to school. Mohamed had reconstructed an electronic clock in a pencil box and brought it to school to show his teachers. School authorities called the police and Mohamed was handcuffed and taken to the police station."

This version of the lead from BarrelProof is more appropriate for an article titled, "Public reaction to the Ahmed Mohamed clock incident" rather than our article "Ahmed Mohamed clock incident". --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Here's the first paragraph of our article before BarrelProof changed it.[24]

"On Monday, September 14, 2015, Ahmed Mohamed, a freshman at MacArthur High School in Irving, Texas, was arrested at his school on suspicion of possessing a hoax bomb. He had brought to school a commercial digital clock that he had disassembled and reassembled inside a locking pencil box. According to Mohamed, he did it to impress his teachers with his inventing ability."

I reverted BarrelProof's change earlier, but Cwobeel reverted my revert. Well, that's the way it goes. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Hoax allegations and conspiracy theories

Most of the sources have covered this as a conspiracy theory, so we have to follow that wording (this is similar to the way we cover almost everything else that gets termed a conspiracy theory in the mainstream media.) And we have to be extremely careful of the sources, since these are allegations against someone who falls under WP:BLP; self-published youtube videos absolutely don't qualify, and Brietbart generally don't pass the the higher WP:RS standard for claims against BLPs, either, since Brietbart lacks a reputation for fact-checking or accuracy. Beyond that, the conspiracy theory aspect is already covered with appropriate weight and with a tone that reflects their WP:FRINGE status; it's WP:UNDUE to cover everything everyone has ever said about it in exhaustive detail when it's ultimately so marginal an aspect of mainstream coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 09:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

There is an explanation above about how the New York Times and other mainstream media edited their articles to fit a narrative of Islamophobia as events unfolded.

This article, without the changes I have proposed, essentially promotes the Islamophobia narrative and is biased.

Most of the sources I have cited are primary sources. I will need to read over wikipedia policies before adding the hoax/fraud section. However, it is fairly clear (to me at least) that Ahmed did not invent a clock as he has publicly claimed. The article in its present form is very biased Mdh249 (talk) 11:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, please read some of Wikipedia policies. You should also take a look at Consensus, before you attempt to add something like your last edit. You went over 3RR(actually 5RR), but you haven't been blocked. Which is probably better right now because you seem new here. Dave Dial (talk) 19:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @Mdh249: The article does not say anything about Mohamed "inventing a clock". If you have an issue with how "mainstream media" is reporting this incident, Wikipedia is not the place to correct that wrong. Please refer to WP:V and WP:NOPV for more information about Wikipedia's core content policies. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• Your sources aren't very good, though. Most of them are WP:SPS, and the ones that aren't mostly WP:RS; only one of them is remotely usable, but it covers it in a way that makes it clear that that view is WP:FRINGE. More generally, even if the mainstream narrative were biased, this is not the appropriate place to try and correct it; the purpose of an encyclopedia is not to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Our purpose is to reflect the various mainstream perspectives on a subject according to their coverage in reliable sources, with weight and tone appropriate to that given by those sources. WP:NPOV doesn't mean we give all claims equal validity; if you want to read or discuss stuff that focuses heavily on alternative views and challenges to the mainstream media narrative, there are plenty of places to do it, but this isn't one of them. --Aquillion (talk) 21:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Some of this could be salvaged. diff The fox news article, breitbart, and dallas news. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

What we have in the section now is more than sufficient, per WP:FRINGE - Cwobeel (talk) 13:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)