Misplaced Pages

• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

• Assume good faith
• Be polite and avoid personal attacks
• Be welcoming to newcomers
• Seek dispute resolution if needed

• Neutral point of view
• No original research
• Verifiability

Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process.

Why isn't there more information in this piece of garbage article about how the innards of the clock were clearly factory? --140.32.16.52 (talk) 07:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Because whether the innards were factory or not is not particularly central to an article about an instance of Islamophobia. VQuakr (talk) 07:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Wow that's some neat ad hominem but seems to me like there is a pretty critical difference between "making a clock" and "taking a clock apart" -- he did not re-assemble the clock, he removed the casing. He is not a engineering genius, he is a troll. I look forward to hearing why I am a shitlord. Please try to be less biased in your enforcement of your regime of social justice. ~ <3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.172.60.18 (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

It takes some real "ingenuity" to take a clock out of its housing and mount it in a suitcase... someone call Mensa, we have a winner. The fact he talks about "soldering CPUs" together and other nonsense shows he probably has little idea about computing, electronics etc. aside what a kid might pick up from watching cartoons. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but clearly there is not the ability to make a clock out of discrete components. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.132.10.250 (talk) 13:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:NOTFORUM. 65.128.3.208 (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

This article does appear to be one sided and support the idea that it is a clear cut and dry case of Islamophobia. Is there any section for the rebuttal of the law enforcement and school district? I would be very interested in seeing testimony from both sides including the teachers and arresting officers involved as there is speculation of possible lawsuit ahead. I would like to examine all of the facts of this case and make my own decision. This article does not accurately portray the alleged incident without that evidence.Depresyondayim (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages relies on reliable sources. Misplaced Pages also has many guidelines against directly using legal documents and similar, so testimony would need to be reported on by reliable, independent sources, and any conclusions would have to be made by those sources before being included in this article. If you know of such sources, bring them forth, please. Seeking out sources specifically because they disagree with the current article risks false balance. "Both sides" is a common source of difficulty, because it assumes that both sides are equal. It also implies that there are only two sides, which is an oversimplification as there are almost always many more than that. Grayfell (talk) 01:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

All of Misplaced Pages's "reliable sources" are far left media outlets, like NYT, HuffPo etc. Who would predictably have seen the school's perfectly reasonable response to this kid's stupid prank as "Islamaphobia".

I found no mention of Amena Jamali in the article. She is a Muslim valedictorian of the school who went public to defend the school, saying it is a place where there is "no or very little prejudice." She also said that the school is the "reason she is proud of her religion and heritage today." You won't find the school's side of the story because they're restricted from voicing it by Federal privacy laws due to the Mohammed family not signing a FERPA release form. Waliway (talk) 05:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

References

1. http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/11/25/muslim-former-texas-students-unexpected-revelations-clock-boy-ahmeds-school/

HOWLOWCANIG0 was correct, and you were wrong. The "fact", as reported by "widely reported" sources nevertheless is vague, because no details were supplied. In the sales arena, this is called puffery. How did the police determine "no malicious intent"? Which "police"? Where? How would "malicious intent" have been identified, without a direct admission by the kid? Would, if the kid wanted to cause an incident, that be called "malicious intent"? Did Rosa Parks, who refused to give up her seat for white bus riders, have "malicious intent"? (Civil rights supporters were frequently seen as trouble-makers.) Perhaps the kid (and his parents) wanted to show that BECAUSE he is Muslim, a relatively simple, seemingly innocent event (bringing an electronics project to school) would cause an over-reaction, when presumably it wouldn't have done so if the kid had been non-Muslim? Against this background, what does it really mean to say that the police determined he had no malicious intent? Are there specific quotes of law enforcement people that show what is meant by that assertion? Did they assert that the kid didn't understand that what he did might have caused an incident? Or did they assert that the kid understood that what he did was going to cause an incident, but that this was for the greater good because it exposed Islamophobia or xenophobia? 200.33.20.218 (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, I should add that I checked Notes 1 and 2, and I saw no reference to "malicious" in either one. Further, I did a Google search for '"ahmad mohamad" clock malicious police', and could not find a claim that the police found what is claimed. I think anybody (such as yourself) that claims that the police found no malicious intent should have the burden of proof to find Reliable Sources which assert this. 200.33.20.218 (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

NorthbySouth rudely attempted to redact many of my comments above, claiming that they were "insinuations", and somehow violated wp:BLP. But in fact, I was merely asking a lot of QUESTIONS, not making statements. NorthbySouth merely displayed the kind of imperialistic control-freak nature that long-term editors to WP have begun to display. He does not do ANY WP:BRD discussion (see here!) but thinks he can simply erase what other people do, even if it is on a TALK page! Truly obnoxious and evil. 200.33.20.218 (talk) 04:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to add numbers to the various questions I've asked in a paragraph above, to show how foolish NorthbySouth was, claiming that these QUESTIONS somehow violated WP:BLP.

HOWLOWCANIG0 was correct, and you were wrong. The "fact", as reported by "widely reported" sources nevertheless is vague, because no details were supplied. In the sales arena, this is called puffery. 1. How did the police determine "no malicious intent"? 2. Which "police"? 3. Where? 4. How would "malicious intent" have been identified, without a direct admission by the kid? 4. Would, if the kid wanted to cause an incident, that be called "malicious intent"? 5. Did Rosa Parks, who refused to give up her seat for white bus riders, have "malicious intent"? (Civil rights supporters were frequently seen as trouble-makers.) 6. Perhaps the kid (and his parents) wanted to show that BECAUSE he is Muslim, a relatively simple, seemingly innocent event (bringing an electronics project to school) would cause an over-reaction, when presumably it wouldn't have done so if the kid had been non-Muslim? 7. Against this background, what does it really mean to say that the police determined he had no malicious intent? 8. Are there specific quotes of law enforcement people that show what is meant by that assertion? 9. Did they assert that the kid didn't understand that what he did might have caused an incident? 10 Or did they assert that the kid understood that what he did was going to cause an incident, but that this was for the greater good because it exposed Islamophobia or xenophobia?

I'm glad that I am able to expose NorthbySouth's malicious intent, trying to cut out questions that would lead to a better, more accurate article. Which is what he obviously wants to avoid. 200.33.20.218 (talk) 04:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

It is clear from this that there must have been devious, malicious intent by Ahmad and his family: He did not make ANYTHING, he merely disassembled a long-existing Radio Shack (Micronta) digital clock. http://blogs.artvoice.com/techvoice/2015/09/17/reverse-engineering-ahmed-mohameds-clock-and-ourselves/ "Malicious intent" can include the desire to trick people into thinking that Ahmad had actually built a clock, which is how things started out. 200.33.20.218 (talk) 04:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

This article SJW's don't want to see published.

The article itself does not allow editing at this point. However, a look at the Talk page does not reveal any such protection currently in place. That's a ruse: Obstructing edits but not admitting that the edits are being obstructed. In fact, the header at the top of the Talk page specifically seems to invite edits, rather than claiming some sort of edit-protected status. I will be specific: There is a claim in the main article that says that the police found there to be 'no malicious intent', but a look at the two closest Notes (1 and 2) do not reveal ANY reference to the police somehow finding no malicious intent. Further, the very definition of "malicious" is vague in this context: Does it mean: A) Trying to cause a bomb scare.? or B) Trying to expose Islamophobia, by means of falsely claiming that the kid built a clock, when in fact he did not do that. Further, attributing 'finding no malicious intent' to the police is virtually inherently a non-sequitur: The job of police is to detect crime, specifically, and not "malicious intent" in general. The police determine whether a crime has arguably been committed, and make their recommendations to the appropriate prosecuting authority. Arguably, the police in this case did indeed determine that they found no prosecutable crimes, but importantly they simply didn't consider it their proper business to pass upon the intent of the kid (or others) as to what their "intent" was, if it was not criminal. It is unfortunately that SJW's have tried to sanitize the facts of this article to remove facts and discussion that shows that far from being "no malicious intent", by some definitions of "malicious" there was indeed "malicious intent". 200.33.20.218 (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Try to assume good faith—I protected the article due to living people issues involving a minor. What's SJW? El_C 19:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I caution you that if you unhide text again, you will be blocked from editing for disruption. El_C 19:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Threatening people is what the terrorists do. Maybe you think you're good at it. Can you argue that my UNCONCEALING text is more "disruptive" than your CONCEALING it? I knew you couldn't. Evidently, you think you WP:OWN the article. 200.33.20.218 (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Social Justice Warrior. In any case, you were wrong. Admit it. You protected an article, but concealed the fact of its protection from the documentation. These parents and the kid were and are publicity-seekers, and they obtained that publicity. Further, the kid is an utter liar. See the following reference: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ahmed-mohamed-dallas-teenager-arrested-for-homemade-clock-says-i-have-lost-my-innocence-10503842.html “I like science, but I look like a threat because of my brown skin. The 14-year-old said he had assembled the clock from a piece of circuit board and other things he had found in father’s garage. It had taken him just 10 or 15 minutes." There is no dispute at all that he didn't "assemble the clock from a piece of a circuit board...". And it certainly didn't take him "just 10-15 minutes" to try to fake the claim that he built "a clock". This was, from the beginning, a STUNT pulled off to achieve precisely the result it did...except that it became found that the kid merely DISASSEMBLED an existing clock, in order to hoax the school. He showed it around, looking for a teacher stupid enough to say 'it looks like a bomb', and the trap was sprung. 200.33.20.218 (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Your unsupported speculation, insinuation and outright accusations are not welcome on Misplaced Pages — we are not a webforum for you to attack a person because you have some sort of weird personal vendetta against them. I suggest that you find something else to do on the encyclopedia, or you'll end up blocked. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Your repeatedly rude and obnoxious concealment of discussion of the article are not welcome on WP, despite the fact you obviously think you WP:OWN the article. I do not have a "weird personal vendetta" against anybody: As evidenced by the fact that a large portion of contemporary discussion of the fact of this event of provocation does not come down on the side of the terrorist wannabes. And your repeated attempted concealment of the fact that editing of this article is itself concealed, proves malicious intent. Stop it with the censorship of other people's valid discussion of the article's content. 200.33.20.218 (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Ahmed_Mohamed_clock_incident&action=edit&section=5#