NorthBySouthBaranof (talk | contribs) →Changes to lead: SYNTH |
|||
Line 116: | Line 116: | ||
::Thank you again, [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]]. I suppose my point is that this is a significant viewpoint and is reported as such in reliable sources, such as the Guardian, Metro(.co.uk). The fact that there is only one widely-disseminated descriptions for how the clock was transferred from one casing to another is irrelevant. If something is clearly described scientifically, it only needs to be described as such once - verified multiple times if possible, and at infinitum ideally, but described only once. There is one description of the structure of DNA. One set of Newtonian Laws. Please keep this in mind when calling up rational for "significant viewpoint". The viewpoint is significant because it has gathered broad media attention, partially due to the connection with Dawkins. Moreover, it is un-refuted. All rebukes actually refute the implied importance/meaning of the notion - not the notion itself that the clock was taken from another device. So, even if this was only reported in a single reliable source, it would still be relevant information for the WP page and should not be contained within a section on hoax allegations and conspiracy theories. The change that I suggest should be made is indeed very specific and cannot be lumped together with the many details of previous discussions in the talk history regarding hoax allegations. I invite others to leave their comments, if they have them. [[User:Besh Saab|Besh]] ([[User talk:Besh Saab|talk]]) 17:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC) |
::Thank you again, [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]]. I suppose my point is that this is a significant viewpoint and is reported as such in reliable sources, such as the Guardian, Metro(.co.uk). The fact that there is only one widely-disseminated descriptions for how the clock was transferred from one casing to another is irrelevant. If something is clearly described scientifically, it only needs to be described as such once - verified multiple times if possible, and at infinitum ideally, but described only once. There is one description of the structure of DNA. One set of Newtonian Laws. Please keep this in mind when calling up rational for "significant viewpoint". The viewpoint is significant because it has gathered broad media attention, partially due to the connection with Dawkins. Moreover, it is un-refuted. All rebukes actually refute the implied importance/meaning of the notion - not the notion itself that the clock was taken from another device. So, even if this was only reported in a single reliable source, it would still be relevant information for the WP page and should not be contained within a section on hoax allegations and conspiracy theories. The change that I suggest should be made is indeed very specific and cannot be lumped together with the many details of previous discussions in the talk history regarding hoax allegations. I invite others to leave their comments, if they have them. [[User:Besh Saab|Besh]] ([[User talk:Besh Saab|talk]]) 17:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC) |
||
:Your claims about what is "consistent" with anything are unsupported [[WP:SYNTH|original synthesis]] — you may not assemble a collection of sources which say A, B and C and use them to create new idea D. [[User:NorthBySouthBaranof|NorthBySouthBaranof]] ([[User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof|talk]]) 19:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC) |
:Your claims about what is "consistent" with anything are unsupported [[WP:SYNTH|original synthesis]] — you may not assemble a collection of sources which say A, B and C and use them to create new idea D. [[User:NorthBySouthBaranof|NorthBySouthBaranof]] ([[User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof|talk]]) 19:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC) |
||
== Matthew R. Francis: A Rationalist’s Irrationality,Why is Richard Dawkins such a jerk? == |
|||
This was already discussed at some length, but I still perceive some unresolved issues: |
|||
* Why would commentary of Dawkins' tweets be included? |
|||
:Those tweets are relevant to this article, commentary of them is not, it's just, supposedly, relevant to the tweets. |
|||
:While reverting {{reply|Cwobeel}} wrote "''If we are meentioning Dawkins, then we include commentary about his Twitts.''" I'm not aware of this policy, can you please provide a link? I am eager to find out how the possibility of recursion, i.e. indefinite commentary of commentary would be handled. |
|||
* This particular commentary seems irrelevant both to this article and the tweets. |
|||
: It is not even commentary on the content of the tweets, as in a rebuttal or a pointing out of a factual error. The first sentence is the author's subjective opinion on the appropriate "direction of punching" based on his subjective judgement of the incident. The second sentence is the author's subjective judgement of Dawkins' stance history, explicitly on other issues, not on the subject of this article and, in the context of this article, a misleadingly worded observation about them. Nothing wrong with criticizing Muslims, but in this context a casual reader could be left with a sense that Dawkins specifically targeted Ahmed because he is Muslim, for which there is no evidence. |
|||
:I can understand how one could make a mistake and think the commentary is relevant, since the referenced article was obviously prompted by Dawkins' tweets. The content of the commentary, however, is nothing but a couple of non sequiturs and a thinly veiled ad hominem attack of Dawkins and as such not relevant for this article. It is not about the subject of the article, it is not even about Dawkins' tweets and it should be removed. |
Revision as of 00:57, 3 December 2015
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Brietbart Article
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/18/real-story-istandwithahmed/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.159.193 (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- I read through it. I didn't notice anything new in it. Is there something about it that should affect the content of this article? —BarrelProof (talk) 19:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- Actually it doesn't matter what's in this source b/c it's crappy.--TMCk (talk) 19:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- Brietbart is among the WORST sources - they don't have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy they have a reputation for deliberate falsification. [1] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- But anything from Gawker or Vice is perfectly acceptable right? Totally not bias at all. 2602:306:C5B4:77C9:E555:3767:E60F:564A (talk) 00:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- If you dont understand difference between "bias" and "making shit up and not printing retractions when claims are shown to be wrong" I feel very very sorry for you. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- But anything from Gawker or Vice is perfectly acceptable right? Totally not bias at all. 2602:306:C5B4:77C9:E555:3767:E60F:564A (talk) 00:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- Lead sentence: There’s only one problem: the whole story smells. It stinks of leftist exploitation. Gimme a break. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- Brietbart is among the WORST sources - they don't have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy they have a reputation for deliberate falsification. [1] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Actually it doesn't matter what's in this source b/c it's crappy.--TMCk (talk) 19:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Lawsuit
Now it seems that after the family left the United States for Qatar, they are seeking $15 million in a lawsuit against the city of Irving and the school district. http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2015/11/23/clock-kids-family-demand-apology-15-million-in-damages/ ..Heyyouoverthere (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Here is a link to more info regarding the discussion that was closed below because someone did not like it: http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/23/us/ahmed-mohamed-clock-letters-demand-apologies/ Heyyouoverthere (talk) 20:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- It was closed because policy directs that article talk pages are not to be used as general discussion forums for commentary or questions about the article subject, and the below comments are not directed toward improvement of the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Removing some bias from the article
- Concerns about media manipulation are just as founded as concerns about profiling and "Islamophobia" at this point and should be included in the lead.
- There's no evidence that I'm aware of of parts being assembled. To my knowledge a clock was transferred from the original casing in to a different casing.
- The pencil case used resembles a briefcase. This information should not be omitted since "pencil case" alone evokes images of childish innocence, something that would be inappropriate at this point.
- The "Hoax allegations and conspiracy theories" section is thoroughly unencyclopedic. There are quotes about Richard Dawkins' history of alignment with a "wrong end of a controversy" and misrepresentations of his words. The passages don't follow the order of the title and make it difficult to differentiate between allegations of a hoax and "full blown" conspiracy theories. Simply noting that there were "conspiracy theories" offered and that someone found them unfounded is biased. The section should be either expanded to include the details of those theories, or removed altogether and Dawkins' stance moved to "Opinions" section.
Bahati (talk) 15:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- No, the vast majority of reliable sources that are not biased do not reflect your concerns. Only Dawkins and some other conspiracy theorists have made those types of accusations. Dave Dial (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- I would invite you to read Dawkins' tweets again. And definitely try to understand that commentary of his prior stances on unrelated subjects has no place in this article. Further more, without the so called "conspiracy theories" I fail to see what the actual controversy would be and how this incident would be noteworthy. The article reads as "boy harassed because Muslim". Seems open and shut, at least for the casual reader. We are avoiding the full description of the scope of the incident by using the nebulous term of "reliable source", which is in and of it self dubious amidst accusations of media manipulation. Bahati (talk) 16:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- Concerns about media manipulation are just as founded as concerns about profiling and "Islamophobia" at this point and should be included in the lead. The lead summarizes the body. The body does not mention "media manipulation", so the body does not.
- There's no evidence that I'm aware of of parts being assembled. To my knowledge a clock was transferred from the original casing in to a different casing. Assemble: to put together. The terminology was extensively discussed on this talk page to come up with a concise way to describe it that matched the sources and met WP:NPOV; please have a look above and in the archives before "reinventing" the wheel. Why do we care about the extents of your knowledge?
- The pencil case used resembles a briefcase. According to whom? It was ~ 8 inches (20 cm) long. Briefcases are much larger.
- For Dawkins, his comments drew significant amounts of ire and he later backtracked. What is being misrepresented? What is the definition of "unencyclopedic"? Have you read the deletion essay WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC? commentary of his prior stances on unrelated subjects has no place in this article. Wrong; secondary sources have noted his previous commentary. We would not be allowed to independently synthesize the connection, but that is not the case here.
- The article reads as "boy harassed because Muslim". Yup.
- We are avoiding the full description of the scope of the incident by using the nebulous term of "reliable source"... Yup. We are absolutely required to use reliable sources.
- ...accusations of media manipulation. WP:GREATWRONGS. This appears to be a case of you wanting to push your personal opinions and biases into the article. VQuakr (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- Regarding the hoax/conspiracy sources, one of them from HuffingtonPost really does not add to the article/story only that it has screenshots of Tweets from Dawkins and some responses by others. While the article on Slate did expand on it but that article is biased in it's content with a sub headline of "Why is Richard Dawkins such a jerk?" yet touted as a reliable source. Seems someone else's own personal opinion and bias was used to select such a source. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 21:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- Huffpo includes some commentary in addition to referencing other Tweets. Not much commentary, but some. The "jerk" subheadline is not repeated in the Slate article; authors do not always have full control of their titles due to clickbait issues. I am not clear on why that makes the source biased. Even if it were biased that does not make it unreliable or unusable; see WP:BIASED. Kindly keep your speculation about other editors to yourself. VQuakr (talk) 06:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- Regarding the hoax/conspiracy sources, one of them from HuffingtonPost really does not add to the article/story only that it has screenshots of Tweets from Dawkins and some responses by others. While the article on Slate did expand on it but that article is biased in it's content with a sub headline of "Why is Richard Dawkins such a jerk?" yet touted as a reliable source. Seems someone else's own personal opinion and bias was used to select such a source. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 21:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- Media manipulation should be part of the body then. I'll see what I can do. I'm sorry, I should've checked the talk, it just seemed unlikely to me that the misleading wording "assembled the parts" was chosen on purpose, let alone after a discussion.
- According to whom? It was ~ 8 inches (20 cm) long. Briefcases are much larger.
- According to the images available. The size difference being the reason it resembles a briefcase, not being an actual briefcase.
- For Dawkins, his comments drew significant amounts of ire and he later backtracked
- Ire and backtrack are ill defined terms and seem to portray either something irrelevant, people being annoyed by his comments, or misrepresent that something outrageous or incorrect was said and apologized for after prodding by reasonable objections. I'll try to do better.
- Wrong; secondary sources have noted his previous commentary. We would not be allowed to independently synthesize the connection, but that is not the case here.
- No, I mean his previous commentary and especially value judgement of it by a single person, the "secondary source" are non sequitur and thus unencyclopedic. Why is a quoted comment about Dawkins in an article not about Dawkins?
- Yup. This appears to be a case of you wanting to push your personal opinions and biases into the article. Kindly keep your speculation about other editors to yourself.
- Did I just waste my time trying to discuss something with you? Bahati (talk) 14:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- "According to the images available" - that is original research and synthesis. Your interpretation of the images is not consequential here. What do reliable sources say? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- One would expect an image of the thing to be a reliable source, as in no more interpreting and synthesizing than simply describing the content of it, but I can see how this would be a contentious issue in an article like this. Point received none the less, I'll try to find a reliable source, it shouldn't be a problem. Bahati (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Bahati: Why is a quoted comment about Dawkins in an article not about Dawkins? Because Dawkins publicly commented on the subject of this article. Maybe I am misunderstanding your question? Re Did I just waste my time trying to discuss something with you? My last sentence in the 16:52 post was unnecessarily abrasive. I apologize. VQuakr (talk) 19:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm asking why is there a quote about Dawkins, as in a subjective value judgement of his stance history, not specifically related to the subject of the article? I'm not sure I understand why any opinion from that source was included, since it seems to offer no factual rebuttal to Dawkins' tweets, but again, a subjective judgement on which "direction" it is appropriate to "punch" based, yet again, on their subjective assignment of victimhood to Ahmed. Even if the latter judgement could be enforced based on some "majority opinion", as it does seem to be the case for the article as a whole, the former ones seem irrelevant. Apology duly excepted, not least because only a lack of time prevented me from being equally, if not more abrasive. Bahati (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- There is a quote about Dawkins's history because the source made that connection in the context of an article about this subject. Coverage in reliable sources is how we judge what is relevant, as discussed at WP:WEIGHT. VQuakr (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- Exactly, we judge what's relevant based on policy, not the source by deciding what to include in their article. How are a subjective, blatantly biased tutorial about "direction of punching" and a non sequitur, thinly veiled ad hominem attack of Dawkins relevant? To put it another way, the referenced article is a source for what, exactly? Bahati (talk) 02:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- There is a quote about Dawkins's history because the source made that connection in the context of an article about this subject. Coverage in reliable sources is how we judge what is relevant, as discussed at WP:WEIGHT. VQuakr (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm asking why is there a quote about Dawkins, as in a subjective value judgement of his stance history, not specifically related to the subject of the article? I'm not sure I understand why any opinion from that source was included, since it seems to offer no factual rebuttal to Dawkins' tweets, but again, a subjective judgement on which "direction" it is appropriate to "punch" based, yet again, on their subjective assignment of victimhood to Ahmed. Even if the latter judgement could be enforced based on some "majority opinion", as it does seem to be the case for the article as a whole, the former ones seem irrelevant. Apology duly excepted, not least because only a lack of time prevented me from being equally, if not more abrasive. Bahati (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- "According to the images available" - that is original research and synthesis. Your interpretation of the images is not consequential here. What do reliable sources say? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Is there any evidence to support the accusation that the photo of Ahmed in handcuffs was staged after Ahmed's release?
Notability
Does this event justify a Wikipedia article? It does not seem to be sufficiently notable.Royalcourtier (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- It was discussed rather extensively at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Mohamed (student), back when this article was formatted as a biography. What makes you feel that it is not sufficiently notable? VQuakr (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Salon
This was a case which was discussed by practically every media outlet and politician in the English-speaking world. Of the very few examples of media on the page, we include Salon, which is a special-interest website which writes more on feeling and preconceived political beliefs than evidence (WP:QUESTIONABLE), and is basically the mirror equivalent of Breitbart or The Daily Stormer, which would be equally out of place in an article of this notability. It doesn't even appear that this "Chauncey Devega" is a notable person on the fringe left.
There are of course notable opinion pieces (mainly ones which come from actual newspapers or TV channels): for example, I can largely guarantee that a pro-Ahmed opinion piece in the NYT, BBC or CNN would have much more quality control and less of a basis on gut instinct. I don't see what's being added by having this one out of a very small batch on the page. '''tAD''' (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Salon is not a "special-interest website" and should not remotely be mentioned in the same league as Breitbart, let alone The Daily Stormer. That's an utterly absurd comparison. It's a mainstream, widely-read and widely-accepted reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- I have added a second reliable source which discusses the same issue; there should be no doubts that the concept of this incident exemplifying the "school-to-prison pipeline" is a significant current. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what is being disputed here, but to compare Solon to a neo-Nazi website is absolutely absurd. It calls into question your ability to edit articles on this project. And Salon does not have near the credibility problem that Breitbart has, nor the fact checking or editorial mess. So no, you start off with 3 strikes right away here. You're out. Dave Dial (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Changes to lead
@Besh Saab: The current version of the lede was worked on and reached consensus after long discussions in talk. Please review the archives for details. If you want to make changes to the lead, you will need to gain consensus in talk. Please respect WP:BRD - Cwobeel (talk) 15:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Cwobeel. I feel it's imperative that this Wikipedia page brings to light the consensus that exists within the "nerd" community that the clock claimed to be an invention was little or no more than the components of a factory-made alarm clock placed inside a new body. This information is neither hoax allegation, nor conspiracy theory. It is just plain obvious once you take the time to listen to the arguments of the "nerds", as they have been reported[1][2]. This is also consistent with the fact that the student has difficulty describing how the clock was made[3], and did not bring the clock[4] to show Barack Obama despite this being the original justification for the invitation to the White House. Irrespective of the implications this notion may have on how people perceive this story, it is critical for us to represent the facts.
Please note that I do not have the time nor desire to entertain any discussion about the intentions of the student, the student's family, or other non-related material. If users would like to comment here, please restrict all discussion to whether or not this Wikipedia page should acknowledge that those with experience in circuits appear to be in consensus that the clock was a factory-made unit transferred from one casing to another. (One good description for this rational can be found here.) Besh (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
References
- ^ Briguelet, Kate (September 21, 2015). "Nerds Rage Over Ahmed Mohamed's Clock". Retrieved 30 November 2015.
- ^ Gell, Aaron (September 21, 2015). "We Talked to the Guy Who Dismantled Ahmed's Clock". Maxim. Retrieved 30 November 2015.
- ^ Wilmore, Larry (September 24, 2015). "The Nightly Show - Ahmed Mohamed". The Nightly Show. Retrieved 30 November 2015.
- ^ Carrol, Rory (October 20, 2015). "Ahmed Mohamed meets Barack Obama on night of stars – but leaves clock at home". The Guardian. Retrieved 30 November 2015.
- This article, like any other article in WP, reports significant viewpoints made in reliable sources. It is not our role as editors to "right a wrong", or to present the "nerds" viewpoints, unless these are (a) significant, and (b) reported in reliable sources. This has been discussed at length, so I invite you to peruse the talk page archives. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you again, Cwobeel. I suppose my point is that this is a significant viewpoint and is reported as such in reliable sources, such as the Guardian, Metro(.co.uk). The fact that there is only one widely-disseminated descriptions for how the clock was transferred from one casing to another is irrelevant. If something is clearly described scientifically, it only needs to be described as such once - verified multiple times if possible, and at infinitum ideally, but described only once. There is one description of the structure of DNA. One set of Newtonian Laws. Please keep this in mind when calling up rational for "significant viewpoint". The viewpoint is significant because it has gathered broad media attention, partially due to the connection with Dawkins. Moreover, it is un-refuted. All rebukes actually refute the implied importance/meaning of the notion - not the notion itself that the clock was taken from another device. So, even if this was only reported in a single reliable source, it would still be relevant information for the WP page and should not be contained within a section on hoax allegations and conspiracy theories. The change that I suggest should be made is indeed very specific and cannot be lumped together with the many details of previous discussions in the talk history regarding hoax allegations. I invite others to leave their comments, if they have them. Besh (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Your claims about what is "consistent" with anything are unsupported original synthesis — you may not assemble a collection of sources which say A, B and C and use them to create new idea D. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Matthew R. Francis: A Rationalist’s Irrationality,Why is Richard Dawkins such a jerk?
This was already discussed at some length, but I still perceive some unresolved issues:
- Why would commentary of Dawkins' tweets be included?
- Those tweets are relevant to this article, commentary of them is not, it's just, supposedly, relevant to the tweets.
- While reverting @Cwobeel: wrote "If we are meentioning Dawkins, then we include commentary about his Twitts." I'm not aware of this policy, can you please provide a link? I am eager to find out how the possibility of recursion, i.e. indefinite commentary of commentary would be handled.
- This particular commentary seems irrelevant both to this article and the tweets.
- It is not even commentary on the content of the tweets, as in a rebuttal or a pointing out of a factual error. The first sentence is the author's subjective opinion on the appropriate "direction of punching" based on his subjective judgement of the incident. The second sentence is the author's subjective judgement of Dawkins' stance history, explicitly on other issues, not on the subject of this article and, in the context of this article, a misleadingly worded observation about them. Nothing wrong with criticizing Muslims, but in this context a casual reader could be left with a sense that Dawkins specifically targeted Ahmed because he is Muslim, for which there is no evidence.
- I can understand how one could make a mistake and think the commentary is relevant, since the referenced article was obviously prompted by Dawkins' tweets. The content of the commentary, however, is nothing but a couple of non sequiturs and a thinly veiled ad hominem attack of Dawkins and as such not relevant for this article. It is not about the subject of the article, it is not even about Dawkins' tweets and it should be removed.