Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:07, 21 March 2015

Biography Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Fictional?

Why does the article call him fictional? All the sources suggest he's real. JDspeeder1 (talk) 04:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

All the sources are FRESH(e)PAPER yo. Nothing newer than August 9 ...? I will check around word of "mouth" whoever has heard of these guys ... before now ... but this smells like an AR promo. Patent.drafter (talk) 03:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

As long as there is no evidence for any of the claims including his identity, there shouldn't even be an article about him. It could all just be promo for the TV show. Move everything to Scorpion (TV series). --92.214.136.11 (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Many reliable sources confirm he is real. Some of his life was used as inspiration for the television show. Dream Focus 19:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

This guy and this show are bologna

If he's such a hero of renown, why's this a day old? Why is his website chintzy? http://www.scorpioncomputerservices.com/project_history.html And very specific about solving small problems for Irish companies and very nebulous about everything else. Everyone on his team can cold-read what you ate for breakfast but he gets his neighbor to do his website and no proofreader? WP isn't around to give CBS and this bolognameister's spurious load full of fishy beans credence. Kapuchinski (talk) 10:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Some of the newspaper sources can't be true

The CBSBaltimore article writes "Homeland Security found O’Brien after he hacked into NASA’s database when he was just a teen. When they came in, they were looking for a hacker named scorpion because that was his hacker name, and they found a 13-year-old kid" Well, the department of homeland security was founded after 09.11. Which would mean he was born around 1990. And his homepage tells us:"Since 1988, Scorpion's team of world class experts partner with clients on a global basis, across industries, to add real measurable value in mission-critical initiatives from planning, to execution, to running the business." Yeah, so he founded a team at age -2. Sounds plausible... 188.240.220.3 (talk) 12:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• They called it something else back then perhaps. Reliable sources mention the NASA thing. On YouTube I found where a news channel interviewed the guy, he explaining how he caught the Boston Bombers. So that part is real also. Dream Focus 14:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

You know how it works, Dreamy , you put the citations in the article. Gave it a cursory internet web search myself and found him discussing techniques, not even saying he was involved. Don't pop my cock with this poppycock, shills. J'accuse! Kapuchinski (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a reference for that already. "Walter O'Brien is actually a true hero, he pretty much caught the Boston Marathon Bombers, by developing a facial recognition process which noticed the bomber had no look of surprise or fear after the bomb detonated. He first hit the world news scene at age 13, when he hacked into NASA’s computer system, and has the 4th highest IQ ever recorded." Look around, other news coverage of him before this show exist. Dream Focus 20:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The first citation and quote are from an entertainment website and are about the show, the next is for the local news interview I mentioned in which he explains clearly that his firm does the same type of thing but he was not involved.

Kapuchinski (talk) 21:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey DreamO Homeland Security doesn't work. You admit "They called it something else back then perhaps" and yet you change it back. This is NOT mentioned in the article you cite. They say 'federal agents.' You say "The New York Post is a reliable source," but this is an entertainment article on a TV show, and just because the post falls for this malarkey does not mean we have to. Kapuchinski (talk) 00:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't matter what you called it. I was simply undoing some bad edits, restoring information and two references. Anyway, who are you? You hardly ever edit over the years. Do you edit under a different name also? Dream Focus 00:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I searched NewsBank ca. 1986-1990 .. the period when he conceivably could have been 13 or so .. for NASA hacking incidents and found a dozen or so reported by the press. Scorpion or O'Brien or "Ireland" or "Irish" is never mentioned in this set, though a few cases involved groups of hackers, none of them named. There is one incident 1988-90 involving many using NASA (Johnson Space Center) to do phone freaking. I didn't find anything obvious in NewsBank. It's worth noting that minors probably wouldn't have their names released. -- GreenC 01:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

controversial section

Don't link to Reddit then write your WP:Synthesis of what was going on. That's not how Misplaced Pages works. I have found proof he did in fact participate in the 1993 Computer Olympics event, but his team "came in at 90th out of 250 teams". < The University of Sussex says so. The official website of the event doesn't list everyone of course, not with so many teams, and certainly not those that came in 90th place. Their official website does show their 5th event was held where they say it was. They do claim he came in 6th place in a precious event, which apparently was called the Computer Olympics, so these are two totally different events we're talking about. I fixed that part. As for linking to an article published in 2009, claiming that the market isn't as high as he claims it is now, that's just nonsense. Find some current stats. Surely he is listed on an SEC report. Just mention his claims and evidence to backup or dismiss them in proper sources, don't just keep tossing out unencyclopedic rants. Dream Focus 11:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Three things wrong with that. First, the Informatics Olympiad is a competition where teams represent countries. There has never been 250 countries, and in 1993, exactly 43 countries competed. The official website of the event ABSOLUTELY DOES list everyone, including teams that won no medals. .

Secondly, the Irish Informatics Olympiad page explains that Ireland first participated in 1994, when Brian Jones won a medal. That means he came in the top 50% at least.

Thirdly, the Olympiads are only open to high school students, not those already attending university.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.122.250.124 (talk) 12:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• I doubt that a major university would lie. They say he was part of a three person team, coming in 90th out of 250 team. Perhaps some nations had more than one team of three participating. http://www.sussex.ac.uk/internal/bulletin/downloads/1990-1999/1993/November/19931119.pdf Dream Focus 14:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

That's a false dichotomy. Nobody is accusing them of 'lying,' the information is simply false, and contradicted by a better source. This student paper clearly used O'Brien as a source. The competition's own website does not list his name among the medalists, which by their own claim equaled half the participants. Nor is he listed as a participant.68.62.88.16 (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

As an fyi to add to this discussion: http://www.computing.dcu.ie/~cdaly/ioi/argentin/argentin.html <- That's an (apparently) 3rd party source that cites Walter O Brien as being on the Irish delegation to the IOI held in Argentina. As another aside, his "founder" page says "At 18, he competed in the World Olympics in Informatics and has ranked as high as the sixth fastest programmer in the world." Note the careful wording to avoid saying that he ranked 6th fasted at the IOI, but rather that some competition (probably not IOI, based on historical records) has ranked him as such. This is certainly a hairy issue to sift through. Apnorton (talk) 23:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I submit that the historical records are incomplete on this. He may have competed without winning anything. This seems to be a photo of the team: http://www.computing.dcu.ie/~cdaly/ioi/argentin/iristeam.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.122.250.124 (talk • contribs)

Controversial claims

The way to handle a self-made claim, where there is reason to doubt the claim, is to not include it at all. This business of saying "the claim could not be verified" is pure Original Research. We are not writing a polemic against O'Brien. If there is some reasonable reason to doubt the claim, and there is no secondary source to support it, then don't include the claim in the article. -- GreenC 21:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

After reading this TechDirt piece I think there are some serious questions about claims made by O'Brien. There is enough evidence-based concern I think we should remove certain things until fully independent sources can be found (eg. not CBS news sources echoing O'Brien in the lead up to the CBS TV show). These include his IQ score, the date he founded the company, the NASA hacking incident (I looked in offline archives and could find no source), the 1993 Computing Olympics. -- GreenC 15:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is a source from 1993 that seems to confirm some claims, but also makes conflicting claims. It says he attended Brighton University whereas other sources say he attended University of Sussex. -- GreenC 16:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• The above cited source is referenced directly from O'Brien's website, and does not show nor list anywhere the original publishing entity. I highly doubt the veracity of this article, as it may very well be an advertisement. Any claims deemed "confirmed" by this dubious article should be removed from the Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.102.49.7 (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Correct, which is why the source is not used in the article. I used the word "confirm" in the sense it supports, or echoes other later sources, not in the sense the facts are confirmed true. -- GreenC 16:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

There is direct incontrovertible evidence Walter has never destroyed the world. DDB (talk) 12:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

NY Post source

I found a source in the New York Post which has biographical details. It's offline, but available through NewsBank, or send me an email and I will email you a copy. -- GreenC 01:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• I had a reference to a New York Post article removed several times already. Dream Focus 15:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I see, the same article under a different title. I think we can use it for certain claims such as his age and non-controversial stuff. This source (page 2) says he was a Freshman undergrad (age 18?) in 1993 so that would be further evidence. -- GreenC 15:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The source of the Sussex Journal mentioned above also seems conflicted by this official site of the The 5th International Olympiad in Informatics (1993) which showed that 43 countries participated, and there is 1 team / delegation per country. While it's possible that the 90th place out of 250 may be referring to comparison amongst individual participants, the competition seems to rank and score on the team level. An independent write up by the USA Team lead Don Piele about the 1993 IOI competition mentions that there were 273 total participants in 43 distinct teams. At this point, I am not sure what the 90 out of 250 is referring to, but this does cause me to doubt the above cited reference of the University of Sussex Bulletin as a valid source. Any additional sources to clear this up are welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.125.56 (talk) 07:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Lack of precision and clarity

I'm going to walk away from this entry and its attendant discussion as it's clearly fractious and incoherent, and I have no interest in becoming involved in such 'discussion' and 'debate', as they're invariably fruitless. I am, however, in so doing, going to make a very simple statement: It is absurd to make a statement of the form 'Some aspects of his life have been challenged as not being authentic.' A life cannot be inauthentic in the sense intended in this context. If you mean to indicate that aspects of his representation as to his life and life events have been challenged or questioned as to not being authentic, the sentence does not serve that purpose. It's all yours, 'editors'. AtomikWeasel (talk) 01:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure I can see that point, a minor fix that actually reduced the number of words, thanks for the suggestion. You seem to be all worked up and apparently resigned from Misplaced Pages right after this post. -- GreenC 05:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Article Concerns

Recently I've looked over the article and I have a few concerns about how the article is shaping up.

In regards to the lead, I don't feel the last sentence meets Misplaced Pages's expectations of neutrality or the standards for BLP leads. It's a hard claim to say that he's notable for the questionability of his statements. Due to these issues and those listed below, I have removed the sentence from the lead.

In the life section, the last sentence seems a bit out of place for Misplaced Pages's standards for the personal life section. It comes across as a quirky factoid and not necessarily something fit for an encyclopedia. I would suggest removing this sentence.

My main concern is with the controversy section. First, this section has a poor balance by taking up a vast part of the article. Second, some of the material comes across as repetitive and reads like a blow by blow of every update published. Finally and most importantly, most of the sources are quite poor and fail to meet our BLP requirements.

First, the Mike Masnick piece is a self-published group blog and doesn't appear to be subject to editorial oversight. Even with that aside, some of the questioning claims presented are ad hominem arguments and quite frankly, are very juvenile. (e.g. "For a big, massively successful company... you'd expect, um, something a bit more professional. " and "Having just gone through the whole Shiva Ayyadurai / inventor of email crap, it's beginning to sound like a similar case of someone pumping up their own past for publicity purposes.") This source is unfit for Misplaced Pages and I have removed it.

The High-Def Digest blog post doesn't credibly contest any of the claims within the article. (e.g. "The opening credits announce that it’s “Based on a True Story.” To which I must respond: “Fuck you, you fucking liars.” This thing is so transparently fake that the only “true” part of the story is that there was once a person named Walter who liked computers. That’s about as much verisimilitude as this show can muster.") This source also fails to meet the expectations for a BLP.

The Matt Ralson piece is from a self-published blog and cannot be used.

The Misplaced Pages content which states, "Boyd goes on to say "Ask O’Brien directly if he has ever saved the world and he evades the question with a series of “there are things I can’t talk about” answers." is synthesis and incorrectly quotes the article. The article actually states, "Press O’Brien and he responds that he can’t say any more about any deals he may have cut with the US authorities. “I cannot go into all of that. It’s been purged,” he says."

The CNET content is synthesis as well. Just because concerns were raised does not mean we can conclude that they are inaccurate. We also don't know what specifically is being questioned and the legitimacy of the questioning. There's too much uncertainty to make a definite statement within the article.

Given these issues, I have removed the controversy section from the article. Please do not re-add it without sufficient, reputable sources. Mike V • Talk 22:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The reliable sources used in this article also say that he is a billionaire with an IQ higher than Einstein who has saved the world. This is a case where the "reliable" sources are crap and the "unreliable" have integrity. The reason is obvious: the reliable sources are just part of the tabloid media complex hyping a new TV show ie. they are not fully independent. What truly independent is left for notability purposes? -- GreenC 00:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

In regards to "saving the world", that's a quote from a producer of the show, it's not made by Walter O'Brien nor is it repeated within the Misplaced Pages article. While you may have a different prospective on the quality of media, we still have follow BLP policies for Misplaced Pages articles. Mike V • Talk 03:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, "not repeated in the Misplaced Pages article" is correct. Yet you have discounted sources for things they say, even though that material is not repeated in the article either.

You just removed a factual statement because you don't like the tone at techdirt, which is a professional news organization with editorial review. Grofield (talk) 01:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

A website that is owned by the same individual who publishes the content is not subject to editorial review. It becomes a questionable sources that should not be used for contentious claims about others. Mike V • Talk 03:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Now you're just making up your own rules. All techdirt pieces, including those by the founder, are subject to editorial review. Techdirt has an excellent reputation. But hey, it's your fiefdom. Congratulations. Grofield (talk) 04:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The TechDirt piece is sufficient here for a number of reasons. Many other editors also think so. I suggest Mike V start an RfC to determine consensus, rather than edit warring based on personal opinion if a source is reliable. Of course he can also lock the article down on BLP justification, but then that would be unethical to both engage in (and possibly escalate) a content dispute and then use admin powers to enforce his POV about the reliability of a source. It's up to the community to decide if a source is reliable for inclusion, not MikeV. -- GreenC 14:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

You removed valid concerns by well-read online media sources, but yet this is OK "His personal history is the inspiration for the CBS television series Scorpion (2014)". You can't have it both ways - if we cannot include things that are not from certain acceptable sources, then we certainly cannot say that O'Brien's personal history is the basis for the show. It most likely is his imagination that is the basis for the show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.172.42 (talk) 02:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

If his website was the only one stating this, I would agree with you. However, it's sourced by three additional reputable sources (IrishCentral, the Irish Times, and a local CBS news team). In regards to, "It most likely is his imagination that is the basis for the show" we cannot speculate on Misplaced Pages articles. We can only report what's available in acceptable sources. Mike V • Talk 03:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• I agree techdirt is a reliable source. https://www.techdirt.com/about.php "the blog’s average of 1.5 million visitors per month, 58,000+ posts and more than 1.2 million comments. Both Business Week and Forbes have awarded Techdirt with Best of the Web thought leader awards." Dream Focus 15:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

This article should be removed

Misplaced Pages should not serve as a platform for major media advertisement. This article on O'Brien was submitted to Misplaced Pages on September 23rd, which is the same day the show Scorpion (TV Series) piloted on CBS. There is no qualitative source on any of O'Brien's claims, and as is being discussed in other sections in this article many of great significance have been refuted by various sources. All references in this article are seemingly based on Puffery that was perpetuated by an ill-referenced article in The Irish Times . The basis of the Irish Times article is the show itself, and does not provide any factual basis of O'Brien's claims.

If we are to take away all questionable sources, all that remains is that O'Brien seems to be an executive producer for the Scorpion (TV Series), and there is an image on his website showing an official seeming Visa application which lists a date of birth of February 24, 1975 along with a country of origin listed as Ireland. Does he deserve a Wiki entry based on this alone? It seems like a slippery slope to allow such questionable content on Misplaced Pages, although these pages have been abused in similar ways in the past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.172.42 (talk) 10:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I created this article after reading about the show, and watching part of the first episode before loosing interest. I am now part of any "major media advertisement". At that time I believed what the news sources I read said as the truth, and if that was true, surely he was notable enough to have an article. 211,386 views to the article thus far. I think if the person's claims are false, they are still notable do to the coverage, and people will still be checking Misplaced Pages for information about them as long as their show is on. Dream Focus 15:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification of intent, Dream Focus. I still stand by my above statement - there's an expectation for factual information on Misplaced Pages, and I don't believe anything that has been presented in this article is representative of fact at this point. Even the original source of information on O'Brien The Irish Times has taken a more conservative approach on O'Brien's claims in recent days.Irish Times article about O'Brien. It seems what has been said by you in some of your previous responses has been for us folks editing the Wiki to not use our brains, but I can't help but notice so many factual discrepancies about the guy, which I won't go into here. If we are going to keep up the article on him, then we must present users with all of the angles - including the controversy over the authenticity of his claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.172.42 (talk) 16:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The rules are quite clear. You need to quote what a reliable source says, not what people assume to be true on their own. I already restored the section where reliable sources questioned his claims. Dream Focus 19:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Picture of Walter O'Brien (Red Carpet)

Picture of Walter O'Brien (on Red Carpet event)

Check Link Here: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bw-JlAKCUAArOtI.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlAdams12 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because the person gets ample media coverage in reliable sources, passes the requirements for an article, regardless of whether or not any/all of their claims are exaggerated or outright lies. -- Dream Focus 10:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

CONNECT Award

CONNECT is a company that does marketing and financing for its client companies. They also gave an award to O'Brien's company. This potential conflict of interest is notable because one never knows if CONNECT has a business relation with who they are giving the award to. It probably deserves some investigation if anyone wants to take a look. I think we should assume good faith unless there is evidence of conflict of interest. -- GreenC 18:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I really think the CONNECT award should not be used. CONNECT is a 501c6 in the United States, and is a "Business Network". If the US Chamber of Commerce gave a Sustainability Award for the most environmentally friendly company to BP and there was no other evidence for it, I think it would be discounted. The situation here is not that different, CONNECT takes membership fees to lobby and promote its members, so a not-widely accepted and largely unknown award given for one unknown and unavailable product should not be acceptable as a reference. More so, if it is the only external reference for said product. All public references to ScenGen outside of organizations affiliated with O'Brien are press releases by CONNECT. I think conflict of interest should be implied for business networks, as their members pay to be a part of them. ThomasG-gPM (talk) 14:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Is Langford & Carmichael a member of CONNECT? I agree it looks promotional, in particular without any other sources about ScenGen. We might need to maintain some mention of it but provide information about the nature of what CONNECT is and L&C's relationship if any. That's the part I have had trouble finding evidence for. -- GreenC 14:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The show Scorpion

The statement that he produces and contributes to the show Scorpion and the statement that he is a genius seem to contradict each other. There is nothing in the show that indicates a genius contributed to it. For example (as in the pilot for the show), using a commonly known indication (fingernails) of a medical condition is not an indication of genius. The initial discoverer might be a genius but not someone that uses someone else's discovery.

If he truly is a genius then it seems likely that it is a lie to say he had anything to do with the show other than the name Scorpion and to say he contributed. I could say more but I apologize for being off-topic if I am. Sam Tomato (talk) 06:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

IQ

Edits relating to O'Brien's IQ keep popping up. However, no sources are given regarding this (some claim IQ scores of 195, which if they're using WAIS, is impossible, I believe?). Do not mention his IQ unless evidence is given from a reputable source, and delete all improper edits. I've removed them for now. Alwaystooupbeat (talk) 11:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

ThomasG-gPM's edits

User:ThomasG-gPM, essentially an SPA, gutted my edits with a bunch of problematic edits. He edited out sourced information by stating "the sources don't check out." How, pray tell?

There is also this sentence that he inserted: "O’Brien claims that he attended the University of Sussex, where he graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree in computer science and artificial intelligence, which is in conflict with his company's website, where he instead claims to have attended the University of Brighton." There's multiple problems with this: 1.) The source on his company's website doesn't say he attended the University of Brighton. It says he "attended university at Brighton." The University of Sussex is in/near Brighton, as can be seen on the Brighton Wiki page. Saying he attended university at Brighton is no different than someone attending Harvard and saying they attended university at Boston. That doesn't mean they went to Boston College or Boston University. 2.) Even if there are conflicting statements, multiple reliable sources state he went to the University of Sussex, not to mention the fact that Thomas' sentence fails WP:Say and WP:Synthesis.

I reverted that most egregious edit, but in the next day or so I'll go through and fix the rest of his bad edits.AbuRuud (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Good point about Brighton. The same source also says he studied under Steve Easterbrook at this unnamed university. According to Requirements Engineering Specialist Group, in 1994, Easterbrook was at the University of Sussex. That should resolve the discrepancy. BTW I don't think ThomasG-gPM made "bad edits", rather they were boldly skeptical edits. Given the confusion and difficulty of this topic it's a good idea to keep an open mind on what we really know from truly independent sources. O'Brian has lied a number of times that is easily shown, so skepticism about sources which are not fully independent is warranted. I also looked for evidence of the software WinLocX and couldn't find anything even in commercial news databases from the 1990s. -- GreenC 01:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. The SPA claim is a bit rude, I'm not regularly logging in to do edits (only when I find they may introduce controversy), and this account is many years old with some edits to it. Just because I did a bunch of edits on this article over the course of an hour doesn't make this an SPA. It certainly is much older than this article, or most of the sources used in this article. Anyway, let me respond to the issues one at one:

→About the university in brighton: this was clearly a mistake by me, and you were right to revert this one.

→My "the sources don't check out" comment was this commit: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Walter_O%27Brien&oldid=636073818 - the only source you gave for this one was a newspaper article from a local newspaper that hasn't been published, or republished online anywhere (and thus is near impossible to verify) - except on one homepage belonging to Walter O'Brien himself. More importantly, this source was used to prove him developing "WinLocX" a software that outside of his own publications and those referencing them, is nowhere to find. I think its hard to argue that the sources aren't sketchy at best.

→WP:SayI used the term claimed, because I could not find any external source for these "claims", because after a while of searching no original source despite many references to his interviews could be found.

About my intentions: I was not trying to "gut your work" in any way, I was just trying to clean up a lot of the information that has popped up in the last 2 months in an obvious publicity stunt by CBS or parties affiliated with the TV show. Obviously I failed at least in parts, but I don't think the goal can be leaving all the claims with self-published sources unchallenged for this article. I do hope, what this can be resolved in a more pleasant process with better sources. ThomasG-gPM (talk) 01:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Langford & Carmichael

Due to the likelihood that my changes to this topic will be reverted (see above), I think it is necessary to discuss this as well. The website of Langford & Carmichael makes bold claims about their "Scenario Generator" software product, that is not referenced anywhere and does not seem to be available anywhere. Therefore it is of course near impossible to disprove this with sources. Even more sketchy are the things that can actually be found about this company: It is a small business by a veteran who reported to have been harassed to use the company as a "front" has 2 employees, and seems to make very little money according to the little public information available. Also, as the company is run by a "Linda M. Clark", it is unclear why it is named Langford & Carmichael. The company also is based in a private (tiny) residence, as can be verified on google maps or google street view. The claims of their software "ScenGen" are so broad, that I would classify it as bullshit-bingo , but that is of course POV. So before this company and their products get reintroduced and referenced as facts, I think this needs to be clarified here.

There has not been a single Press Release or news article about ScenGen. Apparently no customers. Only a demo from 3 years ago that looks like a video game mod. If it wasn't for the CONNECT award I'd say the whole thing expired credibility. But the award is hard to discount. -- GreenC 03:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Removal of unsourced content

With this edit I have removed the claim about meeting the EB-1-1 requirement, as this originates from Scorpion Computer Services - O'Brien's own website! There are no reliable third party sources to back this up. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It's backed up by WP:RS. You can't just delete sourced material. AbuRuud (talk) 12:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

No it isn't. It's a fictitious claim from his website which has been repeated by the media. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

With this edit I have removed information which comes froma a source which does not seem to exist. Here's the Daily Mail archive for 16 August 2014 which doesn't have the article. Also, Catherine Fegan doesn't seem to have published an article since 2012. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay - found this: --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Non-notable information

Is it really notable that he was a speaker at some non-notable events? What are The Founder Institute, Lido Consulting's Family Office Investment Symposium, the Family Office Association's Global Spring Summit and LawLoop.com's LegalTech 2012 conference anyway? --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

All the companies mentioned in the article are also not notable, Scorpion Computer Services, Langford & Carmichael, American Environmental Energy, Lawloop, ConciergeUp, etc, etc. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:NNC AbuRuud (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Change lede

He is not known for being "CEO of Scorpion Computer Services", he is known for being the "inspiration" for the Scorpion TV series and a fantasist. I've rewritten the lede to reflect this. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted it. His show is about his being CEO of his company, so clearly he's known for that. AbuRuud (talk) 12:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

No, he's known for the TV show. He can't be "known" for being the CEO of a non-notable company. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Except that news media references him as the CEO of Scorpion, not as the executive producer of the Scorpion TV show. He's notable for being the CEO of the company, whether you like it or not. AbuRuud (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Establishment date of Scorpion Computer Services

The Irish Companies Record Office has no record of the establishment of Scorpion Computer Services in 1988 or at any other time. There is a Californian corporation filing for Scorpion Computer Services, Inc. and it gives a filing date of 09/04/2009 (September 4th, 2009). A corporation search shows O'Brien as being the one principal listed for the company. The 1988 establishment date seems to be wrong and it looks like it is necessary to update the article with the correct details. Jmccormac (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

It looks like there is reasonable doubt about a company founded in 1988 in Ireland. Unless there is another third party source that can show evidence this company existed (ie. a source not echoing O'Brien's statements). The best way to deal with reasonable doubt on Misplaced Pages is to simply remove any mention of the thing. As editors we control what to include/exclude, that's what we do as editors make those decisions. There is solid evidence for a 2009 incorporation in CA which should be mentioned. The date is important as it establishes O'Brien's biographical history. One doesn't say Steve Jobs founded Apple without saying when he founded it, somewhere in his biography. Basic information. -- GreenC 01:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Mentioning it in context is one thing and can be encyclopedic if done correctly. Mentioning it just to mention it is trivia. Mentioning it in a manner that suggests an effort to discredit O'Brien is not appropriate. From the gist of discussion in the section above, it seems that the latter alternative is what has been attempted and shouldn't occur again. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

There was no company called Scorpion Computer Services founded in Ireland in 1988 according to the Irish CRO. There was a personal website on on an ISP (IOL.ie and Archive.org has captures of the personal site ) for O'Brien's business but there was no company. The two main business formats in Ireland are company and sole trader. If a sole trader is doing business in a name other than his or her own, then there has to be, by law, a registered business name filed with CRO. There was no RBN of that name filed. In the US, there was a California corporation, Scorpion Computer Services, Inc. that was incorporated on September 4th, 2009. The show, from what I remember of it, keeps referring to this company or corporation. He is referred to as the CEO of Scorpion Computer Services. This is the page from the Irish CRO dealing with the RBN issue The 1988 date is unsupported and is a self-originated claim. The only hard data is the 2009 incorporation date. This is not "triva". This is the only fact supported by reliable sources (sos.ca.gov and others). Jmccormac (talk) 02:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be bent on discrediting O'Brien, Jmccormac. That's not what we do here. If you want to dig up dirt or information that shows O'Brien isn't who he says he is, do it on your own time and keep it out of Misplaced Pages articles and talk pages. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep your personal insults out of this. There are two businesses that are being conflated as one. There's one Irish business (with no associated company or RBN) and there's a US business with a 2009 incorporation date that keeps being referred to in all the publicity links. O'Brien keeps being referred to as the CEO of the latter. Mixing up the two without explanation is an error. The article should refer to these two businesses separately to provide a timeline. It doesn't discredit O'Brien. Jmccormac (talk) 02:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

There was no personal insult in my comments. From the previous discussion that was deleted per BLP guidelines to your comments in this section, you do seem to be intent on discrediting the article subject. I'm just reminding you that such a quest is not what editors are supposed to be concentrating on. Please refocus on improving the article and building the encyclopedia. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

This is building a timeline from a business O'Brien claims to have set up as a teenager to the current Scorpion Computer Services, Inc. It doesn't discredit O'Brien. The 1988 establishment date for the business of which O'Brien is CEO is wrong. O'Brien is the CEO (president) of Scorpion Computer Services, Inc which was incorporated in 2009. It is possible to state that O'Brien set up a business (of sorts) in Ireland with SCS being incorporated in 2009 in California. This creates a timeline and solves the conflation problem. Jmccormac (talk) 03:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Do any reliable sources say O'Brien's company was established in 1988? If so, then we go with what's verifiable. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

There does not seem to be any source on O'Brien's business being established in 1988. CRO has no record of the company or an RBN for a sole trader business (basically an individual trading under a name other than their own. The US equivalent, I think, is a DBA.). A company has a paper trail from creation to dissolution. Company documents have to be filed every year and these are listed on CRO. This would mean that there would be a multi-year trail of documents if it existed as a company. There is no RBN either. Only the incorporation date for the US corporation is verifiable. Jmccormac (talk) 03:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

"There does not seem to be any source on O'Brien's business being established in 1988." Incorrect. There are three sources in the article that state his business was established in 1988. That's what we go with. Your insistence in using original research to connect dots through synthesis is getting redundant and pointy as well as tendentious. Time to let it go. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

They are all self-orginated claims with no backup sources and as such, they are not reliable. Jmccormac (talk) 03:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

They are from reliable sources. Enough already. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

No they are not. They are all recycling the same self-originated claim. The 1988 date is unsupported. The 2009 date is verifiable. Might as well just remove the 1988 reference. Jmccormac (talk) 03:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The 2009 date was found via original research (what about this are you still not getting?) The 1988 date is referenced from reliable sources. You have no way of knowing where or how those sources obtained their information. Please read WP:VERIFY and drop the stick. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The 1988 date is a self-orginated claim and was recycled by those "reliable" sources without being checked. It would have been quite a simple thing to check with the CRO but evidently these unreliable sources did not check their facts. Jmccormac (talk) 04:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

They didn't check their facts? You're joking, right? Enough of this. Stop your campaign -- Misplaced Pages is no place for your soapbox; and you've been told all of this previously (see here ). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you stick to the facts and stop attacking people. -- GreenC 04:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

They didn't check their facts and accepted the claims on face value. This might come as a bit of a surprise to you but this does happen in entertainment journalism and press releases do get published as "news". This 1988 date is not supported by any reliable source and is a self-orginated claim. The only verifiable date is the incoporation date of the Scorpion Computer Services, Inc. Jmccormac (talk) 04:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. -- GreenC 04:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed about what, exactly? That the reliable sources didn't fact check? That the 1988 date is not supported by reliable sources? That the cites are all "self-originated"? You've been here far too long to support such shaky ground, soapboxing, and bias, Green Cardamom. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree the claim about a 1988 founding should be removed from the article because there is reasonable doubt for a number of reasons. The 3 sources may be "reliable" but that doesn't mean we have to include every fact, or trust ever fact, they report if there is reason to doubt those facts. And there are number of reasons to doubt those 3 sources on this particular fact. That doesn't mean we say anything about it in the article, we just don't include it because we don't have enough reliable information to include it with confidence that it is accurate. It's a judgement call, one which we editors have every right to make. It's not OR, it's what we do every time we edit an article - make a judgement on what to include or exclude. -- GreenC 04:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I for one don't agree that it should be removed. For one thing, incorporation is not the same as establishment in the history of a company, so when it was incorporated in the US means nothing as far as when the company was originally established. For another, if several reliable sources say 1988 is the date the company was established, who are we to make a judgement about their editorial oversight? Making an issue of leaving out the 1988 date would be allowing incomplete information and is just asking for problems with disruptive editing from editors trying to do the right thing and include it. It's reliably sourced and according to those sources it's a fact. There's no reason to not include it when there's nothing reliably sourced that says the date is bogus. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

It is not a fact. It is not reliably sourced. The Irish CRO shows no such company and that's about as authoritative as one can get for companies in Ireland. Your argument about incorporation is just grasping at straws and is seems totally out of touch with corporate law in both jurisidictions. There is a paper trail for company formations, activity and dissolution. There are no reliable sources for the 1988 date. All you have to rely upon for your argument is your expectation that these "reliable" sources verified their facts before publication. Obviously they did not and being based in the US rather than in Ireland, it is highly unlikely that they would have known how to verify the existence or otherwise of a company in Ireland. The article can stand without the 1988 reference as all mentions seem to relate to the current Californian corporation. Jmccormac (talk) 05:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

It is reliably sourced; your "evidence" is based on original research and synthesis; incorporation isn't the same as establishment. Nothing more to be said. Keeping the reliably sourced year of 1988 is appropriate based on verifiability. Speaking of which, did you read WP:VERIFY yet? It would seem you have not. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

It is not reliably sourced. There are no reliable sources that confirm or verify the 1988 date. It is not a fact. Your argument about incorporation is just grasping at straws and is, to put it bluntly, just something you are trying to introduce to muddy the waters. In order to trade as a company and open bank accounts, file taxes and transact other such business, a company has to be registered. CRO shows that there was no such company registered and even a cursory check by what you refer to as "reliable" sources would have shown this. It is quite obvious that the 1988 date was not verified and was just accepted at face value without any fact checking. Jmccormac (talk) 05:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to keep pounding away at the same thing in opposition of policy and reality, but you'll still be wrong. Did you read WP:VERIFY yet? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi, you're confusing OR with reliable source determination. Are these 3 sources reliable for the 1988 date? That's something we can and should "research". It is not OR to research the reliability of a source. WP:OR would apply if we were trying to edit the article to say something like "The 1988 date is inaccurate" but no is proposing that. In cases like this, where there is conflicting evidence, the conservative thing to do is just leave out the sourced fact entirely until we have more authoritative information. If you believe those 3 sources are authoritative enough (which you would need to defend in more detail than just "they are reliable" which is circular reasoning), then we probably need an RfC, or post on the RS noticeboard to get further input. -- GreenC 14:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course they are reliable sources. Did you even look at them? The only one that has been discussed in regard to other articles over the time I've been editing in Misplaced Pages is the New York Post. And then, it's always been on a case-by-case basis (usually in reference to what they were reporting on - if it was a gossip piece or not). Regardless, even if the NYP cite was removed, there are two reliable sources left. We have NO way of knowing from where those reliable sources got their content on O'Brien, but because they are considered reliable sources, we trust them. There does not need to be an RfC on this, because the reliability of the content is obvious, based on the sources. The other editor making a stink about the 1988 date has a history of wanting to see this article deleted. He has an issue with O'Brien -- that much is obvious here and at the AfD discussion in January where he went on and on about how O'Brien isn't notable because his claims are dubious, etc., etc. That you are hitching to his bandwagon now is a surprise to me, considering your longevity here and the fact that you seemed to see through his obvious anti-O'Brien bias at the AfD in January. His only argument is that the reliable sources stating 1988 didn't do their research. Which is patently ridiculous. In regard to the other editor's biased claims, this is a clear case of not implementing the Misplaced Pages standard of inclusion threshold of verifiability over (supposed) truth. But back to the heart of this: 1988 is the company start date supported by reliable sources, therefore, it is the date the article should state is when the company started operations. If the California incorporation date (2009) is determined to be important via consensus, then include it. But the 1988 date needs to stay, regardless of the 2009 date being included, as it has been verified via several reliable sources. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no Irish company of that name. There never has been any company of that name in Ireland. Your "reliable" sources never checked their facts because they were just recycling a standard new television series promotion. They accepted the claims at face value without checking the facts. This is a common practice with entertainment and gossip journalism. Had they checked, they would have found that no such company exists, existed or was set up in 1988. That is the reality. Many of the claims made were self-originated and self-published with the Scorpion Computer Services, Inc. website being their source. This is why I considered that the article should be deleted and merged with the TV series article. A company provides certain protections in Irish law and it has be to registered. There was no such company registered in Ireland. There is no such company registered in Ireland. There never was any such company registered in Ireland. The company never existed. But don't let that simple fact distract you on your little quest. The 1988 figure for the establishment of the company is unsupported because it is a self-published claim not corroborated by reliable sources. Jmccormac (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

He could have called it something else at that time. Company name changes happen all the time, especially after they are initially established. Just because YOU can't find what you're looking for that doesn't mean O'Brien is lying. YOUR original research means nothing in the scope of Misplaced Pages article content. YOUR surmising of how the reliable sources came to the information they did has nothing to do with the threshold of content inclusion in Misplaced Pages. As I have already stated numerous times, Jmccormac, YOUR original research and synthesis along with YOUR POV, bias and agenda against O'Brien is not acceptable proof of anything in regard to what should or should not go into the article. The 1988 date is supported by several reliable sources. End of story. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I'll ask again: Did you read the article on WP:VERIFY yet? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no such company and was no such company. No reliable sources confirm the existence of the company. The Irish CRO is the authoritative source on whether a company exists or not. Other company check services, using official CRO data allow searches on directors. The self-published claim is for the company being established in 1988. There was no such company established and it is obvious that you are now grasping at straws to defend a self-published claim that has no corroborating reliable sources. Had your "reliable" sources verified their facts, it would have been immediately obvious that there was no such company. Jmccormac (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Founding date of Scorpion Computer Services?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Economy, trade, and companies Biographies When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the article give the founding date for Scorpion Computer Services as 1988?

See relevant discussion in two sections above. -- GreenC 18:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose O'Brien has a history of making claims about his life that journalists say are "impossible to substantiate" (see sources ) as well as claims that are patently false (he claimed to be a billionaire). Experts in his field (computer security) are the most vocal in their derision of his claims. Although some recent light human-interest stories reported he started a company in 1988, there is no evidence the company ever existed prior to 2009 when it was established in California. Given O'Brien's history of manipulating the press, given the complete lack of evidence of the company existing other than recent light sources, there is reasonable doubt. As such we should wait for better and more reliable evidence before asserting the company existed in 1988. -- GreenC 18:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose and "dubious" needs to be attached to this BLP IMHO. Collect (talk) 20:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support. The 1988 date is supported sufficiently by secondary reliable sources. It's not up to us to judge whether someone is perpetrating an alleged and unverifiable hoax. Doing so would involve original research and synthesis. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

  Might you show me one extant before 2014? Collect (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

That would be more original research you are asking for as your own personal litmus test, yes? Misplaced Pages's threshold of inclusion (verifiability from reliable sources) is all we need to determine whether or not content is worthy of inclusion. Numerous reliable sources give 1988 as the date Scorpion Computer was established. That is good enough for thousands upon thousands of Misplaced Pages articles but not this one? I think not. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's the Linkedin page for Scorpion Computer Services, Inc complete with the image of the German glass company as HQ. . It says "Founded 1987". It shows that there are multiple claimed start dates with even the originating self-published claims being unreliable. The corporate website claims that the scorpioncomputerservices.com was founded when he was 13 (that would be 1988). There is no evidence of the domain name before 2000. O'Brien's Linkedin page claims a start date of January 1987. Looks like that 1988 date isn't exactly accurate. Jmccormac (talk) 05:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support. I'm not sure what "light sources" are. I do know what reliable sources are, and reliable sources state the company was founded in 1988. I'm unconvinced by the "The sources didn't do fact-checking, because that's what I think and reasons..." argument. Where is the WP:RS that says the RSes didn't fact check? AbuRuud (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. No such company was founded in 1998 or exists. The only verfied fact is that the Californian corporation was established in 2009. This is a case of a self-published claim being repeated without verification. It was a simple enough thing to verify (Irish CRO website) and the "reliable" sources just repeated the self-published claim without verification as they seem to have done with other claims such as the EB1-1 visa being the same one granted to Einstein and Churchill, both of whom were long dead before the particular visa was introduced, and the one about being detected by DoHS despite the DoHS only having been established in 2002. This kind of entertainment and gossip journalism surrounding the launch of new TV series has a very low threshold of fact checking and depends heavily on recycling press releases. Many of the self-published claims seem to be recycled from this page on the company's website . It specifically refers to the scorpioncomputerservices.com domain name and that has its own issue. It's earliest registration date is from 2000. There are two businesses: the Californian corporation Scorpion Computer Services, Inc. which has a verified formation date in 2009 and what is a essentially a personal website . The only company that exists is Scorpion Computer Services, Inc. That's the fact. Jmccormac (talk) 01:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support There are circumstances where common sense and good judgment is needed, but I'm not convinced this is one of them. The New York Post has a strong reputation for fact-checking. Also, the argument that he has a history of manipulating the press could disqualify any source about anything and is even true (albeit to a lesser extent) of most organizations and people. I am not sure there is enough here for us to make an exception of WP:RS CorporateM (Talk) 16:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Common sense? O'Brien's Linkedin page claims an establishment date of 1987 (January 1987 when he would have been 11 years old) and the corporate Linkedin page claim a foundation date of 1987. The corporate website claims a foundation date of 1988. The Californian corporation has a foundation/formation date of 2009. It isn't so much the press just recycling the same self-published claim but there are multiple self-published claims about the establishment date of the company. The only company that exists is the 2009 Californian corporation. It is just the same as a claim for Misplaced Pages being founded in 1952 being accepted on face value. Common sense dictates that there was no World Wide Web at that time however Misplaced Pages exists now and all the references are to the current Misplaced Pages. Common sense shows that there are multiple self-published claims about an establishment date in the 1980s and they don't even agree. Jmccormac (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

With enough twisted logic, you can use any fact pattern prove anything you want. Multiple articles in WP:RSes state the same year for Scorpion's founding. This could mean that 1.) "there are multiple self-published claims about an establishment date in the 1980s and they don't even agree"–as you say–and somehow different, competing news outlets agreed upon the same "fake" year for establishment; or 2.) The sources actually did fact checking on the matter. Common sense states that if multiple, reliable sources agree on something, that fact should be considered reliable. That's the entire basis of Misplaced Pages. AbuRuud (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

You seem to have taken ownership of the article. O'Brien's self-published claims don't agree. O'Brien's Linkedin page was being used as a reliable source in the article and it was deleted. O'Brien's Linkedin page has a January 1987 establishment date. The corporate site claims a 1988 establishment date. The California corporation has a 2009 establishment date. The rubbish about "reliable" sources agreeing is just that rubbish. They are just recycling the 1988 date and they have not fact checked it because there is a far lower level of fact checking on entertainment and gossip articles. At one stage, multiple "reliable" sources agreed the world was flat and powered flight was impossible. O'Brien's own claimed establishment dates don't agree. When that kind of conflict happens, it is generally better to leave the problematic claim out of an article. (That's the Misplaced Pages way.) The logic is perfect and is not "twisted" and is far better than hiding behind ignorance. And it is quite obvious to anyone with a modicum of common sense that the establishment date was not fact checked by any of these supposedly reliable sources. Jmccormac (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

"You seem to have taken ownership of the article." Jmccormac, please drop the aggressive rhetoric. AbuRuud isn't implying or asserting ownership, so please do not accuse him of such. There are numerous reliable sources that do agree with the 1988 date. We go with verifiability in Misplaced Pages as the threshold for content inclusion, and that's all that's needed (have you read the article on WP:VERIFY yet?). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a very simple explanation, AbuRuud, when it comes to entertainment and gossip journalism: The same press release/promotional interview is being recycled along with the details. These "reliable" sources are just repeating the same details in much the same way that a syndicated news article from a news service is repeated by many news organisations. Linkedin is used on Misplaced Pages as a reliable source (There seems to be approximately 64,000 such links on Misplaced Pages.) You mentioned that you recalled reading about the 2011 resignation from a board of a company but didn't know where you had read it. It was on O'Brien's Linkedin page which had been deleted as a reference O'Brien's Linkedin page has a foundation date of January 1987, when O'Brien would have been 11 years old. The corporate Linkedin page claims an establishment year of 1987. The corporate website has a 1988 banner on the bottom of each page. The Californian corporation was established in 2009. The NASA hack supposedly took place when O'Brien was 13 (approximately 1988). The introduction to each episode on the TV series claims it took place when O'Brien, the character, was 11 years old. There is enough reasonable doubt over the accuracy of the year of foundation, not to mention the complete non-existence of the supposed company (something that would have been immediately obvious had there been any fact checking), to exclude it from the article. It is simply common sense. Jmccormac (talk) 07:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

"Linkedin is used on Misplaced Pages as a reliable source (There seems to be approximately 64,000 such links on Misplaced Pages.)" – LinkedIn is a self-published source, and useful only as WP:SPS. Here are two diffs from WP:RSN to help you out: If a reliable secondary source states Scorpion was founded in 1988 (of which there are multiple), his LinkedIn profile (stating January 1987) would not be a reliable source. Secondary sources (WP:RS) > primary sources (WP:SPS). But presumably you already knew this?

"You mentioned that you recalled reading about the 2011 resignation from a board of a company but didn't know where you had read it." This is 100% not the case. Here's that I said: "I'll go ahead and take off the appointment. Previous versions state that he left the company in 2011 , but I couldn't find an RS that stated as such. You're right, it probably shouldn't be on the page." Do notice I posted a diff of an old version of the page which explicitly uses LinkedIn as the source. LinkedIn is WP:SPS, which you should be well-versed in since the crux of your many arguments rest on things being self-published. I said I couldn't find a reliable source–since LinkedIn is a very poor source–for his leaving the company in 2011. IIRC, I actually removed that piece of information myself because it was self-published. Please don't put words into my mouth.

"There is enough reasonable doubt over the accuracy of the year of foundation, not to mention the complete non-existence of the supposed company (something that would have been immediately obvious had there been any fact checking), to exclude it from the article." There is reasonable doubt, and lots of differing (self-published) accounts. Yet the WP:RSes settled on a single year. Again, how does that prove that they didn't do fact checking? Other than your unsupported declaration that different, competing news venues are recycling the same information without fact checking. Where is your proof of this? By the by, wouldn't it be in the interest of the news media to fact check so that they can show the competing outlet to be unreliable? You know, like what is happening with Brian Williams and NBC News? And immediately after the Brian Williams thing, other news outlets went after Bill O'Reilly and FOX News for something similar. Media outlets are looking for any reason to show the other as unreliable. Why not in the case of Walter O'Brien? For a case entirely built on logic, your argument has holes a truck can drive through. AbuRuud (talk) 14:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no company before 2009. That's the single fact that blows your arguments away. The Irish CRO is the authoritative source on this. You didn't remove the Linkedin reference. (This is what I was referring to rather than your not finding any other RS.) That was another editor. The Brian Williams issue is a rather US based one and hasn't really made the news outside of North America. However newspapers and other news organisations don't typically go after other news organisations when they are both using the same source of press releases. It makes them both look bad. From a journalistic point of view, what one looks for is commonalities. Press releases and interviews generally have encapsulated quotations claiming that an individual said this or that so that journalists can fold them into their recycled text claiming that the individual "said" or "told the publication that...". The same verbatim quotes end up in many recycled "news" stories. When fact checking a story, one looks for discrepancies in the story (the who, the what, the where, the when, the why and the how). Such discrepancies may indicate that there are issues with the story which require further investigation. The fact that no company existed before 2009, the fact that one cannot trade as a company in Ireland without being registered as a company, the fact that no Irish company of that name ever existed, the fact that O'Brien's Linkedin page claims a start date of January 1987 (when he would have been 11 years old), the fact that the corporate Linkedin page, (which includes a faked HQ image using an image of a German glass company's HQ) has a foundation date of 1987, the fact that even O'Brien's claimed January 1987 foundation year conflicts with the 1988 foundation year, the fact that this non-existent company does not appear on various copies of O'Brien's CV all undermine the veracity of the 1988 foundation date. That's the reality. And all the spurious arguments about "reliable" sources just don't stand up in the face of those facts. There is one key, reliable and verified fact and that's the 2009 incorporation date of Scorpion Computer Services, Inc. Jmccormac (talk) 08:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Reword The article should say, "According to O'Brien, he founded ....", that's what the sources imply, they are based on interviews of O'Brien. Darx9url (talk) 00:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree on rewording. Short of removing the dubious 1988 reference, this is the best solution. The "reportedly" phrase is also a better way. Jmccormac (talk) 10:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Not convinced that we need a "solution" as we have numerous reliable sources giving 1988 as the founding year, Darx9url. Besides, the rewording seems weasely in nature. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support including the 1988 date as that is what the reliable sources and the company itself say. If it later turns out that this is wrong, the article can be updated. The fact that the company does not appear to have been registered in 1988 isn't surprising since he was 13 at the time. It's plausible to ne that a 13-year-old would set up a company but I find it highly unlikely that a 13-year-old would register that company. I can imagine scenarios where the company is run in the side for a few years and then is formally registered in 2009. Ca2james (talk) 05:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

One cannot trade as a company without being registered as a company. It is a particular legal form of business. What you have is a claim that an individual set up a non-existent company when a teenager without any corroborating sources. This would make it a sole trader business but even that would have required the registration of the business's trading name and there is no such registration. All you've got, apart from the 2009 incorporation date of Scorpion Computer Services, Inc is an unsubstantiated and self-published claim. Jmccormac (talk) 08:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support. The pov that the sources have not been substantiated is new research that is not fact checked. Unless the sources demonstrating the pov are revealed there seems no choice but to accept the detail as is. DDB (talk) 05:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Even the Irish Times (considered the "newspaper of record" by some in Ireland, has a rather cutting review on it: . Jmccormac (talk) 10:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment (from RS/N page ) The main news sources all trace specifically to CBS, which is airing a series "based on" the life of this person. The series itself is clearly fiction (although the CBS press releases blurred that line) and the question is - are CBS news sources "reliable sources" for claims of fact about a living person where the person is being promoted by the entertainment division of CBS? Is there a strong enough wall between the two divisions such that the CBS news claims about a CBS entertainment product are still regarded as "reliably sourced"? Would be a salient example of the connection between the divisions? Collect (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

A whole new can of worms for the RS debates: How accurate are creation myths for fictional characters based on real people? Jmccormac (talk) 08:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that the general rule is to only accept self published sources for what ought to be routine events if there is no contradiction. We therefore cannot say the company was founded in 1998. We can only say something like "which he claims to have started in 1988, some sources accept that date <ref> some do not <ref>. The official record shows 2009. < ref>." As mentioned above, it is possible he started what he as a youth thought to be a company at that age, regardless of its legal status. It is possible that even an ordinarily reliable news source may for reasons of its own accepted his version of the events, but I think it more likely they were simply less perceptive than we are--but we can only give the information. DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Agree with DGG because exactly right. The bot sent me. EllenCT (talk) 02:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Responding to bot summons. Look, this RfC is poorly drafted, saying that people commenting should acquaint themselves with a vast mush of debate, rather than cogently stating the arguments pro and con. I looked at the article and found reliable sources, including the American magazine Fast Company, giving the date of the founding of his company as 1988. So that's that as far as I'm concerned. Now, having said that, I want to say that this is a conditional response - if there are no reliable sources questioning the 1988 date. If there are, we say so (by adding "but that is disputed"). We do not do so because some Misplaced Pages editors think this guy is untrustworthy or because they performed original research in the corporate records. There could be a good explanation of why that is so. We are some independent tribunal, but simply state what is in the reliable sources. If the reliable sources are wrong, that's not our problem. Coretheapple (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:RFC says Keep the RfC statement simple and succinct. Arguments pro and con are made by RfC participants, not by the nominator. Also, I disagree with the assessment that Wikipedians are not allowed to determine the reliability of a source for a particular fact. OR does not apply to RS determination. If the Washington Post reports the maiden name of Assad's wife is "Sally", and the Syria government database records shows it's "Mary", that means the reliability of the Washington Post is called into question. That doesn't we mean we have to report it as Mary, but we can leave it out until the problem is resolved with more clarity. We are not robots who must accept everything a source says no matter what. Now, if you think the balance of evidence is enough to keep the 1988 date no problem; but saying we should ignore the evidence about the reliability of the source since it is OR, there is nothing in the rules about that. -- GreenC 19:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that editors need to consider the reliability of the source. However, the impression I got was that editors were engaged in original research (such as corporation searches) in order to make that determination. Corporation searches are unreliable. A person can register a corporation outside of one's state of residence, for instance. Or it could have been registered under a different name. Under certain circumstances, one can say, "according to source X, YYY was born in 1920" or whatever, but I don't see that here. If I'm somehow misunderstanding the situation, well frankly by drafting the RfC as you did, you didn't make it any easier. Brevity is one thing. Saying "look at the massive debate above" is something else entirely. Coretheapple (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

"Corporation searches are unreliable" is your opinion ie. original research (lower case). Nevertheless it is allowed. There is no rule preventing you from having that opinion because that is what we are expected to do. The reliability of a source is the subjective opinion of Misplaced Pages editors. Nevertheless, this courtesy has not been extended to the opposing view which is that "Corporation searches are reliable". People who have said so (in effect) during this RfC have been attacked on a rules basis for engaging in WP:OR. The OR arguments are flawed and should be discounted. (The meta discussion about this RfC could be endless but the Oppose and Support arguments summarize the participants thoughts and positions. Everyone has their own opinions and they put weight on different rationales. The !votes are the summation. Since I knew the active players would !vote within hours or days of the RfC and trying to summarize their votes would be impossible anyway it was not done so just read the !votes and ignore the previous discussion if you prefer.) -- GreenC 00:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

IQ in elementary school (standardized tests)

Elementary school IQ tests tend to max out at about 135 (S-B has an absolute max of 150). I found no standardized test with a max higher than 150 for elementary schools. 190 is not remotely believable as being from a teacher-administered test at all. And (vos Savant notwithstanding) any score over 160 is labile from day to day for the person being tested (British Mensa uses Cattell which pins the needle at 161). This article is almost certainly a "pseudo-BLP". Collect (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks like WP:OR to me. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

See note below. And I suggest you read about IQ tests before accusing anyone of OR in any event - I suggest the Mensa articles thereon should suffice. Cheers. Collect (talk) 04:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

even "Reliable sources" do not avoid hoaxes in real life

MIT students hoaxed the NYT a few times over the years - and any newspaper of agency which takes press releases at face value has major problems. I suggest this is true in the case at hand with some substantial likelihood. Collect (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks like WP:OR to me. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:OR - it refers to making claims in the article proper, and has nothing to do with talk page discussions. As I was not suggesting an edit or claim for the article, your post is off point a tad. The claim was made above that RS sources do not get hoaxed - the fact is that they do and on a fairly regular basis. Cheers. Collect (talk) 04:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

EB-1 rarity

Source I used on BLP states it averaged over 35,500 per year from 2000 to 2009. 3,400 EB-1-1 in 2009. Not incredibly rare by any stretch. Collect (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

American Environmental Energy Inc Director

Offer price is zero. Annual revenue: Zero. Loss $1.4 million. Peak: 34 cents.

Value of being a "director" of a shell? Tell me. Collect (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

SEC charges six in alternative energy fraud Aug. 5, 2010 |Updated Aug. 21, 2013 1:17 p.m.

The complaint alleges that Porche and Juncker created American Environmental from a shell company in early 2008, turned it over to new management and then began selling stock in it through another company, Kensington Resources Inc.

They touted American Environmental as an emerging green-energy company, falsely claiming that it had a contract to provide solar energy to Catalina Island, the SEC said.

AEEI won a default judgment from basically what appears to be a judgment-proof shell, as the fraudsters spent the loot <g>. Collect (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and take off the appointment. Previous versions state that he left the company in 2011 , but I couldn't find an RS that stated as such. You're right, it probably shouldn't be on the page. AbuRuud (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The 2011 source seems to be O'Brien's Linkedin page which was a reference in the page above but the Linkedin page has been removed as a reference in a subsequent edit. Jmccormac (talk) 07:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Major Revisions Coming

This article clearly needs a large amount of work. Walter O'Brien is notable only for the fact that he has deceived NBC into basing a show around his unverifiable (and occasionally veriably false) accomplishments. We need to refocus the article and remove the bogus references that don't really support the claims being made. I found and removed a reference to an LA times article which was being used to support claims about Langford & Whatever's business model - which in fact contained no information establishing notability. I suspect many of the other sources are similar. 50.184.134.157 (talk) 23:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The editor Winkelvi appears to be attempting to "protect" the unverifiable claims made in the article. Maybe we need administrator intervention to solve this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.184.134.157 (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of a living person requires strong, reliable sources. Anything else will be removed. Just saying' Skyerise (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting adding criticism, I'm suggesting that we remove most of the ridiculous claims. For example, there is a sentence "The program is used by organizations in multiple industries, including defense and financial services." which is supported by a one-paragraph news story that is highly suspicious. The news story just has the same chunk of whiz-bang technobabble that appears on all of O'brien's blogs and websites about "single-points of failure" and "hedging risk." Almost all of the sources are news stories that just reference O'brien's company in passing, and are written by people who probably didn't have any means of verifying his claims. If someone really invented a piece of software that "eliminated human error" or "prevented single points of failure," there would be some kind of actual academic or scholarly sources covering it, not just online news and blog posts. Just do a little poking around and you'll see that this entire thing is extremely fishy.50.184.134.157 (talk) 00:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

We do not verify whether claims reported in reliable news sources are true. That's original research. You will encounter resistance to removing them, but you can qualify them, with According to such-and-such a source .... You can also present reliable sources that disagree, that's increasing article neutrality. On the other hand, we should not be using blogs as sources. I have no problem with removing material only supported by blogs. Skyerise (talk) 00:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Really? You think a news story written by a layperson is adequate for sourcing nobel prize-worthy technological achievements? I haven't seen very many articles about technical subjects that don't contain ANY references to reputable journals. Not all sources are reliable, and not all reliable sources are reliable for every possible subject. I would think Misplaced Pages would have some rules about what kind of sources can be used to support scientific claims.50.184.134.157 (talk) 00:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

50.184.134.157, please read the following article on referencing so you can have a better understanding of what sourcing and sources are acceptable and how they are used: WP:REF. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The article currently contains statements like "a think tank of geniuses," and "ScenGen is a scenario generator that can generate a number of possible results for any given situation." The Irish Daily News is not an adequate source for those types of claims. And yes, I have read read the policy pages on referencing. That's how I know you're wrong.50.184.134.157 (talk) 00:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to re-add my sentence showing that O'brien didn't invent the frame problem (as he claims) unless you can give some reason why that wouldn't be a good idea, which you haven't so far. 50.184.134.157 (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Remove Career section

I suggest we remove the entire section about O'brien's alleged technological career. His only verifiable, notable achievement is the CBS show, Scorpion. News articles are not adequate citations for scientific/mathematical achievements, hence the parts of the career section relating to his alleged computer science accomplishments are not properly cited. Unless sources can be provided that would be considered reputable within computer science academia or industry, O'brien is only notable as an executive producer for Scorpion.

• Unassessed biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment