Jump to content

Talk:Walter O'Brien/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

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)

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)

controversial section

[1] Don't link to Reddit then write your WP:Synthesis of what was going on. That's not how Wikipedia 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. [2].

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.[3][4]

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)

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)

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. [5] "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. [6] 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? [7] 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)

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 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. [walks away] 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 Wikipedia right after this post. -- GreenC 05:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

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)

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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia article. While you may have a different prospective on the quality of media, we still have follow BLP policies for Wikipedia articles. Mike V • Talk 03:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, "not repeated in the Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia articles. We can only report what's available in acceptable sources. Mike V • Talk 03:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

This article should be removed

Wikipedia should not serve as a platform for major media advertisement. This article on O'Brien was submitted to Wikipedia 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 [9]. 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 Wikipedia, 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. [10] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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. [11] 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)

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[5][10][11], 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://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?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" [12] 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)

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)

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: [13] --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 [14] 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). [ https://businessfilings.sos.ca.gov/frmDetail.asp?CorpID=03228216 ] A corporation search [ http://www.bizapedia.com/ca/SCORPION-COMPUTER-SERVICES-INC.html ] 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 Wikipedia 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 [15]) 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 [16] 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 Wikipedia 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 -- Wikipedia is no place for your soapbox; and you've been told all of this previously (see here [17]). -- 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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)

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)

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)

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)

American Environmental Energy Inc Director

[18]

Offer price is zero. Annual revenue[19]: 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)

[20] 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 [21], 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)

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.50.184.134.157 (talk) 01:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Even if there is some policy permitting news articles (written by non-experts) to be used for supporting claims of technical achievements, we should still remove the claims per WP:IAR. Having these unverifiable claims actively makes Wikipedia worse and damages its credibility. If Wikipedia doesn't have a policy forbidding this, it's only because this issue rarely comes up - nobody would even consider using news articles (which are notoriously bad at reporting on science and technology) as reliable sources for an article about an engineer or computer security expert because real journal articles would typically be available unless the subject is a hoax. 50.184.134.157 (talk) 01:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
How intriguing that you are a brand new user and have such knowledge of things like looking up the "history of edit warring" for editors ([22]), something as obscure as WP:IAR, and to include it in your comments as "WP:IAR". -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Please stick to the discussion at hand. There is no reason to assume bad faith.50.184.134.157 (talk) 01:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Your edits have been nothing but disruptive, you lied when you said you would not reinsert the content you were edit warring over. Suddenly, you're aware of obscure essays, one of the pillars, and how to include them in discussions. There's plenty of reason to assume bad faith here -- you've given no reason why you're worthy of WP:AGF. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
And you have repeatedly used gender pronouns when referring to me, have called me a liar (I did not say I wouldn't re-insert the material, I said I would wait for a short time), and have repeatedly talked about me in the third person. You are clearly biased in favor of the unverifiable claims made about Walter O'brien. Let's see if the rest of the community agrees with you. 50.184.134.157 (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Walter_O%27Brien/Archive_1&oldid=1084086952"