Talk:Walter O'Brien

RfC: Founding date of Scorpion Computer Services?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The consensus opinion is support for the 1988 date. The majority opinion relied on WP:RS as the main argument. While not sited, some of the arguments of the majority also follow the logic of the essay WP:NOTTRUTH. The minority opinion of reword was the next opinion. AlbinoFerret 16:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

---

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 [1][2][3]) 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? Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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. [ https://www.linkedin.com/company/scorpion-computer-services ]. 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 [4] 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 [5]. 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 [ https://i.imgur.com/ESIbhMq.png ]. 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 Wikipedia being founded in 1952 being accepted on face value. Common sense dictates that there was no World Wide Web at that time however Wikipedia exists now and all the references are to the current Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia as a reliable source (There seems to be approximately 64,000 such links on Wikipedia.) 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 [6] 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 Wikipedia as a reliable source (There seems to be approximately 64,000 such links on Wikipedia.)" – LinkedIn is a self-published source, and useful only as WP:SPS. Here are two diffs from WP:RSN to help you out: [7] [8] 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 [9], 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)

[10] Even the Irish Times (considered the "newspaper of record" by some in Ireland, has a rather cutting review on it: [11]. 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 [12] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

So corporation searches are unreliable? The claimed establishment date relates to a country other than the USA (Ireland) and obfuscation about other "states" and DOB details is just that. The problem in the disussion above has been that people with no knowledge of Irish business formats or the requirements of Irish company law have been talking around the problem like this was just a simply US based issue. The claims were being made about an individual living in Ireland establishing a "company" in Ireland in the 1980s. There is no offical evidence for the establishment of the company in Ireland. That typically means just one thing: there was no such company registered. The only verifiable establishment date is the 2009 US incorporation date. Jmccormac (talk) 04:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Look I was summoned to this article and its attendant nonsense by the RfC bot. I have no investment in the subject matter but it's plain that there are some editors and IP SPAs who do, and are intent on denigrating this guy. Perhaps the denigration is warranted; I have no opinion. But I am seeing a shitload of OR being utilized to prove that a living person is a faker, and people are twisting themselves like tops to find ways of disregarding reliable sources concerning this individual, and that disturbs me. I haven't anything more to say and am taking it off my watchlist, as I do with other time-wasting articles that are very possibly screwing over some individual who has the misfortune of having his bio in Wikipedia. Coretheapple (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support re-wording of O'Brien's exceptional claim that he started a company in 1988 at the age of 13. Since there are no multiple high-quality sources to support O'Briens dubious assertion, then his claim that he started a company in 1988 at the age of 13 should be attributed to him as suggested above - "According to O'Brien, he founded..." Isaidnoway (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC template has been removed. !Vote-wise we have three oppose and six support. Two(?) for rewording. It seems that consensus is for keeping it as 1988. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 Wikipedia 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)

And I've removed it. Please read WP:ALLEGED, it's not a word we use. And also review WP:SYN, which you violated by adding a statement implying that the previous statement is false. The source would have to be specifically refuting O'Brien's claim to be used in that way. Otherwise the refutation is yours, not the source's. Skyerise (talk) 01:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, you've convinced me. O'brien time-traveled back to 1969 and invented the frame problem before he was born.50.184.134.157 (talk) 01:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

All you have to do is find a source which directly questions this claim. You aren't allowed use original research to disprove it. Just find a source. If you're right, somebody has to have questioned it in print. Find it. Skyerise (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

All writing involves some kind of synthesis, it's just a matter of how trivial. This particular synthesis was too trivial to worry about. If a source says A, and A is mutually exclusive with B due to the linear nature of time, it seems pretty fair to use the source as evidence of "not B". 50.184.134.157 (talk) 02:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

If someone says "the source says A, therefore A" that's still a synthesis. Just a tiny bit more trivial than the one I used. 50.184.134.157 (talk) 02:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Try actually reading WP:SYN. It specifically says you can't do it. And you especially can't do it on an article about a living person. Criticism must be sourced to a critic. Skyerise (talk) 02:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't "criticizing" him, I was just pointing out that the statement was false. Criticism implies a value judgement. I wasn't saying that it's bad that he lied, that's for the reader to decide. Also, WP:IAR means we can ignore WP:SYN in this case.50.184.134.157 (talk) 02:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Nope, it doesn't. Not for living people. Wikipedia can be sued. That's why we have a strict policy on sourcing for biographies of living people. Source it properly or leave it out. Skyerise (talk) 02:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The Frame Problem paper [13] predates O'Brien. O'Brien does seem to claim that he "defined" it. McCarthy's work has quite a few citations whereas O'Brien's claim does not.Jmccormac (talk) 04:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The difficulty now is that we can't cite O'brien's own website or Linkedin page as a source for the fact that he claims to have invented the frame problem, because that violates WP:SPS. But, since O'brien is a total crackpot, there aren't any reputable sources reporting on the fact that he's claimed that. So we can't do anything here. It seems stupid to me that Walter O'brien's website isn't considered a reliable source on what Walter O'brien claims to be true - but that's the way it is. On the other hand, WP:SPS does allow citations of someone's website if the facts are trivial and undisputed - which may apply here since the fact that he made those claims is not in dispute.50.184.134.157 (talk) 05:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

After further consideration, I've concluded that WP:SPS does not apply in this situation. The policy only applies to non-trivial claims, and the claim that O'brien has said he defined the frame problem is trivial. O'brien's assertion itself is highly non-trivial, but the fact that he has asserted it is obvious from the fact that it is on his website. We aren't going to assert that O'brien defined the frame problem, only that he has claimed to have defined it. Therefore WP:SPS does not apply and I will re-add the sentence unless Skyerise can prove me wrong.50.184.134.157 (talk) 05:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

O'Brien's own website disagrees with his Linkedin page in terms of the establishment date of his "company". There are serious issues over the provenance of various references and they may not necessarily be reliable sources. Some of the claims, like the Frame Problem one, seem to be self-originated and are not substantiated by reliable sources, academic or otherwise. At this stage, the line between the promotion of a TV show and reality is getting blurred. Jmccormac (talk) 05:54, 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.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 ([14]), 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)

Accuracy section

I have removed the blog/opinion piece comments in this section as coming from an unreliable source and the fact that they are purely inflammatory and completely inappropriate per BLP guidelines. The Irish Times quote was taken out of context and used in a manner of WP:SYNTH. The Susan Karlin/Fast Company content was left as it is less controversial in tone and is a reliable source. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Is Techdirt unreliable? We use it a lot on Wikipedia. There seems to be consensus that TechDirt is a reliable source. I don't see any "Irish Times" quote in the section you removed. Are you accusing TechDirt of breaking Wikipedia's rule on SYNTH? TechDirt is not required to follow Wikipedia's SYNTH guidelines. Wikipedia does not tell journalists how they should write their pieces. As for being "completely inflammatory" I don't see that, nor should we should remove sources because you have taken offense to what the source says. -- GreenC 16:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The tech dirt pics was an opinion piece only, containing POV only. The Irish Times quote was used by whomever inserted it as SYNTH. Neither belong in the article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The Techdirt piece is journalism and investigated some of the dubious claims (IQ etc) made. It isn't the bozoid recycled press release rubbish that has been passed off as reliable references on the Wikipedia article and it is rather well researched. As a source, it is far more substantial and reliable than the mere offended opinion of a random Wikipedia editor. Jmccormac (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Jmccormac) What do you mean by "tech dirt pics"? Anyway it's a work of investigative journalism. Not sure what you mean by "POV only" but all works of journalism are inherently POV (of the author and/or editor/source). You keep applying Wikipedia's internal rules to external sources. Wikipedia's rules and policies are only applied to editors working on this project. The POV rule is not applicable to external sources. -- GreenC 18:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Your assessments are quite incorrect. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Your assessment is quite incorrect. -- GreenC 19:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@ Winkelvi No. Your opinion does not matter when it comes to the facts. Publications like Techdirt have to be able stand over what they publish and they have to report the facts. Otherwise they can open themselves up to legal action. The world of Journalism is quite different to Wikipedia where any randomer can push their own opinion as "fact". Techdirt actually investigated, where possible, the claims made and many of them did not stand up to scrutiny. Masnick did something that you did not. Masnick investigated the story. (Perhaps in Wikipedia terms, he committed the mortal sin of Original Research but that's what journalists do in the real world.) Interestingly Susan Karlin wrote two articles. The first was a rather unquestioning piece promoting the show. The second questioned some of the claims and even asked O'Brien to elaborate. It would seem that some people would like the iffy claims, rather than the more mundane reality, to be true. Jmccormac (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Opinion pieces, especially if they are laden with potentially libelous opinion, regardless of coming from a reliable source, is not acceptable as a source. What was culled from the Irish Times was taken completely out of context and is being used as a form of SYNTH -- also not acceptable as presented in the article. Further, the section only shares one side of the story, and is, therefore, a violation of WP:UNDUE. Based on this, the first two statements and their sources need to be taken out of the article per BLP guidelines. If it doesn't happen soon, we will have to get the opinions of others with no bias (such as the anti-O'Brien bias both Cardamom and Jmccormac obviously have) involved. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi, while you have found it politically expedient to frame Jmccormac and myself as having an "anti-O'Brien bias", please assume good faith. Even though our editorial focus has been on the controversy, that doesn't mean we have a negative bias about O'Brien. For example I voted Keep in the AfD (twice?) and reverted clearly biased edits by anon IPs. The alternative response to your "anti-O'Brien bias" accusation is to call you an O'Brien fan boy, and that gets us nowhere. -- GreenC 23:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not an opinion piece it's investigative journalism. Nor are reporters beholden to Wikipedia's SYNTH rules, "synthesis" is what they do for a living. It's not a bad thing it's what we expect and want from our sources. You just don't like his conclusions is all. -- GreenC 20:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Publications get sued for publishing defamatory allegations. That's why they generally steer clear of doing so as it can prove expensive. The Techdirt pieces, there were more than one, and others investigated the claims made and many of the claims were shown to have been exaggerated or did not otherwise stand up to scrutiny. This is a case of one editor, Winkelvi, trying to push his/her Point Of View as being fact. Techdirt investigated the story. It is a reliable source. It has shown up some of the claims but it seems that Winkelvi wants everyone to accept his/her opinion as fact rather than facts that have been independently verified by third parties. Jmccormac (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I've taken this issue to the BLP Noticeboard here: [15]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Outside input

I came here from BLPN. TechDirt is borderline Yellow journalism, because it is written by professionals, but angled towards exaggerated and over-sensationalized gossip. I agree that the quote from Irish Times is not representative of the source. Fast Company is reliable and right at the top it says "hackers, IT experts, and computer enthusiasts challenging the veracity of accomplishments claimed by Walter O’Brien". This seems to suggest blanket deletion was un-warranted. Such debates should always include the article-subject's point-of-view somewhere.

On an unrelated subject, I have trimmed a lot of weak or primary sources for promotional claims, that are the types of promotional edits often made by someone affiliated with the article-subject. CorporateM (Talk) 01:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

There was no blanket deletion. Please read the entire BLPN report (or look at what I deleted and what I didn't. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I see that I was mistaken on the "blanket deletion" comment. This edit didn't delete the entire section, but just the TechDirt source and the out-of-context Irish Times quote. That edit looks good to me. Meanwhile, more could be added using Fast Company, which is a much more reliable source. CorporateM (Talk) 02:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

CorporateM, I like the total renovation of the section. Amazing what fresh perspective (and reading the source more closely) can bring. Thank you for taking the time and bringing your skills to this difficult article! -- GreenC 03:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks CorporateM for a more balanced rewrite of the section. Jmccormac (talk) 12:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Needs better sources

Most of the sources relating to O'brien's technical achievements seem to be from non-technical news sites such as the Irish Daily Mail and IrishCentral. I suggest removing all information relating to O'brien's technical career until it can be better sourced. His achievements seem to be of such a great magnitude (eliminating "single points of failure," being the world's expert on the "application of computer science to industry challenges") that we should be able to find evidence that his software is being used in industry or is recognized within the computer science community. We are clearly trusting some of these sources outside the context in which they are reliable. AliceIngvild94 (talk) 07:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Irish Daily Mail is the Irish version of the Daily Mail (same parent company) and there is strong consensus on Wikipedia that it is not a reliable source, for most things. Certainly not reliable for reporting on technical issues. They are in the class of media that favors good stories over factual reportage. IrishCentral is a pro-Irish paper set up to present Ireland and Irish people around the world in a positive light - it is doubtful they would investigate or challenge claims made by O'Brien given their mission. Also while this source is used in some articles on Wikipedia, not very often, it's a minor source. At least any extraordinary claims made by them should be supported by other sources. -- GreenC 17:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is not a reliable source on technical matters. The Irish Central site (Irish Voice is the newspaper) is not either. That Irish Central article that's used as a source [15] ( [16] ) seems to be talking about the show in the first few paragraphs rather than O'Brien in real life. The stuff about setting up a company when he was 13 (he didn't), saving thousands of lives, working with international security etc seems to be related to the show according to this quote: "All of this is outlined in the new series, which will air on September 22. It centers on an eccentric mastermind and his international team of super-geniuses who form a line of defense against threats of the modern age. British actor Elyes Gabel stars as O’Brien.". This is a clip of O'Brien being asked about the alleged NASA hack on a prime time Irish TV talk show: [17]. Most of the technical claims have already been removed from the article due to lack of reliable sources and evidence. Jmccormac (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The "think tank of geniuses" part, and the part describing ScenGen are so full of technobabble and vague descriptions that they might as well be deleted. There's nothing concrete we can say about any technical work he has done, because the sources don't provide adequate descriptions. The introduction should also be changed to identify him as the executive producer of Scorpion (the show), and not as the CEO of Scorpion Computer Services, which can't even be confirmed to exist by reliable sources. The sentence "ScenGen is a scenario generator that can generate a number of possible results for any given situation according to user entered variables and relationships" is pretty much meaningless as far as I can tell. This is not an acceptable specification for a piece of software. AliceIngvild94 (talk) 05:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The corporation "Scorpion Computer Services" was established in California in 2009. It exists. There was no company or registered business of that name prior to that date. A bunch of editors who were completely ignorant of Irish company law and business regulations tried coming up with all sorts of wonderful "theories" as to why the Irish companies records office has no record of O'Brien's (non-existent) company and decided to rely on non-authoritative sources (entertainment websites recycling O'Brien's own claim) rather than the official Irish companies record. The simple fact remains there was no such company prior to 2009 but there is one now. The SecGen thing appears to be a product that O'Brien developed with Langford and Carmichael. The description is somewhat imprecise. The racehorse DNA thing is quite laughable as there are so many other variables in a horse race that affect the outcome. This is why the bookies generally win. However the source for this Conciergeup operation is O'Brien and his claim is repeated by entertainment websites and other than those sites, there are no reliable sources for it. O'Brien is notable for his connection to the TV show but this Conciergeup thing does seem like puffery or ideas for the TV show. Jmccormac (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Three editors have said the same thing: DailyMail and IrishCentral are unreliable. I've tagged the sources (not removed them), but an editor decided that such tagging is not permissible without first going to the RS Noticeboard. I've restored the tags until we decide what to do - remove the sources, go to RSN or sit on it for a while until more comments are added. The tags highlight the locations under discussion and notify readers about this section who may want to participate in the discussion. -- GreenC 17:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The thing to do is take it to the RSN, not tag the sources as a badge of shame. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

If you believe these tags amount to a "wall of shame" then you should start a RFD and see that they are deleted. These tags exist for a reason as explained. Stop editing warring and interfering with the process of improving the article or we will have a bigger problem. -- GreenC 19:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see how removing those specific tags is interfering with anything productive. If you question the sources as reliable, then putting up tags does nothing toward finding out if they are reliable. Going to the RSN, that is productive. Thank AliceIngvild94 for doing what YOU should have. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I've created a discussion in WP:RSN for this. [18]AliceIngvild94 (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Outside input

It is always better to actually fix a problem, rather than flag it. OTOH, it is also more productive to discuss the source, than the flags for it. If IrishCentral is operated by the same organization as The Daily Mail (I have not seen evidence that this is the case), than it is probably not reliable and should be removed. BLP requires that we remove poorly-sourced content immediately, but it also requires balanced articles and removing this content would leave the article focusing mostly on a single source about a trending current event. In other words, someone needs to do the hard work of researching and writing the article. CorporateM (Talk) 03:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

How would removal of IrishCentral cause a problem? Everywhere it is used, there are other sources that say the same thing. Only 1 fact is solely sourced to IrishCentral ("O'Brien's work has saved hundreds of thousands of lives.") That claim is so extraordinary that it needs more than 1 source anyway and should be removed regardless (unless there are more sources). As for DailyMail it should be removed no matter what. -- GreenC 04:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Nothing should be removed without consensus. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

As CorporateM said, "BLP requires that we remove poorly-sourced content immediately." -- GreenC 04:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

That Irish Central article seems to be talking about the TV show in the first few paragraphs and that's where the hundreds of thousands of lives saved claim originates. It even mentions "All of this is outlined in the new series, which will air on September 22. It centers on an eccentric mastermind and his international team of super-geniuses who form a line of defense against threats of the modern age. British actor Elyes Gabel stars as O’Brien." Jmccormac (talk) 04:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Irish Central is not operated by the Daily Mail. Its newspaper equivalent is The Irish Voice. The main problem has been that entertainment sites are being used as reliable sources for technical claims. As sources on the TV show, Irish Central and the Daily Mail are probably OK as they are all recycling the same basic story. The problems arise when they begin to add in claims about events (allegedly hacking NASA at age 13, 12, 11 (it varies according to the telling), catching the Boston Bombers etc ) other than the TV show. These claims are typicallly single source claims without any real world confirmation. Jmccormac (talk) 03:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

CorporateM, the reliability of the sources is currently being discussed here [19]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Yup, that's where I came from ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 04:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Birthdate

I started looking at the sources starting at reference number 1, which is this alleged image of his visa. The image is hosted on Scorpion Computer Services' website. I think this is problematic for a few reasons:

• It being hosted on the company website, rather than a government website makes it difficult to know if it is authentic
• The image is of very low quality, making much of the visa difficult to read. I have a hard time imagining that his company just didn't have the resources for a high-quality scan, which raises suspicion that it was made blurry on purpose
• I wouldn't normally be so suspicious, if it wasn't for the fact that there is a significant debate about whether him and his company are lying about his biography, making me question using them as a reliable source for his visa.

I have done quite a bit of searching to find a better source and have found none. This is especially important, because his birthdate is relevant to his child prodigy claims. I think this should be omitted, unless a better source can be found. CorporateM (Talk) 04:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Disagree for a couple of reasons. What would be the point of lying about the birth date? And it's my understanding of Wikipedia sourcing that if no secondary source can be found, primary sources are acceptable for things such as birth dates and the like. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Asking "What would be the point of lying about the birth date?" is conjecture and Original Research. -- GreenC 04:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with everything you said CorporateM. Given that other reliable secondary sources have raised questions about his authenticity, we should not accept on face value his primary source material. -- GreenC 04:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

This seems to be the higher resolution version. [20] The TV show has a more recent DOB for the central character. Jmccormac (talk) 05:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

This source says he was 39 at the time (2014); I'd be comfortable using WP:CALC, which does come out to 1975. CorporateM (Talk) 05:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Ironically, if he had set up a company in Ireland his DOB would have been included on the required company documentation. Jmccormac (talk) 05:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Conflicts between sources

This source says he started Scorpion Computer Services in 1988 as a teenager. This source says he started it in "the late 1990s" after graduating college and moving to the US. This source says at age 13. Does anybody know of any additional sources with different dates? CorporateM (Talk) 06:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Read the establishment discussion up the page. Also his place of birth is different on that visa. Jmccormac (talk) 06:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. That's a lot of primary sources and original research that we can't use, but I'm starting to see why this article is a complicated case that has attracted a lot of discussion here. I've worked my way down to citation 9, but I can't seem to verify it anywhere. When I search the publication manually, it doesn't show up, nor does it show up in my university's database, highbeam or Google. Does anyone have access to this source?

• Tiernan, Damien (14 October 1993). "Walter is leading the Irish team in the Info. Olympics". New Ross Standard

CorporateM (Talk) 08:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I checked a cross database search (ProQuest etc) and it has a dozen articles by Tiernan from 1993, but not that one. I placed a Resource Request Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request#Irish_source. Also worth reading New Ross Standard, this is a small local paper. -- GreenC 13:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Most of the small local newspapers in Ireland did not have a web presence in 1993 as the public internet was still quite a new thing in Ireland at the time. The newspaper's website only seems to go back to 2000. Anything more would require contacting the newspaper for a reprint of the article. Jmccormac (talk) 14:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Here you go. Their press page contains all the articles and their original clippings. - NQ (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

This seems to be a from a newspaper clipping on the "press" page from O'Brien's IOL [21] website. [22]. The wording on O'Brien's hacking claim needs to be clearer as he is the only source for the claim and certain parts (technical) of that story don't stand up. (A 64 Kilobyte RAM 8 bit home computer being used for the hack which needed an external modem. Telephone line quality in Ireland being relatively poor at the time thus limiting connection speeds. The requirement of access to a Packet Switched Network as otherwise it would have been necessary to use a telephone connection to the NASA server and transatlantic calls were often routed via satellite leading to lower connection quality and even lower data rates than the typical 300 Baud to 2400 Baud connection. The low connection speeds which would have required days of continual access to download large files. The incompatibility of the alleged Autocad file format for, as O'Brien calls it in a video interview (the Cnet one, I think), "the spaceship Columbia" with the 8 bit Amstrad computer's operating system and software.) There was no Department of Homeland Security (as pointed out in the Techdirt cite) when O'Brien claimed to have hacked NASA. As portrayed on the show, it seems to be a lift of the opening scene from the movie Hackers_(film). It is a seriously problematical article because of the lack of any reliable technical sources and the way that some technical claims have no support. Jmccormac (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Sources from Scorpion's website

So there is a very unusual situation that many recent press articles are only available on Scorpion's website. We can accept articles that are not available online at all, so this not usually a problem. In a recent example, I obtained a 20+ year-old magazine article from a now defunct publication that is not available online anywhere and is a great source.

However the circumstances being that there is a major controversy about erroneous information published in these news articles, the press articles are very recent and should still be easy to find online, seems to suggest that many of these articles were pulled due to factual errors. Typically when circumstances suggest the publication pulled an article, we do the same here.

On other sourcing topics, I think TechDirt can be used a little more than I initially suggested, because it is highly cited by other news articles and appears to be a main breaker of the story. Also, I did find that many articles before the controversy erupted had a skeptical tone and mentioned that his claims were unconfirmed.

Finally, I'd like to invite anyone to bring forth reliable secondary sources, such as books, press articles, etc. not currently used in the article. CorporateM (Talk) 16:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Newspaper reporting

The newspapers are just reporting O'Brien's claim about hacking NASA when he was 13. They don't actually confirm that it occurred. This is why it is better to be precise about it. Some of the sources mention that it is unconfirmed. It really is a self-originated claim with no supporting evidence. There are no contemporaneous newspaper reports of the supposed hack and all coverage has been recent and from non-technical entertainment websites. Without confirmation, it is an alleged hack. The newspapers are reporting the allegation. It is similar to the coverage of court cases in that a newspaper does not report that someone committed a crime until they have been convicted. They have to use terms like "alleged" or state that a suspect has been charged. Jmccormac (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Even if there were a deep technical piece published by experts evaluating the plausibility of his claims, this would most likely be a self-published source and we would still rely primarily on secondary press articles about the report. It's possible a source like that will emerge at some point in the future. Also, it's worth noting that Fast Company did quote an expert about the technical plausibility (for example). We can only evaluate whether the publication has a reputation for fact-checking and cannot ourselves deem sources unusable due to speculation about their reporting methods on a particular article. In any case, many articles include statements that the claims are un-verified, that they came from O'Brien, or that their accuracy is contested, and the current article already reflects that.

So the only way to fix the alleged problem is out in the real-world, by conducting such technical analysis and getting press about it. Personally I'm not sure such technical analysis is possible given the limited amount of information available to allegedly NDA-protected events. In any case, it is a problem for the sources to figure out, not us here on Wikipedia. CorporateM (Talk) 16:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

There was a lot of backpedalling when the controversy broke and Fast Company was one of those that actually ran a new piece detailing the controversy and asking O'Brien about the claims. Cnet added a disclaimer to its original coverage due to concerns raised. Cliff Stoll wrote a book on hacks on NASA and other computer servers (in the 1980s). He also wrote a technical paper on the hacks. The Boston Bombers issue seemed to draw deeply emotional responses from some people and it is a claim that may cause problems with the article. Jmccormac (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Current edit warring by Jmccormac over "allegedly". Please look again at the wording. The newspapers didn't report that O'Brien allegedly did the hacking, they reported that he did do it, according to his own account. By adding 'allegedly', you're changing the scope of the reporting and leading the reader to a different conclusion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

No. He alledged that he hacked the NASA servers. NASA did not confirm it. That's the problem with the newspaper coverage. Perhaps it is a bit too subtle of a difference for you to understand. Jmccormac (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

LOL! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Well one of the sources cited in the article has this to say: "A child prodigy, O’Brien allegedly hacked into the NASA computer systems at age 13, which he leaves unconfirmed." Should it be changed to reflect what the source actually said? Jmccormac (talk) 20:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Wink. The newspapers reported that it happened, not that it was merely claimed. The fact that these events are contested is already included. In the meanwhile, Wink, I would encourage you to avoid scoffing at other editors by laughing out loud at their arguments. Also, Jmccormac, you mentioned several sources that I don't think are currently included. If they include biographical information about Walter, I'd love links. CorporateM (Talk) 16:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Both you and Winkelvi are wrong. Newspapers generally have to be careful when reporting what is essentially criminal activity. They are all reporting O'Brien's claim to have hacked into NASA servers. They are not actually confirming that he did it. When reporting such a story, journalists would have had to have contacted NASA and law enforcement in Ireland and the USA for confirmation of the events. The fact checking bar is much lower for entertainment journalism and such claims, which form part of the TV show, are not checked. Jmccormac (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Laughter is good for the soul, CorporateM. ;-) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Could we link to a newspaper(s) that reported it factually happened? The current source is French and is just reprocessing other sources. -- GreenC 16:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Generally speaking, if two sources are otherwise equal, I prefer the one that identifies where they got their information. If such a source is found, then we would be in a position to attribute it to O'Brien, rather than the paper. Regarding the French source, I would prefer it not be removed for now, but if it is re-processing other sources, than the task may be to find the original source. CorporateM (Talk) 17:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Cliff Stoll's book The Cuckoo's Egg on the hacking of NASA and other sites during the 1980s. This is the paper on the subject [23]. They don't mention O'Brien for obvious reasons. Jmccormac (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Unreliable source on Boston Bombing

The article says:

• The New Ross Standard said Walter was "personally responsible" for catching the bombers, using an algorithm that tracked the motion of cameras within two miles of the explosion.

New Ross Standard is a local civic paper in Ireland with a small circulation. It is not a reliable source to make this extraordinary claim (ie WP:EXCEPTIONAL). There is no other source that confirms this extraordinary claim. An expert in the field directly contradicts the source saying the claim is not plausible (Fast Company). -- GreenC 16:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Of course, you're right. Small local papers with small circulation never get stories right and are always unreliable sources. (sense the sarcasm in regard to your ridiculous, unproven claim?) Not to mention that "an expert in the field" is a more reliable source, always, every time. (more sarcasm, in case you missed it). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

It is an extremely iffy claim. If he was "personally responsible" then wouldn't he have been called to testify in the recent court case? Jmccormac (talk) 16:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I am ambivalent on the issue. The idea was to show that different newspapers gave varying degrees of credit for his alleged role. It does not lead credence to the claim, but actually shows additional conflicts in the narrative. I think it could reasonably be done with or without it. CorporateM (Talk) 16:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes I understand. Maybe if we had an additional source besides only New Ross Standard when dealing with an extraordinary claim. Something that hasn't been pulled offline by the media post-controversy. If it exists. -- GreenC 17:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

No, this claim is not acceptable. No matter how reliable the newspaper, it is still not a scientific or technical journal capable of making a claim like this. In order for this to be encyclopedic, we would need actual details about how this algorithm works, how it compares to existing facial recognition technology, etc. The newspaper can claim that he tracked the bombers, but it isn't qualified to say *how* he did it. That is not a journalistic question. AliceIngvild94 (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

And obviously an expert in the field is a more reliable source. I'm sorry that bothers you for some reason, Winkelvi but that is the truth. There are many amateurs out there making ridiculous scientific and technical claims. We need some kind of evidence that the rest of the field agrees that he has achieved this. Scientific and technical discoveries are meaningless unless they are testable and repeatable, which this isn't because we don't have a clue he is supposed to have done. AliceIngvild94 (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

What bothers me is the terminology "an expert in the field" as it neither names the expert nor gives credentials for the so-called expert. In other words: it's ambiguous, nonspecific. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

If it is this Asher Langton [24] quoted in the Fast Company article, then he has a somewhat more solid CV than a random Wikipedia editor quibbling about "experts" or, indeed, O'Brien. Note that the article actually names the expert but Winkelvi seems to claim that it does not. Jmccormac (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Fast Company was quoting the security engineer about O'Brien's claims. It was not saying that O'Brien caught the Boston Bombers. Jmccormac (talk) 16:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The relevant rule is WP:EXCEPTIONAL (as AliceIngvild94 mentioned in the edit comments). I think any consensus discussion, most people would agree the Boston Bombing is an "exceptional" claim. -- GreenC 17:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

This source [25] is reliable and states O'Brien did have a hand in catching the Boston bombing suspects. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Not it is not. It is just a puff piece promoting the TV show. It is merely quoting O'Brien's claim: "O’Brien says he used video forensics to sort through hundreds of hours of footage from Boylston Street in the aftermath of the Marathon bombings. He says that helped the FBI focus on the Tsarnaev brothers. “Image recognition systems which would be what they used for the Boston bombers to detect suspicious behavior or when someone behaves differently than everyone else,” he says.". This is quite different from a reliable source because the only source is O'Brien's self-orginated claim. Jmccormac (talk) 17:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is a reliable source. There you go again claiming you know the inner workings of a news organization and its journalists and why they reported in a particular manner. Interesting how you make these claims only in regard to media reports that paint O'Brien in a positive light. I'm starting to think you have a personal grudge against O'Brien and are doing anything you can to paint him as negatively as possible, grasping at any straw available to achieve your goal. In other words, your purpose here seems to be extremely biased, Jmccormac. One is forced to wonder why. Maybe this gives a clue: Your top talk page edits have been to Northern Ireland (81 edits as of today) and to this article (80 edits as of this moment). Others are free to make draw their own conclusions. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The piece is quoting O'Brien as saying that he he analysed video footage of the Boston Bombers and that this, in some way, helped FBI. I've even quoted the section where the journalist specifically quotes O'Brien's claim. There's no confirmation from another other source (local law enformement, FBI etc) just the claim by O'Brien. This is simply what is being reported. Jmccormac (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

So you say. Is there anything in the media that you've found from the FBI that refutes these claims? Seems to me that if it wasn't true, the FBI would not only publicly claim it wasn't true but also bring some sort of misrepresentation charge against O'Brien. Claiming to be working with the FBI (or any US government entity) when you're not usually puts one in hot water with the United States government. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

We don't have to "refute the claim," you have to provide reliable sources for it. This claim is pretty much exactly what WP:EXCEPTIONAL was created for. 1) It is only published in a few sources, and yet it has "world-changing" implications. 2) It is only discussed in primary sources. The author of the cited articles provide no references for where they are getting this information (even the highly technical details of how O'Brien did this), they simply state it as fact. 3) The claims go against the prevailing views of the limitations of scenario generators and facial recognition software. Additionally, all the sources have huge conflicts of interest. The New Ross Standard is published in O'Brien's hometown, so obviously they have an interest in building up his reputation. The only other source is CBS, which is currently producing a major television show which markets itself based on the veracity of these claims.AliceIngvild94 (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, it's laughable that you're accusing Jmccormac of pushing a POV here. You're the one pushing us to include these preposterous claims in an article. You are pushing a fringe viewpoint which is not supported by mainstream sources. You don't get to call people biased for trying to uphold the standards of Wikipedia. I support removing all of these speculative claims about O'Brien, both positive and negative. The article should focus on his role as executive producer of Scorpion, because that is the notable thing he has done which is verifiable. AliceIngvild94 (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Try reading the quotation from the article again and see if you can see any problem with it. Let's break it down, shall we? "O’Brien says he used video forensics to sort through hundreds of hours of footage from Boylston Street in the aftermath of the Marathon bombings." This is where O'Brien claims to have processed hundreds of hourse of video data. "He says that helped the FBI focus on the Tsarnaev brothers." This is where O'Brien claims that it helped FBI focus on the Tsarnaev brothers. "“Image recognition systems which would be what they used for the Boston bombers to detect suspicious behavior or when someone behaves differently than everyone else,” he says.". This is where O'Brien says that FBI used image recognition systems to detect suspicious behaviour. So O'Brien claims to have processed hundreds of hours of video data. This in some way is supposed to have "helped" FBI to focus on the Tsarnaev brothers. Then he says, quite separately, that FBI used image recognition systems. Not his software. Not his work. But rather that FBI used image recognition systems. Jmccormac (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Asking again: have you found anything specific where the FBI has refuted his claims? (I'm not talking about your personally perceived conflicts in claims). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The FBI could not possibly give less of a crap.AliceIngvild94 (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

You need to stop derailing the discussion and actually answer the points people have been making about why these sources are unreliable. The absence of a refutation is not evidence for something being true. This is just basic logic. AliceIngvild94 (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

In response to the comments you seem to have deleted: If you are familiar at all with Jmccormac's commenting and editing history at this article as well as the article deletion proposal for this article, you wouldn't be saying it's laughable at all. And yes, I stand by my comments regarding his bias. Because it's been obvious. For months. I'm not the only editor who has noted such.

In response to your claim the FBI doesn't care: how would you know that? I see a lot of claims here by those who seem to think they are in the know in regard to how media/reporters/officials think and feel about O'Brien. Nothing solid to back any of it up. The bottom line: We go by what reliable sources say, it's not our job -- nor do we have the capability -- to make judgments on how the those reliable sources got the information they did. We don't dissect it to see if it's real or if they fact-checked appropriately. Which is what has been going on at this article (and on this talk page) for months). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Obviously I don't know that the FBI doesn't care and you don't know that they do. There's no point in speculating about this. You're just using it as a distraction from the main issue, which is whether or not the sources are reliable. And yes, it is absolutely our job to decide whether or not the sources are reliable for this particular claim. Reliable sources are not reliable in every situation! See WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. AliceIngvild94 (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

You've been here a total of 3 days, have made only 29 edits (all of which are related to the Walter O'Brien article) and you're not just quoting/linking to policy like a long-time editor, but you're lecturing me to boot? Interesting, to say the least. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The reason I'm able to quote policy is that most of it is common sense. I saw your comment, thought "that can't possibly be true!" and I googled for "wikipedia reliable sources context" and, lo and behold, there is a policy specifically contradicting what you said. Also, I don't appreciate your argument from authority/rank-pulling.AliceIngvild94 (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

No one's "pulling rank" (that's not how it works here, but you already know that). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Then maybe you should consider not doing it. Using someone's inexperience or lack of seniority as a way to undermine their statements without refuting them is exactly what pulling rank is. The fact that I have 29 edits is not relevant to this discussion. AliceIngvild94 (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

It is, in a few ways. One of which is YOUR bias in editing and discussion in regard to Walter O'Brien. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Everyone who has disagreed with you is biased. It started with your accusations of Jmccormac, then me and now AliceIngvild94. The problem here is you. It's a matter of time before we end up at ANI. It's OK to have content disputes but your lack of good faith and negative attitude towards other editors is a problem. -- GreenC 19:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

FBI, and law enforcement agencies in general, don't comment about every communication they get from the public and they most certainly are extremely wary about commenting about on-going investigations in case it should jeopardise the outcome of any trial that may arise from the investigation. At the time O'Brien's claim was made, I think that the main surviving suspect, Tsarnaev, had yet to be tried. Jmccormac (talk) 19:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Precisely. They also don't comment about every person who is on their payroll or works in concert with them, either. Which is, very likely, one of the reasons why "evidence" of O'Brien's involvement is difficult to find. Thank you for concurring with my argument. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

So you admit that the evidence is unavailable, and yet you still want these statements to be included in the article? If the FBI isn't going to disclose this information, then how could a small-town newspaper in Ireland have figured it out? The source is clearly making claims beyond its means. And no, this is not original research. We are attempting to determine whether these sources are reliable for this claim, which is what the policy tells us to do. AliceIngvild94 (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I haven't admitted anything. Nice try. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

You seem to put your own interpretation on facts and disregard any that don't fit your notions. FBI and other agencies do not comment on on going criminal investigations. It seems that there was no request for comment to FBI's press office and no FBI sources were quoted in the piece. The only claim that O'Brien helped FBI is the claim made by O'Brien himself. That's a self published source. Now the piece itself, read the quotation from it again, makes it clear that O'Brien claims to have analysed hundreds of hours of video data. O'Brien claims to have "helped" FBI. And, here's the important bit, FBI (not O'Brien) used image recognition software to detect suspicious behaviour. It is a simple enough thing to understand. Jmccormac (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:EXCEPTIONAL says "claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest." The only source which says he was involved with the Boston Bombing are quotes attributed to Walter O'Brien. Please cite the policy and don't speculate. -- GreenC 18:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

NASA claims

Our article asserts that one source says O'Brien broke into NSA. It links to a French-language source, which says (in Google translation):

"managed a feat remained in the legend of hackers as "Scorpion" pseudonym. Using a PC Trade, the kid is indeed managed to infiltrate the infrastructure servers of the US Space Administration, NASA, and to locate and download all the top-secret technical data of the Space Shuttle Columbia ."

It says this is the "official story" ie. what O'Brien claims. Further down the same article it goes on to discredit O'Brien's "official story", ending the piece saying "No trace either of his famous hacking NASA." It concludes with O'Brien is "a Hoax". Why is our article using this source to say he broke into NASA when it asserts that he did not? At best the article says O'Brien said he did but there is no evidence that he did. -- GreenC 17:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The only source is a self-originated claim by O'Brien. Even the computer type changes between tellings. In one, it is an Amstrad 464. On another (the CBS video inteview and article, it apparently is the family Commodore 64). Neither of these computers are IBM PC compatible. There's no corroboration of the hack by NASA, law enforcement or the media. Those in the Computer Security industry who have commented seem to be quite skeptical of O'Brien's claims and there were even such comments about this alleged hack on various fora. The fanboys and fangirls seem to be quite unquestioning when it comes to O'Brien's claims. Here's a rather interesting review of the Autocad software (IBM PC software for techical drafting.) [26]Apparently the Autocad software package came with a demonstration drawing of the Space Shuttle Columbia. Jmccormac (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

This [27] seems to be the demo drawing of the space shuttle Columbia that shipped with the Autocad software. Jmccormac (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Break

In order to move the discussion in a more productive direction, I'd like to encourage that we use a more structured form of discussion. I suggest one editor (just one) copy and paste a sentence from the article (citation included) here on the Talk page. Explain what they feel is wrong with it and propose a specific alternative. CorporateM (Talk) 21:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Example

The current article contains the following text:

• "As a teenager, O'Brien sold roller skates out of his truck that came equipped with rocket-fuel."([www.example.com source])

I don't believe the source is reliable enough for such an exceptional claim. According to WP:EXCEPTIONAL: "blah blah blah"

I propose we remove this alltogether -editor signature

• Comment Suggest just giving it attribution. "Publication XYZ reported" -editor signature
• Support A local press article is not reliable enough for such an exceptional scientific claim -editor signature
• Oppose The source is adequate -editor signature

Since the discussion is split, I have asked an un-involved editor to provide a third opinion. -editor signature

I am an uninvolved editor; I propose the following compromise -editor signature

Notice that in this example, editors are each registering their views, hopefully with thoughtful, short, persuasive comments, without attacking each other. Ideally editors will wait a week or two before a different editor raises another sentence that is bothering them and will go along with the 3PO's feedback when there is no consensus and move on.

"Personally responsible"

Article text:

• The New Ross Standard said O'Brien was "personally responsible" for catching the bombers, using an algorithm that tracked motion on cameras within two miles of the explosion.[1]

The New Ross Standard is an unreliable source for this statement on several different levels. For one, they have a conflict of interest, being the newspaper from O'Brien's home town. One would expect an event such as this to be covered internationally, or at least in the United States where the bombing occurred, given that the manhunt for the Boston bombers was an international story. It seems highly plausible that the article is exaggerating O'Brien's role because it would bring publicity to Wexford county. Second, the New Ross Standard is not a scientific or technical publication that is qualified to make statements about facial recognition algorithms. Third, the article in question is a primary source, because no attribution is given for any of the statements. Wikipedia encourages exceptional claims to be backed by multiple secondary sources, not one primary source.AliceIngvild94 (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The only other source for the Boston Bomber claim is CBS, which has an even bigger conflict of interest given that they are funding a TV show based on O'Brien's claims as a "true story."AliceIngvild94 (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support It is somewhat redundant with the prior sentence, and while I wouldn't call it a "conflict of interest", local sources do tend to exaggerate the accomplishments of local businesses and people. I did a quick search and found that other sources like the Boston Herald do use more modest language like "helped". CorporateM (Talk) 02:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I would also object if the article said O'Brien "helped" identify the bombers, since there are no reliable sources that he was involved in any way. As Jmccormac said, the Boston Herald was just republishing CBS' video, so the source for the video is really CBS, who obviously have a massive conflict of interest. AliceIngvild94 (talk) 02:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support That Boston Herald source is using the same video clip the same as the local CBS affiliate station (WZB-TV) as the CBS Boston source (boston.cbslocal.com). It is not a different source it is the same one. It would be really helpful if people actually watched the video clips and read the text on what may appear, at first, to be different sources. The first step when dealing with sources of questionable provenance is to build a timeline. This can sometimes show how claims are propagated by journalists rehashing the work of others. The primary source on the claim seems to be O'Brien and all of those sources repeating these claims are non-technical and non-specialist. Jmccormac (talk) 02:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I think the sentence "IrishCentral said Scorpion Computer Services created "world-altering technologies", such as the "Scenario Generator" (ScenGen), and helped to identify those involved in the Boston Marathon bombing." has almost exactly the same problems as the one under discussion. It is another extraordinary claim supported by only one local, non-expert, primary source. AliceIngvild94 (talk) 03:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

AliceIngvild94: Irish Central is a primary source? According to whom/what policy? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

It does look a bit like puffery and marketing speak. Interestingly the Irish Central source quotes the Daily Mail article and links back to the PDF of the Daily Mail article on the Scorpion website. The DM article is from 16 August 2014 and the IC article is from 17 September 2014. Jmccormac (talk) 03:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

According to the definition of a primary source, that article is one. News articles are often primary sources - for example if a reporter witnesses an event and then writes about it. Any time the writer does not credit any other sources for the information, they are writing a primary source. In this case, the IrishCentral article makes statements about ScenGen and facial recognition algorithms that it does not attribute to any other source - therefore it cannot be anything but a primary source. AliceIngvild94 (talk) 03:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

No, it isn't a primary source according to the Wikipedia definition. See WP:PRIMARY for more. And, not only is it not a primary source, it's a published, secondary reliable source complete with editorial oversight (see here: [28]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The policy you linked says that secondary sources interpret and synthesize primary sources. If the article in question is a secondary source, which primary sources did it make reference to? AliceIngvild94 (talk) 04:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

This might be an apt quote: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." What reliable secondary sources state that the software or "technologies" is/are "world-altering"? Jmccormac (talk) 04:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi, the statement "IrishCentral is a secondary source" makes no sense to me. It would depend on what the newspaper is publishing. If it were publishing original journalistic research, it would be a primary source. It could also be a secondary source if it were citing and synthesizing other sources. I agree that IrishCentral is generally a reliable source for journalism, but I do not agree that it is reliable for technological/scientific research. Again, context matters. This subject hardly ever has to be debated because most newspapers do not attempt to make enormous scientific claims as original research, but IrishCentral has chosen to do that. AliceIngvild94 (talk) 04:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Primary sources are typically published by those directly involved in the event, such as a boston marathon victim, an investigating government agency, or O'Brien himself. Secondary sources like newspapers conduct research, interviews, etc. with primary sources in order to publish their stories and were not directly involved in the events they are reporting on. The only circumstance where a newspaper article becomes a primary source is if it's about the newspaper itself, a dispute it had with an article-subject, or an award/ranking it organized. In most cases expert sources are either primary, tertiary or self-published. This does mean that one disadvantage of Wikipedia is that we are often relying on non-experts, but there are reasons for this and it is the rules/principles we operate on.

Anyways, it would be great if a different editor could start a new string about the next sentence that concerns them. CorporateM (Talk) 13:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

AliceIngvild94 made some very strong points. However he also made a mistake. And his adversaries have made that mistake the focus of the discussion. That's a shame. If AliceIngvild94 would drop the incorrect assertion that New Ross Standard is a primary source - which no one will ever agree to that an RfC - he can focus on the strongest point. Which is WP:EXCEPTIONAL #1 which clearly states "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources". Has the Boston claim been covered in "multiple mainstream sources"? No. WP:EXCEPTIONAL #2 says a "challenged claim" and the claim was challenged by an expert in the field in Fast Company. #2 goes on to say "[sources with] an apparent conflict of interest" which negates CBS (home the TV show) and New Ross Standard, the newspaper from his home county. These points carry weight and probably would win if it came up in an RFC. New Ross Standard is not a primary source, but who cares it doesn't matter. -- GreenC 14:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I still don't completely get this, because if the article is a secondary source, then what are the primary sources in this case? I don't see any sources given in the article; not even unnamed sources. Information has to originate from somewhere. It seems like a significant portion of the information in that article originated with the author. I've actually seen very few cases where a journalist makes outright statements about technology or science without attributing them to an expert, so I'm not sure what to call that. But I'll drop this argument for the sake of moving forward. AliceIngvild94 (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Primary and secondary refer to the source used on Wikipedia. Not the source used within a source used on Wikipedia. Once something is published in a newspaper, that newspaper story becomes a secondary source even if the fact in the newspaper originated with a primary source. Indeed most facts in newspaper stories originate as a primary source, as a direct quote from an interview. Even if the journalist did original research, it's still a secondary so long as it's published by a journalist in a newspaper. For Wikipedia purposes a primary source is something like a government database, someone's CV. For the purpose of EXCEPTIONAL, one can claim COI if the journalist attributes the claim back to O'Brien, which I think is true in New Ross Standard. -- GreenC 19:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Marathon Bombing

The current article states:

"IrishCentral said Scorpion Computer Services created "world-altering technologies", such as the "Scenario Generator" (ScenGen), and helped to identify those involved in the Boston Marathon bombing.(source)

This appears to be a WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that therefore requires "multiple high quality sources", whereas it is currently only supported by a single mediocre source.

Some other sources include New Straits Times that says "it was reported" that he helped find the bombers, whereas Fox News said his company merely develops technology similar to what was used by the FBI. TechDirt lists it as one of this many bogus claims.

I believe that in this case it is significant that the media reported it, as this statement needs to be included to explain how it was later found to be a bogus claim.

I suggest something like:

• "According to Fox News, his company develops video analysis software similar to what the FBI used to catch the Boston Marathon bombers.[29] Some media reports said he actually helped or was directly responsible for catching them.[30]source TechDirt said this was one of O'Brien's many bogus claims. Asher Langton... <more explanation on why it's bogus>

CorporateM (Talk) 15:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment There are two parts in that claim. The first is the "world-altering" technologies one. That's marketing hype. The second is the claim of helping to identify the bombers. This is simply a recycling of O'Brien's claim. It is unsupported and is a self-originated claim by O'Brien. There are no multiple high quality sources supporting it. The phrasing in your alterternative text is iffy. "software similar to what the FBI used" It should be "software similar to that used by the FBI". But that creates another problem. Does Scorpion Computer Services actually produce such software (it is a highly specialised niche) and what software did FBI use? Jmccormac (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Also the CBS clip/piece seems to be the initial publisher of O'Brien's claim. Normally, if a company's software was used in such a high profile case, it would be marketed as having being used in this manner and it would get a lot of trade/professional coverage. There would a a kind of long tail effect in the media and especially in the technical media where it would continue to be discussed and reviewed. This has not happened and it looks like Fox was just looking for a random talking head local to the TV station for an interview. CBS had a major conflict of interest as it was pushing its new TV show. The fact that there is no long tail of discussion of this software or even any mention of it in specialist journals or websites would indicate that this may be another one of those O'Brien claims for which no evidence exists. Might be better to go with CBS and use something like "According to an interview with CBS (Boston), O'Brien claimed to have analysed thousands of hours of video footage and helped the FBI...". The whole thing is so murky because the story morphs from having analysed the video footage and identified the bombers for FBI to having just "helped" FBI complete with FBI having used their own software to identify the bombers. Jmccormac (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment New Straits Times is not a "high quality" source for something like this. It's published in Malaysia. It's perhaps telling no USA newspapers have reported it (other than CBS which has a COI). A story like this would be reported in the major East Coat papers NYT, WaPo or best of all Boston Globe: they have done many in-depth investigative stories on the Boston Bombing, and never once mentioned O'Brien. Even Fox News, which is known to be unreliable in fact checking, doesn't say he was involved, only that he did something similar. With all that said, I believe the proposal by CorporateM is acceptable (with some copyediting). Because otherwise how can we mention that a number of sources have criticized him about it. There needs to be context as to who reported the story and what they said. Readers need to be given a fair chance to see both sides of the story. If all we report is one side, readers won't trust it they will see this article as a hit piece against O'Brien. -- GreenC 18:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

What are the copyedits you would suggest? CorporateM (Talk) 18:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Well maybe c/e wasn't right, to fill out the rest of it concerning Asher Langton's POV. -- GreenC 19:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Go with some phrasing like "Irish Central (cite) reported that O'Brien claimed to have helped the FBI". It is factual but does not offer an opinion one way or the other. It is problematic and cutting the section might be an easier solution. The Fox News clip seemed to be a local affiliate interview. A lot of people reading the article might not undertand the whole national TV channel and local affiliate channels nature of US television. I'd be interested to see the proposed rewrites too. Jmccormac (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose the replacement text - I don't think we have any reliable sources in either direction on this issue. The CBS and IrishCentral stories are making extraordinary, unsupportable claims, and the Techdirt source brings us close to violating BLP. Wikipedia should be above these petty disputes and just focus on what can reliably be established: that he is the executive producer of Scorpion. AliceIngvild94 (talk) 18:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The lack of (technological and law enforcement) reliable sources is a problem. The "world-altering" part is just marketing hype and might be cut without much problem. It is possible to be factual and say that IC reported that O'Brien claimed to have processed thousands of hours of video footage and claims to have helped FBI. But that's about it. As pointed out above (pending copyedit proposals), cutting it might be easier. Jmccormac (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Regarding "world-altering" I should have made more clear that the intention was that the proposed text would also replace that (it would be trimmed). I don't think it being "easier" to delete the content entirely is a good argument for edits. Certainly it would be easier if all of Wikipedia was deleted, but we do it even if it's hard for a reason. However, a couple editors have raised the possibility of writing an alternate version and it would be useful to see a specific proposed alternative to the version above. CorporateM (Talk) 19:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

From rereading the citations, this is a highly problematic claim from one IC cite "Scorpion Computer Services, founded in 1988, has invented world-altering technologies including the ‘Scenario Generator’ or ‘ScenGen,’ a system that generates 1.6 million test scenarios per second, or 250 years of man work every 90 minutes. This was used to help identify the Boston bombers." The claim that the software was used to help identify the Boston bombers is unsupported. There's a soft "helped" claim from the CBS source. Might be possible to use the CBS piece as the citation for "helping" FBI but that particular IC claim above just looks like a completely misunderstood rehash of another newspaper article. The IC citation should not be used as a main citation for this point. Jmccormac (talk) 19:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not convinced we should determine much of anything based on what is contained in TechDirt. They are a blog (not considered reliable), they are extremely biased against O'Brien, and the website is basically the TMZ of the tech world. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

What you "think" doesn't matter. That's the dynamic at the heart of WP:RS. Techdirt actually does have the readership that can verify such claims. Not being familiar with TMZ (I think it is some kind of entertainment gossip site), it would seem that sites like Techdirt and others are actually more proficient at analysing, and where necessary debunking, technical claims than non-specialist and non-technical newspapers and websites. It is investigative technology journalism and it just happened to have investigated the claims made by O'Brien and shown some of them up to be inaccurate or, as in the case of stuff like the $204 Billion investment fund, little more than wishful thinking. Fast Company also investigated some of the claims and ran a second article as a result. Cnet put a warning on its interview piece. That kind of follow-up reporting does not generally happen when claims check out. Jmccormac (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what I think does matter as a community member. Just as what you think matters. That said, Wikipedia has already given us the criteria for excluding TechDirt as a source. Their site is rife with bias. That they analyze anything regarding an individual proves they are largely unreliable, because we don't use sources that analyze unless they are scholarly in nature. A site that is a blog? Unreliable source. A site that spreads gossip and rumor? Unreliable. A site that is very biased in the majority of what they put out? Unreliable. So, there you have it: TechDirt is an unreliable source - not based on what I think, but based on what Wikipedia policy says regarding the litmus test for sources. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Already been established that Techdirt is a reliable source and it is considered so by other publications. This is just another effort to attempt by Winkelvi to discredit sources that have shown O'Brien's claims to be inaccurate. Jmccormac (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Just to explain that WP:RS comment. Opinion doesn't matter (hence the quotation marks around the word 'think') when it comes to a Wikipedia article. Even expert opinion has problems when it comes to it being used in Wikipedia articles. Jmccormac (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Cut the personal attacks, already. This is no such thing. First of all, I've been here a while, and I have quite a few edits under my belt in addition to having encountered a fair amount of bias in articles. Yours is obvious in an anti-O'Brien fashion. I couldn't care less about O'Brien one way or another. What I care about is balance in this BLP, in all BLPs, and that there is no POV that could hurt Wikipedia. Whether O'Brien's claims are accurate or inaccurate is of no concern to me. This article being written with a neutral tone and is cited with reliable sources is. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone have a specific alternative to suggest? CorporateM (Talk) 20:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Something along the lines of "According to an interview with CBS (boston.cbslocal.com source), O'Brien claimed to have helped the FBI with its search for the Boston bombers...". It is factual enough, given that it states the source, CBS, and that it is O'Brien's claim. Jmccormac (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it should include that it was widely reported in the media, as this is what makes debunking the claim so significant. I'm also not sure the CBS source actually says according to an interview with O'Brien? As stated previously, we can't speculate as to their news-gathering methods. CorporateM (Talk) 05:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

It does. It has a text article as well as the video clip. It was rather careful about it too. ( http://boston.cbslocal.com/2014/10/06/real-life-scorpion-helped-id-boston-marathon-bombing-suspects/ ). This is the quote from the text on the link. "O’Brien says he used video forensics to sort through hundreds of hours of footage from Boylston Street in the aftermath of the Marathon bombings. He says that helped the FBI focus on the Tsarnaev brothers. “Image recognition systems which would be what they used for the Boston bombers to detect suspicious behavior or when someone behaves differently than everyone else,” he says." CBS is quoting O'Brien as having said those things. Jmccormac (talk) 06:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Aww, I see it. Perfect. How about:

• "According to Fox News, his company develops video analysis software similar to what the FBI used to catch the Boston Marathon bombers.[31] O'Brien told CBS News he worked directly with the FBI and helped to identify the bombers.[32] Asher Langton, a security intelligence engineer, said O'Brien had offered conflicting narratives of his contribution and that his claims of using facial recognition software to find the bombers wasn't plausible. O'Brien said that he couldn't explain more due to non-disclosure agreements."

CorporateM (Talk) 15:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

These stations are the local affiliate TV stations rather than the national stations. In print terms, they are like local or regional newspapers that only serve a particular area. The FOX LA interview (13 May 2013) was basically O'Brien talking about the techniques and software used by FBI to identify the suspects. By late 2014, after the Scorpion show had aired, O'Brien's claim to have helped FBI identify the suspects seems to have hardened.

"In May 2013, KTTV, a Fox affiliate TV station serving Southern California, inteviewed O'Brien about the techniques and software used by the FBI to identify the Boston Marathon bombers. It also said that O'Brien's company develops video analysis software similar to that which the FBI used to catch the Boston Marathon bombers.[33] In 2014, after the launch of the CBS TV show "Scorpion", the Boston CBS affiliate TV station WBZ-TV, said that O'Brien claimed that he had processed hundreds of hours of video footage and that this had helped the FBI focus on the Tsarnaev brothers. O'Brien also said that the FBI used image recognition software in its investigation. [34] At the 2014 San Diego Comic-Con convention, an executive producer for the Scorpion TV show told the audience that O'Brien had personally caught the Boston bombers by writing an algorithm that tracked motion on all the cameras within a two-mile radius of the blast. [35] In an interview with the Irish Daily Mail, O'Brien claimed that his company had developed an algorithm which enabled the FBI to analyse CCTV footage and quickly identify the suspects.[36] Asher Langton, a security intelligence engineer, said that O'Brien's claims to have helped find the bombers using public cameras and facial recognition software to identify people without surprised looks on their faces when the bomb went off were not plausible and that the conflicting narratives were suspicious. O'Brien said that he couldn't explain more due to non-disclosure agreements. (Karlin/Fast Company ref)" Jmccormac (talk) 18:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I think we may be getting closer, but your proposed I think has too much description of each source. OTOH, I'm content being more specific "Fox 11 LA-KTTV" and adding some sense of timing as to when the various statements by the sources were made. Here's my shot at it:

"A month after the Boston Marathon Bombing, Fox 11 LA-KTTV reported that O'Brien's company develops video analysis software similar to what the FBI used to catch the bombers.[37] A year later, O'Brien told CBS News he worked directly with the FBI to identify the bombers[38] and some press reported he actually helped or was directly responsible for catching them.[39]source TechDirt said it was one of many "bogus" claims by O'Brien. Asher Langton, a security intelligence engineer, said O'Brien had offered conflicting narratives of his alleged contributions to catching the bombers and that the facial recognition software O'Brien was reported to have used wasn't plausible. O'Brien said that he couldn't explain more due to non-disclosure agreements."

CorporateM (Talk) 19:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The reason for the detail on the sources is because they provide context. It is essential with a very problematic article as it does not engage in synthesis or arrive at any conclusions. The WBZ-TV source has O'Brien saying that his work "helped" FBI. This is a very important point as it is very different to "O'Brien told CBS News he worked directly with the FBI to identify the bombers". You have two points very wrong. O'Brien did not make that claim. (He said his work "helped" FBI rather than "he worked directly with the FBI...". And secondly, he was not talking to CBS News. These affliate stations are just local stations and CBS News is the national news division of CBS. It is an extremely important point because you are conflating two separate stations. That Malayan source is just cut and paste press release recycling from the other sources and should not even be included because it is essentially about the Comic Con launch of the show rather than O'Brien. That phrase "similar to what the FBI used" is better written as "similar to that used by the FBI". I think it is better to go with the version that properly uses the sources without synthesis. Techdirt and Fast Company both use Asher Langton but it seems to be Langton's comments to Fast Company that are the clearest. Langton's point about the implausibility of O'Brien's claims is from FC. Jmccormac (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Legitimate criticism and scrutiny

Looking around online today, I can honestly and in an unbiased manner state that the only legitimate and minimally biased criticism and scrutiny of O'Brien is coming from Fast Company. Everything else is biased and has an agenda-like tone. Other opinions on this are welcome, of course (doesn't mean I'll agree with the other opinions, but other opinions are important and always welcome). I think it would be advantageous for us to talk about the critical claims, from whence they originate, and hash out which ones work for Wikipedia purposes according to policy, and which ones don't. We've gone too far off into the weeds too many times on this. The thing that needs to be kept in mind is that the article remains NPOV, has an encyclopedic tone, the sources are reliable, and WP:SYNTH is not employed. We're not here to do an expose on O'Brien, just provide facts as they are available via reliable sources. It would, by the way, be nice to see some collegial discussion occurring here between all participants, absent of insults and finger pointing, regardless of how one comes down on a particular side of debate. I'm trying to extend an olive-branch here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree with the need for collegial discussion without finger-pointing. If you guys want to make progress in the debate, you will need to hear each other out, reach compromise, focus on article-content, give editors a chance to participate and so on, as oppose to pouncing on every comment with some snide remark within hours. Ideally discussion should focus on specific actionable issues, rather than broad statements and generalizations. CorporateM (Talk) 20:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Boston Marathon Bombers

Jmccormac and myself have been going back and forth on some details of the boston marathon bombing claim and I think the below version is at least at a point where it would be useful to get comments from other editors:

"A month after the Boston Marathon Bombing, Fox 11 LA-KTTV reported that O'Brien's company develops video analysis software similar to what the FBI used to catch the bombers.[40] A year later, O'Brien told CBS News he used video forensics to help the FBI identify the bombers[41] and some press reported he actually helped or was directly responsible for catching them.[42]source TechDirt said it was one of many "bogus" claims by O'Brien. Asher Langton, a security intelligence engineer, said O'Brien had offered conflicting narratives of his alleged contributions to catching the bombers and that the facial recognition software O'Brien was reported to have used wasn't plausible. O'Brien said that he couldn't explain more due to non-disclosure agreements."

CorporateM (Talk) 20:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

This is the factually accurate version that places each claim in its proper context. I think that it is best to be precise about each claim. As this version does address concerns about the claims made, it would be interesting to see what other editors think.

"In May 2013, KTTV, a Fox affiliate TV station serving Southern California, inteviewed O'Brien about the techniques and software used by the FBI to identify the Boston Marathon bombers. It also said that O'Brien's company develops video analysis software similar to that which the FBI used to catch the Boston Marathon bombers.[43] In 2014, after the launch of the CBS TV show "Scorpion", the Boston CBS affiliate TV station WBZ-TV, said that O'Brien claimed that he had processed hundreds of hours of video footage and that this had helped the FBI focus on the Tsarnaev brothers. O'Brien also said that the FBI used image recognition software in its investigation. [44] At the 2014 San Diego Comic-Con convention, an executive producer for the Scorpion TV show told the audience that O'Brien had personally caught the Boston bombers by writing an algorithm that tracked motion on all the cameras within a two-mile radius of the blast. [45] In an interview with the Irish Daily Mail, O'Brien claimed that his company had developed an algorithm which enabled the FBI to analyse CCTV footage and quickly identify the suspects.[46] Asher Langton, a security intelligence engineer, said that O'Brien's claims to have helped find the bombers using public cameras and facial recognition software to identify people without surprised looks on their faces when the bomb went off were not plausible and that the conflicting narratives were suspicious. O'Brien said that he could not elaborate due to non-disclosure agreements. (Karlin/Fast Company ref)"

Jmccormac (talk) 20:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey Jmccormac. Since nobody has shown an interest in this discussion, how would you feel about getting a 3PO (third opinion) and going with whatever they suggest? CorporateM (Talk) 13:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

At this stage, CorporateM, I wonder if anyone really cares. It might be best to stick with the highly factual version above as it covers most of the angles (claims/sources/etc) rather than sparking off another round of people trying to get up to speed with the whole discussion and trying to figure out what is going on with each claim and argument. Jmccormac (talk) 14:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

So, I'll add something here: I think the 2 quotes have different perspectives. Jmccormac your text seems to give alot of depth, CorporateM is easier to read. Of the two I prefer CorporateM, but saying that its appears to water down the polar disputing around the claims which comes across more in Jmccormac. What to propose..?

"A month after the Boston Marathon Bombing, Fox 11 LA-KTTV (A local TV station) reported that O'Brien's company develops video analysis software (similar to software used by the FBI) to help catch the bombers.[47] A year later, O'Brien told WBZ-TV News (CBS Boston) he used video forensics "to help" the FBI identify the bombers[48] and some press reported he actually did help the FBI or was directly responsible for catching them.[49]source TechDirt said it was one of many "bogus" claims by O'Brien. Asher Langton, a security intelligence engineer, said O'Brien had offered conflicting narratives of his alleged contributions to catching the bombers and that the facial recognition software O'Brien was reported to have used wasn't plausible. O'Brien said that he couldn't explain more due to non-disclosure agreements."

.. to be honest I could claim to have helped the Apollo moon mission by watching it on TV when it happened (thus adding to the viewer stats). Grahamatwp (talk) 04:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I actaully saw the bombing on TV when it happened and remember the stories. I don't remember anything about using software to find the bombers. I was a biometric software developer in the time, so that would probably stick in my mind. And I certainly don't remember anything about O'Brien being involved. I do like "Hackers" the movie, and yes the opening sequence ( and some of the other arrest sequences) bear a striking resemblance to the opening credits of Scorpion. Grahamatwp (talk) 05:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

So why does a developer use </SCORPION> as the logo? Correct XML is <SCORPION/>. Just a thought. Grahamatwp (talk) 05:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Seems to be the show's graphic designers who did it. It looks "computery" and vaguely web-related. Jmccormac (talk) 14:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah I get it, but the point is there is supposed to be an "executive producer" who is a hot-shot hacker and has an IQ of 197 (and probably a bit of OCD in there too, judging by the script) yet that was allowed to be used. Anyways just a side show really. I have a geeky chuckle at that every time I see it. :) Grahamatwp (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I tweaked the phrasing on the section above that CorporateM added to the page. It is a really tricky piece because it doesn't precisely deal with what O'Brien was claiming. The Fox 11 interview was actually O'Brien being interviewed about video forensic techniques and Fox 11 mentioned that his company developed similar software. That Malayan New Strait Times ref is completely useless because it is a cut and paste job of one of the actors from the TV show being interviewed at the ComicCon show. I'm not happy with the piece because it is close to a synthesis in parts. This is why I went with the more precise and factual way of dealing with each of the claims. The worst case would be to having the piece saying that O'Brien was claiming something when he did not actually do so. Jmccormac (talk) 13:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

On an article like this, I think it's best to focus on just one item at a time. What source are you saying the New Straits Times is copy/pasted from? It says it's bylined by one of their editors, so I don't have any particular reason to suspect that is the case. I believe we had already discussed that the press actually said itself O'Brien helped catch the Boston Marathon Bombers; they did not merely interview him saying it. For example here on CBS Boston, it says "His genius and his technology helped pinpoint the Boston Marathon bombing suspects." There is no "according to O'Brien" etc. We cannot speculate as to their news-gathering techniques. CorporateM (Talk) 14:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The Fox 11 interview was O'Brien being interviewed about the video forensic techniques used by FBI and not about the software developed by his company. That's the error. The interviewer mentioned that O'Brien's company develops similar software but the interview was about video forensics. The NST ref looks like a straight cut and paste job from the comments by one of the actors at ComicCon. The Daily Mail ref was far better for this as it was part of an interview with O'Brien. Read the text of the CBS Boston article. This is where the "according to O'Brien" originates. Jmccormac (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

CorporateM, this is the section in the CBS ref where the interviewer actually quotes O'Brien as claiming that his work "helped" FBI

"Security is what they do. O’Brien says he used video forensics to sort through hundreds of hours of footage from Boylston Street in the aftermath of the Marathon bombings. He says that helped the FBI focus on the Tsarnaev brothers. “Image recognition systems which would be what they used for the Boston bombers to detect suspicious behavior or when someone behaves differently than everyone else,” he says."

Jmccormac (talk) 14:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

There is very strong community consensus that the Daily Mail is not a reliable source, due to extraordinarily bad reporting and fact-checking practices. (I just learned this myself a few months ago). Regarding the FOX source, we do not include stuff like "so and so was interviewed by" and other "In the News" type stuff. Again, please discuss on the Talk page; the content is obviously contentious enough to warrant discussion before changes are made. CorporateM (Talk) 15:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

CorporateM, Watch the interview. It is O'Brien discussing the video forensic techniques used. This isn't any kind of synthesis. It is factual. It was not an interview about O'Brien's software and to present it as such in the article is incorrect and misleading. The DM ref was better than the NST ref because it was, for much of it, an interview with O'Brien. The point in the article is strong enough without the DM ref. As with the CBS ref above where it actually quotes O'Brien, one has to read the sources and watch the video clips. Otherwise one ends up with a rough synthesis that is not supported by the source and the facts. Also this "video analysis software as what was used by the FBI" would be better written as "video analysis software similar to that used by the FBI". Jmccormac (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)