Talk:Scorpion (TV series)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Scorpion (TV series). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

ABC or CBS ?

ABC or CBS ? Bentogoa (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

CBS. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 13:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Some critical thinking

would be well-spent on this article. https://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=walter+o%27brien — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.1.125.10 (talk) 02:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure it's particularly relevant to this article, and it has been gone over in some depth in the Walter O'Brien article. 12.233.147.42 (talk) 03:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Surely it *is* relevant to this article due to the use of the words in the article "loosely based on" (the series itself uses the phrase "inspired by the life of....") which implies there's a link between the exploits/characteristics of the character in the series (i.e. suitable for this talk page) and the man in real life. Discussing this from the vise verse position obviously also involves both.

AfD of Walter O'Brien

Contributors to this article may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter O'Brien. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

New character

Alana de la Garza joined the cast and will be playing the role of Adriana, the new Head of Homeland Security. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tutuzinho0412 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Head of Homeland Security added. Your source for the character's name? Alex|The|Whovian 02:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, here https://twitter.com/Alana_DeLaGarza/status/618163545650257921. If you are interested in reading more, here's http://www.latinpost.com/articles/61906/20150624/scorpion-season-2-spoilers-alana-de-la-garza-to-join-cast-as-new-head-of-homeland-security.htm

Guest Cast

Now that the series has been renewed for a season season, do we continue to list each guest star in every episode, or do we stick to Main and Recurring? Else that Guest Cast list is going to get rather long, and I haven't seen that done on any other TV series article. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 11:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

That growing list has me concerned too. Perhaps only list noteworthy guest stars? Ducold (talk) 02:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The section is entitled 'Notable...', but there is nothing to establish any notability whatsoever(and no sources). It's just a list of actors and parts with no context. This section provides no information about the show and should be deleted. 108.114.1.225 (talk) 02:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Hacker Handle

Walter's hacker handle was "Scorpion". Show Dialog: "We have Scorpion. He's just a kid." Walter called his team "Scorpion" because it is *his* handle, not something someone else designated for him as a target. Would you accept a target designation for the name of your struggling company? Love Robin (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The article's content is not based on what we as editors would accept, it's based on facts from the series, and that's the version we're reverting to. Alex|The|Whovian 13:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no evidence that "Scorpion" was his handle, only that it was a codename used by one of the armed men. In order to prove that it was his handle a citation from a reliable source is required.

Would you accept a target designation for the name of your struggling company? Remember, this is a work of fiction, and fiction doesn't necessarily follow the laws of the real world. This series breaks those laws all of the time. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The most direct citation is the dialog stating that "Scorpion" IS Walter. It's importance is the fact it is the title of the show as well as his Identity extended to his Team which he considers his family. To presume otherwise is Original Research in the face of directly quoted dialog from the show's pilot. Love Robin (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Equating "We have Scorpion. He's just a kid" with "Walter's hacker handle is Scorpion" is classic WP:SYNTH. Sources must explicitly support claims, which means the dialogue needs to say that Scorpion is his handle. The dialogue does not. At best it's ambiguous as to what it actually refers to. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Folks, get a reliable secondary source, and the debate is over. It cannot really be determined between editors each doing original research and interpreting the show content in different ways. N2e (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Less, the WP article for Walter_O'Brien, the "partially inspired by the life of" for the show, here in the second paragraph "when O'Brien was thirteen years old, he hacked into NASA under the pseudonym 'Scorpion' ", with the citation from [1] which reads, in French, "Walter O'Brien, quelques mois plus tard, réussissait un exploit resté dans la légende du piratage informatique sous le pseudonyme 'Scorpion'." (Emphasis mine)

There. Walter's hacker handle is "Scorpion".

There was no other reason to even have the dialog "We have Scorpion. He's just a kid" in the cold open of the pilot for the series "Scorpion", about a struggling "Scorpion" company run by that kid grown up, which became the DHS asset "Scorpion team", except to tell us *why* the show's name is "Scorpion". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Love Robin (talk • contribs) 17:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Using something in one article to support something in another is not permitted. Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources and it still is WP:SYNTH. As I've already stated "Sources must explicitly support claims". In any case, the section of Walter O'Brien that you've quoted is contradictory:

"he sold in order to purchase an Amstrad personal computer at age nine."

"his parents bought him a computer at age 12, which is when his interest in computers started."

What, he wasn't interested in computers at age nine, when he supposedly purchased the Amstrad? Further, doubt exists about some of the claims. One citation says he got the Amstrad at age 12, not nine, another says there is no evidence of the hack, That one I find credible, mainly because of my own personal experience at the time. Space Shuttle Autocad files were readily available on BBSes for free, so there was no need to hack into NASA. All this aside, there is no reliable source that confirms that "scorpion" in the series is a hacker handle.

There was no other reason to even have the dialog "We have Scorpion. He's just a kid" in the cold open of the pilot for the series "Scorpion", about a struggling "Scorpion" company run by that kid grown up, which became the DHS asset "Scorpion team", except to tell us *why* the show's name is "Scorpion" You do realise the beginning of the show is all fiction don't you? The United States has no authority to fly black helicopters into Ireland (or any other country) and arrest its citizens at gunpoint. That's illegal. The U.S. has to work with the country's law enforcement agencies. They could have said he was "Slartibartfast" from the planet "Groonfondle" and it wouldn't have been any less ridiculous. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The WB article was cited in order to point to the citation source *within it* backing up that Walter's inspirational source was the personage known as "Scorpion". The WP:Walter O'Brien article has already been argued over its AfD and the consensus was Keep, so arguing points of the veracity of the contents of an article which cannot be used is pointless. Whether or not the Real Walter and Fictional Walter's reasons for hacking NASA are the same has nothing to do with this issue. Nor whether or not the raid was able to happen as we saw it without local authority cooperation and presence.

However the citable sources are STILL citeable sources. There is no need to contest that Fictional Walter was "Scorpion" when citable sources support that Real Walter's online persona was "Scorpion", PLUS it supports why that is the name of the show, fictional struggling company, and fictional DHS asset.

Your reason for arguing the point of this discussion and edit is even less "ambiguous". Love Robin (talk) 15:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Fictional Walter != Real Walter so what is in the article about the real Walter is mostly irrelevant. Yes there are probably a lot of similarities but ultimately things have been changed for the TV series. So there still needs to be a source directly relating the fictional Walter with the hacker handle. You may not see the need to contest this but obviously others do. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 15:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The word "Genius" is being thrown around way too much

Particularly in relation to real life people as opposed to characters. O'Brien has never backed up his claims. I'm purging the term from the real life parts but leaving it in the fictional parts. - Richfife (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Notable guest appearances

Recently, a discussion was started about the severe funcruft content at another article concerning the addition of non-notable characters, which made me think about the sectioned titled as "Notable guest appearances". Why is this necessary? What makes these characters "notable"? No other television series lists these characters that have made a single appearance without any major impact on the show. Alex|The|Whovian 03:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the list is not necessary. It doesn't show notability. I removed the latest additions because they were unsourced. What should be done instead is to include these guest actors in the episode summaries on the episodes page. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Scorpion edit warring; Merrik's fate omitted

Removing most of the Info on Merrik

Why remove Merrik's fate if you honestly don't care about it. Sure he was not important as Megan but seriously removing a character's final fate regardless if they are not-important or important just takes away from their whereabouts, and pretend their deaths/departures never happened. I could talk all day but personally enough is enough and I got one final saying to AlextheWhovian and AussieLegend: My Message.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 14:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Waiting for your guys response back.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 00:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

How was i clearly edit warring, all I did was try to change some things because it didn't made sense, but because of a previous scuffle, you come back at me with this attitude saying I was edit warring? I'm sorry but clearly edit warring happens If i continue reverting it minutes to hours for no end at any user, but did I edit warring for the last hour no I did not. Lastly

I have answered you already on my talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Forget the beginning portion and what I wrote on the talk pages, I already removed it already, I just asked why did you and AlextheWhovian are so reluctant and continue to revert the changes I put in regarding Merrik?--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 05:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Please do not change your posts after they have been replied to. See WP:TPG for more information regarding how to properly redact content. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Already did that, now both you and Alex still haven't respond back to my question regarding Merrik?--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 20:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

As Alex indicated in his edit summary, there are too many plot points, and too much episode specific content for a recurring character in this article. Your edits made Merrick's entry longer than any other recurring character and much longer than most. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay, then I should've left it with just this summary: "Merrick (season 1, guest in season 2), Director of Homeland Security. After the events of season 1, Merrick was demoted and reassigned as Homeland Security's liaison to NASA. He is soon killed in the episode "Da Bomb" during a scuffle Cabe Gallo by pushing him off the platform while attempting to blow up a Rocket". Or how do you want it to be like?--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

AlextheWhovian how was I affecting the three revert rule, that happened on July 24 and today is July 30 so that is still invalid as part of the three revert rule 24/7!!--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 02:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, though, you don't need to ask the same question in three places. I placed the correct template on your talk page, as well as an explanation. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

And why is that, all I did was add in a brief summary on what happened to Merrick on the characters page before YOU removed the information, besides it would not make sense to ignore his death saying that it NEVER happened. Lastly, I do not appreciate when you send me a message saying I was edit warring once again which you continue to argue with me all the time seriously this is going back to what happened last Sunday.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 02:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

You're edit warring by forcing the content in the face of this discussion. It doesn't matter when you do it, it's still edit warring. And by removing my explanation on your talk page, it's obvious that you don't wish to discuss it in a civilized manner. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I still want to discuss this but I rather would preferred if it was on this talk page and not my own because you continue to argue with me that I continue to edit war. I also want to put in an explanation as to what happened to Merrick because some people might think the character is not dead. Please all I did was to keep the sentence short without adding plot details from the episode when he died!!!

Please sign your talk posts and indent your replies properly. The discussion on your talk page was for your actions of edit-warring, and not this particular discussion. You've got this entire section full of reasons as to why it's not needed. We are not a fan-Wikia to list whether characters are alive or dead. We're an encyclopedia of sourced content. And yes - you are edit warring, simply as that. Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Yet Megan and Molina's fate were put in so why can't Merrick, and incase you noticed the "; Merrick's fate omitted" represented it was also going to be talked about besides the edit warring, personally I think it would've been better to if their was a list of characters of Scorpion page on the list, besides I don't agree with you on removing Merrick's information, besides Megan's death was included and yet that is included along with Molina not interacting with Scorpion after the events of "Fish Fillet". Say whatever you want but I do not agree that YOU had to remove the info on Merrick and continue to argue that I am violating beyond the three revert rule..--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Character Descriptions

Cleaned up and shortened the character descriptions, tried to stick to relevant facts, and remove the 'in-universe' perspective.TheBigFish (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

The trimming of the character descriptions is valid enough, but I'm not sure that the synopsis had to trimmed down to a mere forty words. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough; got a little carried away with that, and wasn't sure quite how to expand it. UPDATE: added a little more 'meat' back into the synopsis; would appreciate any thoughts that anyone has.TheBigFish (talk) 03:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Much better, yeah. At least it's not one of those that has separate paragraphs to detail the entire plots of each season. Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Season Three Episode Order Increased to 25

It was reported in mid-November 2016 by SpoilerTV that CBS has ordered an additional episode for the third season of Scorpion, meaning that the season will now have 25 episodes. The info for Scorpion's page on The Futon Critic has already been changed to reflect this. Jim856796 (talk) 05:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

SpoilerTV is and will always remain an unreliable source. However, if Futon has updated to reflect this information, then it is valid. Alex|The|Whovian^? 10:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Scorpion (TV series)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Scorpion (TV series)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Futon":

From The Big Bang Theory: "Shows A-Z – big bang theory, the on cbs". The Futon Critic. Retrieved May 18, 2016.
From Big Brother (U.S. TV series): "CBS.com: The Ultimate Destination for 'Big Brother 6'" (CBS press release). The Futon Critic. July 6, 2005. Retrieved 2008-04-04.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Scorpion (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Seems that the "Error" section is needed

Seems that the "Error" section is needed. For Pete's sake, how could be a century-old conflict between Belarus, Lithuania and Latvia, if none of this countries even exist in XIX century?! They all were the parts of Russian Empire! Fonzeppelin (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

You do realise that this is fiction don't you? Fiction doesn't have to follow the rules of the real world. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I realise, that the cast of the series didn't bother themselves even with looking into Wiki. "Let's write some story about Eastern European - they are strange, exotic svages, the yankee viewers would be interested in strange east-europe castoms and traditions". Why don't they make something about the ancient feud between Duke of Washington and Holy Michiganese Empire, started, say, in 1100 A.D.? Started when the heir of Duke was biten by the poisonious cangaroo? Because they definitely knew, that the main audience would stare in disbelieve and roared: "what's the nonsense they show us?! Fonzeppelin (talk) 07:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia discussion pages are not public forums to discuss one's issues with the events of the series; they are places to discuss editing issues with the article in question. Alex|The|Whovian 07:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Just because the countries didn't exist doesn't mean that there can't be disagreements between the people living in those places, including arguments over just where the boundary is or how natural resources are distributed and/or shared. JDZeff (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The geography might be bad, but the science is pretty bad, too. You just have to laugh along with it. Gah4 (talk) 09:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

This series needs an disclaimer or at least a mention of it using a lot of bogus science, since it is all about science and they make it appear to be genuine to the point that numerous newpapers and even science teacher associations published about itOtter3 (talk) 14:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)::

Often enough it isn't completely bogus, but bad for some other reason. It might be that something could work, but the probability is so small, and the risks with failure are big, but they try, and amazingly it works out! Radio signals that manage to reach way too far, even from underground or underwater? Things like that. Gah4 (talk) 01:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

They tend to mix 3 sorts of approaches without giving the viewer a way to notice the difference. Correct science and actual issues. Such as plastic waste in the sea. It is great that they educate us about it. Incredibly far fetched science that still has a foundation in real live such as wurms eating plastic. There are some caterpillars that will eat some plastic if they would otherwise starve, but there is no way that they will devour heaps of plastic that fast or would even survive in sea. Not sure how I feel about this but it is still somewhat educational I guess. They also mix in facts and claims that are just dead wrong but are often somehow in line with popular belief such as the usage of outdated and harmful ecological theories and the common misconception that Plutonium is used in commercial nuclear power plants. It would somehow be better if all of it was just plain wrong or nonsensical technobabble for the danger in this approach is that the viewer can't always clearly differentiate between those categories. ::::: Otter3 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

All entirely original research, which per WP:OR, is not allowed. This is also not a forum to discuss your personal beliefs; see WP:NOTAFORUM. These policies and guidelines do apply to you as well as everyone else. -- Alex^TW 07:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Lets back this up with some sources then. Yes plastic soup is an issue its real -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_garbage_patch However the way the show portraits it is misleading and risks supporting a common believe see also the wiki article. On the caterpillars yes there are some caterpillars who try to eat plastic if they are starving but it is unclear if they just cut it down to smaller pieces or actually digest the stuff. -> http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(17)30862-X?_returnURL=http%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS096098221730862X%3Fshowall%3Dtrue However the series goes into great lengths to explain that they do not only digest the stuff and thus solving the plastic problem in a harmless manner but they also make it seem like they can do it fast in inhospitable field conditions. On the ecology part in a previous episode they mentioned and used the outdated theory of Clements that has been out of grace for a while since its shortcomings have contributed to creating the great dust bowl. -> http://www.encyclopedia.com/people/science-and-technology/horticulture-biographies/frederic-edward-clements The negative reviews this show gets that can be contributed to its scientific inaccuracy isn't a personal opinion of mine it is something that can be seen. This show tends to annoy a portion of those with a scientific background and they have vocalised it on the web and some newspapers this should be addressed in the reception part of this article for it is one of the major points of critique this show is getting (the other point point of critique is stigmatizing scientists / nerds -> https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/tvandradioblog/2014/oct/23/scorpion-tv-show-nerds-stereotypes ) However I do recognize that my attempt is far from perfect and feel free to address it in a more appropriate manner Otter3 (talk) :::::: —Preceding undated comment added 08:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

For starters, Wikipedia cannot reference itself. And I'm lost in all of this fancruft, at least, that's what it looks like. A lot of long words and explanations with very little meaning behind it. People can voice what they want, but if it has no relation or effect on the show, then Wikipedia doesn't include it. We're not here to gather the opinions on every Tom, Dick and Harry. Yes, if it does get addressed, it does mean to be in a more professional manner, and not this mess I see on this page. -- Alex^TW 10:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

On the plastic soup, plastic soup is in contrary to popular believe not a nicely formed island of plastic that with the help of some magical binding agent can be walked on and easily taken care of like the show likes us to believe. It is in fact a very serious environmental issue that endangers many keystone species in the effected area's and is nearly impossible to solve due to its non-island-like properties. I agree there are better sources to validate this claim here is one -> https://response.restoration.noaa.gov/about/media/how-big-great-pacific-garbage-patch-science-vs-myth.html , and here is an other one -> https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/07/ocean-plastic-patch-south-pacific-spd/ My other references where from outside of wikipedia. These are not just some opinions or fancruft of some dudes, this show is actively spreading bad science and strengthening flawed popular believe in a form that makes it look believable and it gets a lot of negative reviews for it from a significant portion of the audience including some serious media. While this does not seem to affect the show that much it is a significant reception of the public and an informative fact about this show Otter3 (talk) 11:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC) ::::::::

Yep. Exactly as I said - a bunch of fancruft unrelated to this series. This is not a documentary. Every series has a bunch of make-believe. Unless this series is affecting the real world, it doesn't belong here. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 11:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Every series has a some make believes, however it isn't usually brought in a form that looks to be educational, nor does it usually result is so many strong negative reactions from serious media. For example we all know starwars is mostly made up, and there are sites out there that will point this out for you but those responses are usually restricted to mithbusters, fansites or niche youtubers. In the case of scorpion its actual newspapers, science blogs and teacher associations who comment on it that would normally not be this outspoken about starwars or mad max Otter3 (talk) 12:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)::::::::::

That's your personal belief on how the content is brought forward - we don't add personal beliefs to articles here. And I've seen a few links from you regarding the level of science, not "so many strong negative reactions from serious media". And yet again (I seem to repeat myself a lot with you) - is any of these reviews having any sort of effect on the series? Is it making the writers reconsider their approach? No? Then it has no place here. -- Alex^TW 12:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

First, note that WP:OR doesn't apply to talk pages, only to the article itself. The fact that some people might believe events on the show should have a reference before it is added to the article. I enjoy watching Star wars movies, but am not bothered at all by the non-science of Darth vaders light saber. Maybe the show should have a disclaimer at the beginning. Gah4 (talk) 09:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Original research can exist everywhere; it just can't be removed from talk pages as it can articles. Disclaimers are not supported by Wikipedia; for example, we don't add spoiler warnings to cast listings or plot summaries. -- Alex^TW 10:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Does the Article need a mention of O'Brien's selfpromotion ?

The real Walter O'Brien runs a company called scorpioncomputerservices and he mentions on his own site that "He became the Executive Producer of the hit CBS-TV drama Scorpion " -> http://scorpioncomputerservices.com/about This exceptional form of self promotion seems to be noteworthy to me, not sure how to address it. Otter3 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

You're really one to talk about promotion, aren't you? From the one that added (and still will not remove) this: "met with fierce resistance form fans who see the show as pure science fiction such as the blogger stevetobak". That's definitely against your views. Please, do continue to provide some more professional content, yeah? -- Alex^TW 10:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I am learning to improve my content and others are free to improve it. But I fail to see how this has anything to do with if we should or should not include a mention of O'Brien's selfpromotion Otter3 (talk) 11:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Because you need to learn what you're preaching before you tell others do to the same. -- Alex^TW 11:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I fail to see how that applies to this piece. Its just a question if we should mention it or not, it does not have anything to do with our personal lives, but lets go back on topic do you think that it deserves a notion ? Otter3 (talk) :::

Agreed focus on the content not the editor. As for self promotion, O'Brien has been upfront about it, as quoted in the Walter O' Brien article it was a way of promoting the company (see first sentence of CBS section). This is sourced and probably should be part of the article. -- GreenC 13:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Editors definitely needs to focus on themselves and work out whether they're here to contribute or force an agenda. Anyways, we digress. What you state was to promote his company, not himself. Hence, not self-promotion. And if that line were to be added to this article, then it would need to be added into a fully developed Development section, not just a one-line section. -- Alex^TW 13:34, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Is the use of bad science in the series trivial for its Public Reception or sould it be mentioned ?

The part of the Wiki article about reception of the TV series Scorpion in my opinion lacked one of the core reasons for its mixed reception: its bad science. Am I wrong to believe this, and is this really something trivial?

Here are the top review of the series on IMDB http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3514324/reviews?ref_=tt_urv

Here is Gizmodo's review of the show https://gizmodo.com/scorpion-returns-to-bring-us-more-of-the-worst-tech-plo-1732464504

And the NSTA's article on how to respond on the show. http://www.nsta.org/publications/news/story.aspx?id=60166 Notice that there are also some earlier discussion about on similar topics on this talk page.

What is the best form how to address it if it isn't trivial ? Otter3 (talk)

It has bad science. And? How does this help the reader further understand the development of the series? It doesn't. For started, IMDb is not a reliable source, see WP:CITINGIMDB. Yes, something can be added to the Reception section about a few critic's view on the science, but it does not need a separate article.

What has been added is an unencyclopedic entry that breaks the article into something unable to be read. "This angered and continues to anger lot of viewers with a science background" And? What are their credentials? How do they affect the television series? They don't, so that has no place in being added.

"fierce resistance form fans who see the show as pure science fiction such as the blogger stevetobak" Pure advertising of some random blogger that is not related to the series in any way, none of these fans have any relation or credentials related to the series, yet again, and nothing resulted from any of this, so they have no place in being mentioned.

"The same pattern is to be seen in the IMDB user reviews of the show" See what I said before about IMDb. Wikipedia's television articles, per the consensus of the Television WikiProject, does not include user reviews for the series; we list only critical reception from critics.

"National Science Teachers Association wrote a piece about how to best handle its bad science in the classroom." In what classroom? How was this directly integrated into the curriculum? Which curriculum, which country? What result did this directly have on the series? Was it cancelled? Was the writing and/or direction changed because of it? No? Then, again, no place for it.

That covers pretty much every entry into what you've added. Your personal belief is not what runs this article or this website, just as this applies to every other editor here. You are not above the rules, and hence, you need to self-revert your edit until your disputed content can be agreed upon. Simply because you think you are right, that does not mean that you have a right to own this article. Disputed content gets remove until a consensus can be formed. -- Alex^TW 07:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I do agree with you that the form of it all could be greatly improved, but the response this show got to its flawed and often misleading scientific claims is real, and it does contribute towards a large portion of the negative reviews the show gets. This isn't just my personal believe both its scientific inaccuracy as the flak it gets for it can be seen online. Do you have a good suggestion on how to handle this, what would be better sources for it and perhaps merge the solution with the errors discussion ? Otter3 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I noticed you didn't answer a single question that I posed to you. So, clearly you understand how utter tripe your contribution was and still is. Add any negative reviews into the proper reception section, but remember to retain a neutral point of view, per WP:NPOV (another policy that you are not exempt from). I recommend removing the offending content again, until you can provide a better example of what to add. -- Alex^TW 10:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I edited the piece to protrait a more neutral vieuwpoint that doesn't mention any of the sources in the text Otter3 (talk) 11:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC) :::

Literally every one of my points still stands, and you refuse to answer them. Is that a hint of knowing I'm right? -- Alex^TW 12:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

It seems that some people don't understand that this show is fiction and in fiction, anything can happen and, in this series, it does all the time. For the record, I agree with Alex. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I completely agree that it is fiction, and that viewers should know that. Note, though, that at least one Star Wars movie has a All persons fictitious disclaimer even though that should be pretty obvious. I suspect that a few people might believe more of Scorpion than they should. Maybe Walter should pull out a lightsaber sometime, so it would be obvious to all. Gah4 (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The all persons fictitious disclaimer is something added to the media itself; it's not a guideline for a Wikipedia article. -- Alex^TW 01:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes. And I am suggesting that maybe the show should have one. And yes, that probably doesn't need to go into the article, but doesn't seem so far off to discuss here. We should realize, though, that since (as far as I know) the show doesn't have one, we (WP editors) should not be surprised if viewers mix up fact and fiction. It might be, then, that the article should help them. Gah4 (talk) 01:29, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

We can suggest that one be added to the media itself as much as we want, but nothing will happen. As for the article, we have nothing supporting the statement of viewers mixing up fact and fiction, and no other television series article has required any form of disclaimer in the many years that Wikipedia has been running, so we don't need one here either. -- Alex^TW 01:34, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

And, of course, there is WP:NODISCLAIMERS that tells us we shouldn't include a disclaimer in the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)