Talk:Dennis Ritchie/Archive 2

Is "found dead" the first thing one needs to know?
Ever since Dennis Ritchie passed away, circa 12 October 2011, there has been a long-running slow-motion edit war over whether the circumstance of being FOUND DEAD should be included in the lead section and infobox. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Details:
 * Note that there is a consensus in the discussion at above that in consequence of that circumstance, described in the body of the article, the exact date on which he died is not known.
 * It has repeatedly been asserted, most recently here and here today, that there is a consensus for prominently mentioning the circumstance of being found dead in the lead section and infobox, but this is not explicit in the discussion above.

In order to clarify or establish a consensus, I am requesting comment on the following proposal:
 * Should we remove information about being "found dead" from the lead section and the infobox, and instead give the date of death as "c. October 12, 2011" in both places?

Some applicable guidelines include Manual of Style/Biographies, Manual of Style/Lead section, and Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. I am making a formal request for comment because my previous suggestion bulleted above was ignored as people continued to focus on uncertainty about the date. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC) 
 * Support because this desultory circumstance has no bearing on any information needed for WP:OPENPARAGRAPH. It is a commonplace situation, and it is not at all common to note it this prominently in Wikipedia articles. Numerous people have remarked, on the talk page and in edit summaries, that this is inappropriate. Featuring it in the lead section and infobox gives the impression of hinting at startling facts (cf. WP:MOSINTRO) that are significant to the person's notability, but this is not the first thing one needs to know about Dennis Ritchie. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Seems reasonable.  MOS:DOB seems clear on this issue. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. A 'circa' is quite adequate. It is not particularly interesting that he passed away alone, and grows less so as the event of his death recedes and his life is more easily seen in better perspective. William Avery (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - as per Ningauble above. Also, for people interested into trivia like this, the circumstances are discussed further down in the article, so we don't need to repeat them in the intro, which should only state and summarize important stuff. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. I've done my share of reverting the changes but only because it did appear we had a consensus, not out of any particular love for the "found dead" notation.  In any event, consensus can certainly change.  I agree that MOS:DOB supports the use of c. (circa).  Msnicki (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

✅ after listing at WP:RFC/BIO for one week without objection. I leave it for someone else to consider moving extensive citations from lead section to article body. Thanks to everyone who commented. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Really much better now, thanks. Sometimes small changes can make a difference. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Why mention Steve Jobs at all?
Why is there a mention of Steve Jobs in this article at all? While the sentence is indeed factual, it is, in my opinion, irrelevant. 2crudedudes (talk) 02:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Because they died around the same time, and the two deaths drew comparisons in the news media. Huihermit (talk) 05:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

A word about honor
This man, as those who ever studied computer science or operating systems knows, deserves our highest praise and honor, and certainly a longer and more detailed page about his ideas and contributions, not merely references. He was the genius who did not get enough praise. Let's not make another Tesla. Is anyone, out there, up for the job? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.103.164.62 (talk) 22:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Section: Views on computing
This section is apocryphal. Some FOSS wingnut trying to put words in a dead man's mouth. Remove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.255.20.188 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 25 August 2015


 * It's from a published interview from 1999. Huihermit (talk) 14:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Nephew
Shall we mention him? https://medium.com/@wilshipley/the-absolutely-true-story-of-a-real-programmer-who-never-learned-c-210e43a1498b#.piwqg431k 78.146.140.77 (talk) 15:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * No. This is pure trivia and may even be completely apocryphal.  Msnicki (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't just mean that particular story, but the person in general. Another article about him here http://www.wired.com/2013/11/twitter-summingbird/ 78.146.140.77 (talk) 16:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * If you can find another WP:RS like that one, that would support notability for Sam Ritchie and we could have an article on him. And at that point, maybe it's worth a mention in this article.  Msnicki (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This is the closest thing that I could find with a quick search. http://www.feld.com/archives/2013/08/old-friends-and-the-intensity-of-an-ultramarathon.html 78.146.140.77 (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Picture
I propose that a different picture is used than the one currently showing on the article. It is not a good portret of Dennis Ritchie, not even in the later part of his life. Perhaps the one that is used in this article is more suiting? https://www.wired.com/2011/10/dennis-ritchie/ or the second one on this biography page? http://ethw.org/Dennis_Ritchie --83.117.104.167 (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)