Jump to content

Talk:Robert C. Martin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Robert Cecil Martin)

Requested move 2 November 2017

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Cecil Martin → Robert C. Martin – He is never known by his full middle name. His books are all labelled "Robert C. Martin" cagliost (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Views on social justice

[edit]

Martin has outspoken views (both positive & negative) on the social justice movement in tech. Are they worth including in the article? There were a few events, but recently he published this Open Letter (discussion) to the Linux Foundation. - Sridc (talk) 19:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's his blogpost where he goes over his specific views. - Sridc (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to WP:DUE. We only devote attention to a topic proportionate to what reliable sources give them. You'd have to find reliable and independent sources that discuss Rob's view on this subject. To rephrase, a subject's Wikipedia article is not composed of their personal thoughts, but rather the thoughts of reliable sources on that subject. I could think I'm a swell guy, write a bajillion blog posts and open letters about it, but if most sources say I'm a jerk, Wikipedia has to report that as well to properly represent that. Opencooper (talk) 02:25, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I came to wikipedia to find information surrounding the controversy (I remembered he had controversial views, but could not remember what they may be or the circumstances around them), and came to the talk page to see if the information was here instead. --180.150.38.87 (talk) 01:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lately, an anonymous contributor [105.247.85.35] has revived the topic of social justice in this article, specifically regarding "perceived sexism" by Mr. Martin. The new heading "Social Justice Controversy" consists of one long sentence having six references (versus three regarding his influence on the software industry). Wikipedia's policies are intended to support articles rooted in unbiased facts, not perceptions or interpretations. Remarks or writings from anyone can be perceived in various ways by readers. The citations provided by [105.247.85.35] are intended to support the notion of a "sexism controversy" surrounding Mr. Martin. Who perceives his comments as sexist? (one citation refers to an editorial in this regard) How are his comments controversial and what is the scale of the alleged controversy? Controversies can be imagined about most anything. For instance, if Mr. Martin mentions Flat Earth concepts in an article or a speech, does that make him a "Flat Earther" or a conspiracy theorist? Does it make him controversial? My reading of the articles cited by [105.247.85.35] have little to do with sexism. Nor do they make a convincing argument about a widespread sexism controversy. As far as I can tell, Martin has made no claims about the inferiority or superiority of women as programmers. Instead, his remarks reflect an advocacy of "free speech" or "free thought" and disdain for those who wish to suppress it. To my mind, there is no dramatic or widespread controversy about his opinions. Whether you view Martin's opinions as "good" or "bad", they have very little relevance in an article about his contributions to the software industry. Megabeing (talk) 11:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

.35 here - There are no perceptions or interpretations. He has been accused of sexism. "Who perceives his comments as sexist?" - the people accusing him obviously. The section about a major event where he was accused, I do not think we should take a stand on if he is sexist or not.

"Mr. Martin mentions Flat Earth concepts in an article or a speech, does that make him a "Flat Earther" - obviously that is not a controversy, but if he has reports written about it and loses work over it, then it becomes one. The key to what is a controversy is not the act, but the reaction. In this case, there was a large reaction to his comments with the fallout to him. "My reading of the articles cited by [105.247.85.35] have little to do with sexism." - is worthless, for as you said we do not do interpretations. Those articles reflect the controversy. "Whether you view Martin's opinions as "good" or "bad", they have very little relevance in an article about his contributions to the software industry." - this is an article about him, all of him, so things which have an impact should be listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.247.85.35 (talk) 07:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how everyone else ended up here, but I just want to know how the mere mention of this person led to a huge debate/flame war on the Factorio subreddit about a month ago (as you can read about in the summary of the incident here. I don't really feel like getting into any deeper here, in the interest of keeping a neutral POV myself. This is above my pay grade as a casual netizen). I'm not sure if that makes it notable enough to be described by Wikipedia, but I think it's worth considering if it can be written in such a way as to not point fingers, and frankly it's at least notable to me. Keeping in mind WP:BLP, and in particular the point about NEUTRALITY, could someone look into this? I would do it, but frankly, I'm a software developer not a political scientist! (edit on 25 July 2021 (UTC): or social scientist, for that matter)--Macks2008 (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC) (Edited 03:18, 24 July 2021 (UTC))[reply]

In case the uncertainty that led me to edit my above message multiple times isn't clear enough, I no longer fully stand by the comment I made. On one hand, I still want to know if there is some grassroots controversy surrounding Martin, as I have an emotional to know what the hell happened to tarnish my opinion of the developer that brought up Martin. On the other hand, however, I am uncertain if it has any relevance to Wikipedia beyond "I came here, didn't find the information I was hoping to find about the topic (namely some reliable sources/citations to base my opinion on), and want someone who's unbiased to add it". For now at least, I'm going to cut myself off here, since I'm fairly certain I have nothing else unbiased to add at the moment that I haven't already said. I know that I know nothing about this.--Macks2008 (talk) 19:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BLP Issues

[edit]

In respect of the controversy section - this seems sourced to three statements on blogs or equivalents. That would not normally be sufficient to include here, there is no third party sourcing of the controversy to establish notability that I can see? I don't see a consensus either way above. I know there is an active de-platforming campaign on at the moment, but again no third party RS -----Snowded TALK 05:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A section about books authored

[edit]

I think a section about the books he has written is important. ShreyasMinocha (talk) 14:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] 

    The References section of the article already lists four books by Martin. At one time, the article
    included a Publications section, but it read more like an advertisement than a biography.
    Megabeing (talk) 13:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Design Principles and Design Patterns

[edit]

I propose to add Design Principles and Design Patterns paper that laid ground for SOLID. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 14:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not verified that Robert Martin is a software engineer

[edit]

New to Wikipedia, sorry if I misinterpreted anything. I made an edit that got reverted, and IIUC you're not supposed to revert a reversion because it starts an edit war. From what I understand, Wikipedia first person accounts are usually frowned on for verifying information. I have been looking for 3 weeks and I have found no third party sources that claim Robert Martin was employed as a software engineer at any company or nonprofit. The citation added was a vague first person tweet. That doesn't seem like a reliable enough source, especially considering how easy it should be to find a reliable third party source for such information. I think it's fair to put the citation needed tag back on the claims that he's a software engineer until it can be verified by a third party source. Instructor, author, and consultant are all verified and IMO don't need additional evidence. EO1912 (talk) 21:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I got verified and verifiable confused. Whether Robert Martin is a software engineer is something verifiable, something that should be very easily verifiable. It however has not yet been verified.

As he's a published author in that field, it seems a straightforward description, whether or not it's a verbatim quote from any secondary sources. Of which there's something of a lack in the article generally -- they're almost entirely primary. Which is OK for bare biography, but does little to establish notability, so more of the former would be better. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 04:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that he's a published author of software design guides, it should be easy to find a source that says where he worked as a software engineer. I think the reason there's no source is that he hasn't worked as a software engineer directly. He learned to code outside of a software job, he's been a manager, and he jumped to consulting. I don't think he has experience as an actual software engineer. Not everyone who's written a book on software has been a software engineer. EO1912 (talk) 20:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Code Characters

[edit]

About: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Robert_C._Martin&oldid=1247166816, →‎Clean code characters: entire section with no sources, no claim of notability, and no effort at encyclopedic tone: removed (@109.255.211.6)

2A01:CB19:9784:2000:2B4D:6BBC:2759:4775 (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, people might be interested many things about him. Like his long-running grandstanding of his deeply regressive political views, for example. But neither of those things appear to be notable, verifiable, or indeed due, as determined by reliable secondary sources. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_C._Martin&oldid=1247375896"