Talk:Hans Reiser

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Science and Academia (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and academia work group (marked as Low-importance).
WikiProject Linux (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linux on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Crime (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Criminal Biography  
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Criminal Biography, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed library of criminal-related biographical articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject California  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Separation vs Divorce[edit]

Hans Reiser and Nina Reiser never finalized their divorce. I have changed the infobox accordingly. Theacolyte 17:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

(Note for those that are changing it back, please read the article in its entirety before doing so. There are references cited on the page that indicate otherwise. They only started the procedure before Nina disappeared.

Wife's Disappearance[edit]

I agree with this last point of view. These news are not acceptable in a serious encyclopedia! AML—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk)

The disappearance of his wife part is irrelevant to this page, or at least it should be rewritten without the slander thrown around in a divorce trial, "He gave his 4 years old nightmares!!!11ONE!" is fit for a tabloid, not a encyclopedia. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) .

I agree that listing the allegations verbatim is inappropriate, at least for now. I'm going to re-add the links, however, and tone down or eliminate the details of the allegations. Caffeinepuppy 20:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I just saw the current page... it looks like a news blurb. I'd at least take it off until he's either acquitted or convicted. Somehow I doubt it'll even be worth keeping if he's acquitted. Oct11 -smosher
It's completely relevant to Reiser's biography as factual information. 03:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd say it's incredibly relevant given recent events. Incidentally, am I a bad person for worrying that this might cause Reiser4 to be less awesome? --Gwern (contribs) 03:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Totally relevant IMO. However, I do think that "Reiser was arrested on suspicion of her murder" should be changed to "her suspected murder".
From what I've read, Mrs Reiser is still just a missing person. Neftaly 08:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Not a missing person anymore. `Police said Tuesday evening they believe Nina Reiser's disappearance is a homicide and no longer a missing persons case, NBC11's Jodi Hernandez reported. "Nina Reiser was a victim of a homicide and not a missing person," said Officer Ersie Joyner, of Oakland police homicide division.` cited from (danyvip 11:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC))
I agree that this is relevant, but the "undue weight" issue of WP:NPOV is worrying me a little. I think the section on his arrest is reasonable, but it would be great if we could expand the rest of the article some. William Pietri 15:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the details about Namesys could be moved into a new section and expanded a bit, with the appropriate "Main article: ..." link? (It would be rather silly to have more information about Namesys here than on the proper article, though.) Caffeinepuppy 17:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
That seems like a great start to me. Perhaps some content from ReiserFS focused on Hans Reiser would also be good. William Pietri 17:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
So if you murder your wife, we can't talk about it on Wikipedia without balancing it out with a bunch of boring crud about the rest of your life? 19:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
When you are famous and interesting precisely because of that "boring crud" - yes. --Gwern (contribs) 21:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
To - There is no body of Nina Reiser in evidence. A murder is suspected, Hans Reiser is a suspect, and is to be presumed innocent until found guilty. You remember? As such, I find it irritating that 80% of the article is about this alledged murder, while very little is said about his excellent work on journaling filesystems, or his criticism on the Linux kernel maintainers. This article looks like Hans Reiser is a person of public interest mainly because he's a suspect in the murder of a person most of us have never heard about before she went missing. 07:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

His wife seems a bit young to be a " Jewish OB-GYN " as described in the article; in addition, she is not licensed as a doctor in the state of California; so I ask: what makes her a " Jewish OB-GYN"Ovrd 00:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

For one, her mother's last name is "Sharanova", which is a Russified Jewish last name. By Jewish law, if the mother is Jewish, then so are the children. "OB-GYN" -- possibly inaccurate, because several sources claim she's only studying towards it.
I guess Jewish law is no law, except in Israeli probably. Jewish is a religion and one is free to decide his/her own religion, whatever his/her parents'

Citations state that she was an OB/GYN in Russia but was studying to practice in the U.S., she was an OB/GYN in Russia, just not licensed yet in California. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This divorce/murder stuff has NO place in an encyclopedia. This stinks the UK tabloids. Shame...

Murder Discussion Section is Very Biased[edit]

All that is presented is the Oakland PD's side of the case, which looks pretty shaky even when unchallenged. When the facts about the CRX passenger seat removed for weight reduction, the length of the marriage and other items are revealed, it is obvious that Hans is innocent. 03:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia's standards for inclusion, especially WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR. Regards, Nandesuka 03:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the current section does pretty well in neutrally giving the current facts. Readers can and should judge for themselves whether they are convincing or not. --Gwern (contribs) 04:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Nin'as being too young to be the doctor. She was going to start working for Kaizer as a doctor from September 20-th. She disappeared on the 3-d.

Reiser's wife is not listed as a Physician for the state of California; also, it would be close to impossible for a 31 year old to be board certified as an OB-GYN. Ovrd 21:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

That she is a doctor is mentioned in multiple news reports. Doctors in Russia are still doctors. If you've got a better citation saying she isn't a doctor, let us know. I couldn't find the OB/GYN bit in the reports I looked at, so unless somebody has a cite, I wouldn't object to you removing that. William Pietri 22:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
[1] says she was "studying to earn her medical license so she could practice obstetrics and gynecology". In many countries (the UK for example, I dunno about Russia) medical education isn't a postgrad - kids go straight from highschool to medical school. At least in the UK one is a "doctor" yeears before one has fully finished training ([2]_. So it's likely she's officially a doctor (because she's a medical school grad) but isn't a board-certified doctor because, as Ovrd notes and cbs5 confirms, she's not passed the US boards yet. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

it is unlikely that a computer programmer would perform murder. generally speaking.

yes, because it is unlikely that any random person would commit murder.

Nina's Disappearance come of as biased, and there are discrepancies in year of the car. --Motoma 18:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

What officials allege[edit]

Right now the article reads "Officials allege he removed the passenger seat of his 1998 Honda hatchback" - but do they? The cited source for that section ([3]) says the seat is missing, but leaves it at that. Unless another link is much more explicit, it looks like we're inferring that they're saying he disposed of the seat - it might be a reasonable inference, but it's not one we should be making. If all the cited sources say is that the seat is missing, we should just say that ourselves, and leave the inference to the reader. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 09:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of cars, I've seen reports of a 1998 Honda hatchback, and of a 1988 CRX. (The CRX wasn't made in 1998.) I can easily imagine carring duct tape and plastic bags in a 1988 CRX because the rear window gets leaky after 15 years through the brake light fixture. A 1998 is much less likely to leak. Not that this is the right place to discuss that.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) .
Actually, the word you're looking for is "implying", not "inferring" (in inference is a conclusion.) Agreed with the rest of your comment. --Lode Runner 07:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, they're both conclusions. An implication is a conclusion indirectly suggested by the writer. An inference is a conclusion drawn by the reader which cannot be read plainly in the text. Therefore the usage above is correct. -- 03:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

New article[edit]

There's a new article in the San Jose Mercury News that has some good information that goes beyond what we have now. [4] It discusses him in the context of the OSS community. I don't have time to incorporate it now, but I thought I'd mention it. William Pietri 16:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if there's much from there that we can (or at least should) add. The only thing it really gives (that our current sources don't) is the mention of Reiser being a bit spikey in online debates ("It got very political. And Reiser is not the most diplomatic of people"). If we mentioned that, it might be read (by visitors who aren't familiar with the OS community's robust debates) to imply that Reiser has some kind of anger-issues. But OS discussions can generally be rather spikey places, and Reiser is no spikier than Linus or Larry McVoy or others, and a tad less than Theo de Raadt; so I think mentioning that could be a misleading characterisation. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Well said. The only way to enter an OSS (not just operating system) debate is with full body armour and asbestos underwear. Outsiders would not appreciate the tone of the online debates and could easily misunderstand. Robert Brockway 00:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed "suspicion of"[edit]

Even though the news headline that was widely reported included the phrase "suspicion of", this is not a legal concept in the US. Arrest implies a certain legal definition of suspicion. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, so the phrase "arrested on suspicion of" is inane and misleading. It implies that there's a lesser sort of arrest when the evidence is weaker, such a thing does not exist.

I've removed all references to this misleading and potentially POV phrase. Gigs 14:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it doesn't exist? I suppose that you mean that a google search for "arrested on suspicion" finds only incorrect articles.
Unless he has been charged with the murder, he is being held on suspicion. This is in fact done quite frequently with possible suspects where there is a flight risk. Come up with a source before you re-add this to the article.
Remember the policy mentioned at the top of the page: don't say anything that isn't provable on someone's bio page.
-- BillWeiss | Talk 15:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
A clarification on my previous point. Looking at references 11-13 on the article, two of them say that he has been "arrested on suspicion of murder", while one says he has been arrested on charges of murder. These were all updated around the same time (2006/10/10), with the latest (2006/10/11, ref-11) having the former wording.
If you can find reference to a more authoritative source, that would be great.
-- BillWeiss | Talk 15:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Bill, he's been charged with murder, that's verifiable. One isn't arraigned for charges one hasn't been charged with. :) I've also found a citation regarding the mistake of saying "arrested on suspicion of". This pretty much sums it up. In short, yes, all those articles are using misleading phrasing. It is a common mistake. Please correct the article to reflect the proper phrasing. On a personal note, I'm as dissappointed as anyone that such a valuable member of the open source community has fallen to this. I hope Hans is innocent too. We shouldn't let that bias seep into the article though. Gigs 18:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't know enough of the legal language to know about usage of the word "arraigned". Your citation is some guy's blog. A blog about language, yes, but that's not sufficient to make it a reliable source.
Make the change if you like. A reliable citation would be good, but I won't argue it with you.
-- BillWeiss | Talk 22:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
An arraignment is the formal presentation of charges, it's the first hearing where the judge asks how you plead, and it is the time where you'd ask for a public defender if you need one. I know my citation was weak, but arrest, in the US at least, requires probable cause. Probable cause is a stronger standard to meet than the lesser one of "reasonable suspicion", it is instead a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed. Mere reasonable suspicion of a crime isn't a valid grounds for arrest, there must be enough evidence to convince a reasonable person a crime has indeed be committed. This is important, because an improper arrest can invalidate evidence at trial. It also keeps police from going on fishing expeditions, arresting people they merely have a reasonable suspicion of committing a crime. I do not mean this as an attack, only as background information I hope is helpful to cut through journalistic pitfalls such as "arrest on suspicion". Thank you for your reasonable debate and comments. Gigs 01:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm a bit late to the party, but I thought I'd post the relevant California law anyway. The California Penal Code makes a clear distinction between an arrest and a detention. From the Penal Code:
PC 834. An arrest is taking a person into custody, in a case and in the manner authorized by law. An arrest may be made by a peace officer or by a private person. [5]
PC 849.5. In any case in which a person is arrested and released and no accusatory pleading is filed charging him with an offense, any record of arrest of the person shall include a record of release. Thereafter, the arrest shall not be deemed an arrest, but a detention only. [6]
My understanding of PC 849.5 is that an arrest is downgraded to a detention if no charges are filed. I assume this change in wording is designed sidestep certain questions on employment applications and the like. But I am not a lawyer, YMMV, etc. —Ryan 14:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

ELER reference[edit]

The current text about the Everyone Loves Eric Raymond comic fits really badly into the section about "Arrest following wife's disappearance", it is a long mostly chronological series of factual statements sourced from press articles, followed by one factual statement about an appearance in a comic. I'm not certain whether it belongs in the article, but if it does, shouldn't it go in its own section, for example "reaction of Free Software community"? (Although there's not a lot of citable sources about the community's reaction: it's reacted, but no one has written anything summarising the reaction. Maybe I'm missing some sources.) Thayvian 21:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been tempted on several occasions to remove the ELER reference in its entirety, as it just doesn't strike me as a very encyclopedic thing to include on a living person's biography. As a precedent, I couldn't find any external links to political cartoons on Bill Clinton. Caffeinepuppy 22:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I concur. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I also agree that the comic is in poor taste and not fitting of wikipedia. I'd put in a vote for removal ( 00:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC))
IMO, ELER is one instance of the communities reaction. I dont like this particular strip, but it has happened, and it is cited, and as the comic strip is on the commons, it is verifiable. I dont think it can be compared to political cartoons of Bill Clinton as in this instance there is only a single cartoon involving Hans, and that he is in the comic strip demonstrates how important Hans and ReiserFS is to the community. One article that describes the communities response (inc a comment on the size of the slashdot thread) is As suspect, Hans Reiser is hot topic in software world. That said, I would object to directly linking to the slashdot thread, and wouldnt mind if the ELER reference was replaced with a more balanced paragraph describing the effect this event has had on the OSS community. So, the ELER reference has a weak keep from me. Perhaps the section title needs to be broadened, and subsections created. John Vandenberg 23:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've created a Community reaction to arrest and charges section to contain the ELER reference and John Vandenberg's source on the general reaction. It's not a very good section yet, and I'm still dubious about including a paragraph about the ELER comic unless someone publishes an article about the comic strip. Thayvian 09:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Nice work. Would it be more appropriate to say suggesting... instead of which humorously suggested.... Is there a better way of expressing that it was intending to be humorous without injecting POV that it isn't humorous? As I said earlier, I not humoured by this ELER strip which reaks to me of groupthink-come-bad-taste. Sadly, I think it is notable. I'm conflicted. John Vandenberg 10:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe "jokingly suggested" rather than "humorously suggested", or just "joked"? It seems less POV to state that it was a joke than to state that it was actually funny. Thayvian 22:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I prefer "jokingly suggested"/"joked" to humorous, but my first thought was that it sounds like poor English. John Vandenberg 22:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Something else that could do with another wording is the description of that ELER marquee text. Yes, it's now inaccurate, but 'A (now inaccurate) scrolling marquee text following the strip noted that Hans Reiser "has not been termed a suspect in his wife’s disappearance",' strikes me as inelegant phrasing. Do we really need to note that it is now inaccurate. It was a statement made in early October and was correct at the time. Thayvian 01:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it is important to temporally put the strip (October 7) before the arrest (October 10). This allows the reader to see that the "community" was not sitting on the fence -- they either saw him as guilty or/and wanted to point out the flaws in the reasoning of the police. I think this speaks of the importance of Reiser/ReiserFS to the Linux world. However the current text goes about this the long way; a more elegant wording would allow the reader to infer this.
Also, is it worth putting the community response section under the Arrest following wife's disappearance section, so that the {{template:current-section}} applies to it also. John Vandenberg 02:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I really think that the comic is in poor taste and inclusion doesn't add any information to Hans Reiser and really doesn't even
reflect the Software community reaction as far as I can see. I'd vote for removal, or at least put it in a "Trivia" section
along with the SouthPark/Simpsons/InsertMyFavoriteRandomTVShowHere type references. ( 00:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC))

As someone thinks that this topic needs to be discussed any further. Here my POV rant alongside my edit: [7]. Arnomane 10:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I find it very strange that you consider this web comic strip to be not representative of the community. Do you consider yourself to an active part of the community and able to speak for them, or do you have sources that back up your claim ? Have you read all the comments from the slashdot article ? Your use of "Dilbert" for comparison is very odd, as that comic is intended to appeal to a large group of IT people (hence its popularity) but doesnt really represent any of them; ELER is more comparable to Penny Arcade except in this case the comic is specifically about key figures in the open and free source worlds and events related to those people. IMO each strip can be more appropriately called an op-ed piece, as each is about a specific recent event, links to the pertinent background information and then the strip makes a point. Please read our ELER and the references, specifically the one from Gerv who considered it an honour to be used in the webcomic. Please also take a look at the spike on alexa (that will be disproportional due to non-windows clients) and eler lists ELER as the top result and blog posts from people in the community, such as Ryan Russell [8], who understand the jokes-within-jokes. I'll need a bit more time to think of other ways to illustrate my point, but so far you havent provided any to justify removing this content. What you have done is indicate that you have a negative POV of the webcomic and reverted without discussing it first. John Vandenberg 12:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: Furthermore the article was quite some time without this tasteless reference, based on the discussion here and was just readded recently: [9]. Therefore I urge people not to add this once again until they bring up some further points right here on the talk page and until this has been discussed about. Thank you. Arnomane 12:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Wefa removed this without any discussion on 6 February 2007 and I restored it as soon as I noticed. Wefa has only made a 100 edits, and probably thought that the comments by the anon above meant there was consensus to remove. Look I am all for this section to be reworded to be more tasteful (and was involved in reducing the prominence of this section back in October last year) and other useful types of edits, but deleting text because you don't like it, is lying by omission. John Vandenberg 12:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Blabla bla. I really hate people looking at other peoples' edit counter in order to marginalise their points instead of arguing content wise. My point doesn't get any better cause I have some several thousands edits in various Wikipedias and cause I am admin in several Wikimedia projects (of course not en.wikipedia). The article currently is full of voyeurism of some people that have zero clue about Free Software and about the Linux kernel but are just interested in sex & crime. This particular web comic was highly rejected by most of the free software community and are in now way a representing a significant group. Beside that for exampe in Germany this tasteless comic strip is completely unknown and Germans have a huge impact on the free software community. But in contrast the concerns about the future on Reiser file systems were raised by a significant number of people in the Free Software community accross nations and languages. This should give you some relations. Arnomane 00:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I did not marginalise Wefa's point due to them being a new user; I was WP:BOLD and reverted their changes because the person didnt participate in this discussion first. We have already argued content-wise here, so removing this is not warranted without more discussion. I dont mind that you and User:Wefa both were WP:BOLD and deleted the content to test the waters. I was equally bold by reverting it. No need for personal attacks regarding motives. I'm open to discussion or other improvements to the article, but removing all reference to ELER isn't on without consensus. This isn't about sex and crime; it's about current events and relevance of that specific strip. If you look at the Alexa data, Germany is the second highest viewer of this webcomic, and given the spike at the time of this specific comic strip, I am pretty sure that a large number of Germans did see this comic.
If you can find evidence that the strip was rejected by a prominent member of the community (even email works for me), the wording can be radically revised and the importance of the ELER strip can be downplayed. In regards to the concerns about the file-system that arose in the community, I use the FS on my systems too, and am keenly aware of the importance of this. But that aspect is unrelated to the importance of the difficulty that Reiser was have with the other kernel hackers, both in regards to the maintenance of v3 and the merging of v4. In my opinion, the importance of one aspect doesn't invalidate another aspect. Also, if you think there are WP:BLP concerns, raise them here plainly. John Vandenberg 03:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
After a bit of a reactive edit war with an anon IP who chose, for some bizarre reason, to insult me as responsible for the ELER reference (a quick glance at the history shows my contribution to this article is marginal at best) I had a change of heart and decided that I agree with the removal.
My thinking is that I agreed with the removal of the word 'borderline' on the basis that it wasn't attributed, but how could it be when no-one has as of yet found anything attributable concerning this particular comic about Reiser. Unless anyone can find a reliable source to cite about this, I think the material fails notability requirements.
SeanLegassick 13:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
There are no reliable sources about this particular strip, probably because nobody would go near it for fear of being caught in a controversy. If this wasnt a BLP, I would stick to my guns about this fact not needing a secondary secondary as I consider the link to the strip to be a primary source, which are allowed normally when there are already substantial secondary sources. As I mentioned in my last comment before the edit war, I thought there may be BLP issues; when you finally deleted this factoid in memorable fashion, I decided this was best left as we have had enough BLP issues recently, and the general consensus appears to be that all facts on a BLP must be covered by secondary sources, in part due to "undue weight" concerns. John Vandenberg 09:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Psycho picture[edit]

Could we get a picture that doesn't make him look like a out of work 80s actor? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 05:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

He does look like a psycho from his picture in court:
  • This is the highest quality photo I could find, and while a bit out-of-date, is is well photographed and was put up on Reiser's resumé site, so presumably he was satisfied with its artistic merits. --Dgies 22:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
How about using the picture from the german version? (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Article is unbalanced and too long[edit]

Let's get a little more on his career, and lose some of the waffle about his wife's disappearance. --kingboyk 13:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

What about this: Temporary move the article about the trial of Hans Reiser out of his biography and merge it back in when the result is set. Of course the judge's decision will be controversial nevertheless which decision they will make but it will be easier to deal with it when something is final. It's buzzin' my head that there could be an inbalance between a charged (not ruled) murder and a contribution to the free software world whose importance can not be estimated at this point (From recent developments there are good chances ReiserFS (Version 4) will stay a niched, unfinished product and Version 5 and 6 and whatever will not and/or never arrive). This is all too vague and seems unworthy of the term "biography" to me. -- 13:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I share your concerns, you just put it a little more eloquently than me :) --kingboyk 13:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Hans contribution to the free world is covered in ReiserFS and Reiser4, but this article could be expanded greatly in that regard. There are some earlier "Hans Reiser" news archive results that could be used to expand it, but as you can see from the result from 2006 onwards, he is most notable to the rest of the world due to this trial. As a result, I dont agree the trial should be split off until this article is expanded to be a bio. i.e. expand the article first and then we can separate the trial into its own article. WorldCat and Google Scholar may be of use. John Vandenberg 01:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Guilty or not, this is one of the most insane cases involving a famous defendant that I've ever seen. Even if his mail-order Russian bride (the alleged victim) didn't have ties to the Russian mafia or Russian spy agencies (as Reiser's lawyer alleges--and to be fair, perhaps the Russian mafia DOES control the mail order bride industry), she still dated a confessed serial killer... and this affair was a primary reason for the divorce with Hans! And she managed to get both her children Russian citizenship without her husband finding out... the son's citizenship was obtained a mere two months before she disappeared. And now both children are in Russia and (apparently) aren't ever coming back--even though Han's was supposed to be with them around the time Nina was killed (and thus, they could be alibi witnesses.)
And don't think I'm unbiased--Hans' behaved extremely suspiciously too, what with the crap with the car and his generally antisocial philosophies/outlook/behavior.
All in all reads like a Law and Order script pounded out after some heavy drinking (and possibly shrooming.) I'm not dismissing the importance of ReiserFS, but *damn*... You might as well argue that O.J. Simpson's article shouldn't be more than 50% about the alleged murder. Hell, O.J.'s case was positively boring by comparison. In this case, I'm not at all sure that Hans did it... in fact, given the extremely suspicious/convenient disappearance of the kids (...and lack of a body), I'm not at all sure that a murder was even committed.

--Lode Runner 07:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It's been over a year since John Vandenberg suggested that we wait for more content on the trial before separating the murder/trial details into its own article. Now that the trial is complete and the body found, and the article heavily expanded to discuss the details of the murder, I argue that we should take that large amount of content into its own article. -- bkuhn 02:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This section was removed. WHY?[edit]

This section was removed by BANDITS/VANDELS/JEWS,... why?

Hans Reiser, a technical genius, is the main developer of the Reiser3 (ReiserFS) and Reiser4 filesystems.

Reiser3 was an advanced filesystem, in its time, but is beginning to show its age.

Reiser4, the replacement Reiser3, is truly cutting edge, an outstanding filesystem.

To get some idea of how good Reiser4 really is, you should consider the following test results. The first column names the filesystem tested. The second column records the total time (in seconds) it took to run the filesystem benchmarking software bonnie++ (Version 1.93c). The third column records the total number of megabytes needed to store 655 megabytes of raw data.

SMALLER is better.

REISER4 (lzo) 1,938 278
REISER4 (gzip) 2,295 213
REISER4 3,462 692
EXT2 4,092 816
JFS 4,225 806
EXT4 4,408 816
EXT3 4,421 816
XFS 4,625 799
REISER3 6,178 793
FAT32 12,342 988
NTFS-3g >10,414 772

Each test was preformed 5 times and the average value recorded. SMALLER is better.

The bonnie++ tests were preformed, with the following parameters:

bonnie++ -n128:128k:0

More on the tests can be found here: or here.

The above site provides a script, so that you can check these results for yourself.

It was removed because it has nothing to do with Hans Reiser as a person. It might belong at ReiserFS; however, it's heavily biased (please read WP:NPOV) and contains much more information that necessary. Moreover, the page you're citing claims that Hans Reiser has been imprisoned because Reiser4 performs too well - this is more or less the antithesis of a reliable source. Zetawoof(ζ) 05:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw this spam on several kernel/linux related mailing lists where, due to the annoying poster, eventually even better known kernel developers started calling this person a troll. Best to ignore that person. 05:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

One set of numbers, even if they're true, doesn't prove how "good" a file system is. Some file systems are good for many small files, like ReiserFS, and other file systems are better with fewer, larger files. File systems can always be optimized for special cases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

What is your problem? Are you unable to read?

It is a pity you did not bother to read the article in question, as it has 5 sets of "numbers" by 3 different people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


I was about to add recent developments on the case when I realised that all mention of Sturgeon has been removed. So instead, here is the text for others to consider.

Four days prior to the trial date, Wired reported that Sean Sturgeon had confessed to killing eight, and possibly nine, people unrelated to the case. The court had ordered the prosecution to divulge this information, and gagged all attorneys from discussing Sturgeon.
Joshua Davis (May 3, 2007). "Reiser Prosecution Jolt: Victim's Ex-Lover Confesses to Eight Killings". Wired. Retrieved 2007-05-05. 

There is no need to include this just yet anyway, as more information will be available in a few days. John Vandenberg 14:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Possibility she's still alive?[edit]

I'm not being a Hans apologist and I don't have a problem with the way the rest of the article is written, but I think this is worthy of mention... and it's supported by source [21]:

Nina Reiser obtained Russian citizenship for her daughter two years ago and did the same for her son in July, two months before she disappeared, Du Bois said, noting that Russia doesn't recognize dual citizenship.

"I think the clear implication is that she might have had something to do with this," Du Bois said. "Maybe she was planning to take the kids to Russia and leave her husband here in jail."

Du Bois said he planned to file briefs to the judge arguing that the case against his client is weak because Nina Reiser's body hasn't been found.

I'm not saying this did or did not happen. Certainly, there is ample evidence against Hans, but come on... she got her son Russian citizenship TWO MONTHS before she disappeared? And now the children are in Russia, quite possibly never to set foot in the USA again? Granted, this plan of hers could be a motive for murder if Hans discovered it, but on the other hand one must consider the possibility that disappearing was simply part of that plan... if she *is* alive and well in Russia, it certainly worked out perfectly for her...

But my opinion of this is irrelevant. The fact is, Hans' attorney is apparently using this as a defense, so it definitely bears mentioning in the article. --Lode Runner 17:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added a brief summary of Du Bois's implication. It's not a word-for-word quote, but it seems clear to me what he was implying. It seemed sensible to combine it with the "Other suspects" section, which I've relabeled "Other theories." --Lode Runner 17:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The word "surreptitiously" should be removed from Nina "surreptitiously receiving Russian citizenship" for the children. The source cited says nothing about it being surreptitious. That's a matter of opinion, and a biased point of view.

I've removed it. You could have done so yourself, unless you're an involved party.-gadfium 23:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Wife's maiden name[edit]

Anybody know her maiden name? A quick googling around didn't find it for me. Her maiden name would be a relevant, if not significant, piece of info for this article, IMO. --Wernher 19:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Sharanova --Mperry (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


The photo link seems to be missing. Also Wired published an article that said Nina was a "Russian Bride". Maybe should be mentioned here.

An admin didn't like my fair use rationale so deleted the photo. As for Nina being a mail order bride, that's debatable in my opinion, due to the way it was worded. --Android Mouse 21:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
As a personal anecdote, I would note that the Wired article blatantly missed the whole issue of Hans spending quite a bit of time in Russia running a team of software engineers. While he may have found Nina through some sort of dating/matchmaking service, to call this a mail order bride is really mis-characterizing the whole issue and does not belong in the article. Hans knows how to speak Russian, fluently, and did not have problems spending quite a bit of time in Moscow himself. How and where Hans picked up the Russian in the first place is another issue, but he can speak the language. This is not your typical geek desperate for a bride and sends for a mail order bride from Russia. --Robert Horning 00:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
You should add that to the article. I had no idea Hans spoke Russian, or that he lived in Moscow. 15:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
From the ABC News interview[10]: "Reiser went to Russia looking for cheap labor for his computer business, and a bride. A dating service arranged a meeting at a café in St. Petersburg, but Reiser didn't fall for his date -- he liked the woman who came along to translate." Chris Bainbridge 18:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Hans definitely was unable to speak Russian with any degree of fluency. After several years in Moscow, his language was enough for a shopping, but not a wooing. Nina, of the other hand, spoke perfect English. nikita (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

up-to-date facts?[edit]

Why does the story end to December 2006? Trials are still going on? Is Reiser still prosecuted or what; wasn't he let go for the lack of evidence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigmundur (talkcontribs) 21:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll add here that the reason why not much is being written about the trial is largely due to the American judicial system, and the fact that any comments by Hans or even those close to him at this point in time would largely damage any defense he has prior to the trial itself. Yes, he is being prosecuted, and is currently spending his time nearly in solitary confinement, preventing him from even doing the most mundane architectural theory on the design of any upcoming project he is working on.
So ultimately, the point is that you won't hear anything until the actual trial begins. I don't expect this trial to be hugely drawn out like the O.J. Simpson murder trial, but the prosecution does seem to be seeking a political vehicle through the prosecution of this case. If Hans is convicted, it will be major news, but I'm not so sure about what an acquittal would bring, as the life that Hans knew before hand is largely over. --Robert Horning 14:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know Nina's birthyear? The summary on the top right lists her as Nina Reiser (1999–2006). I think she was more than seven years old at time of death. (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

“Hans Reiser” pronunciation[edit]

How is his name pronounced? In German, or in English somehow? --AVRS 20:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hans is an American, and so is his father. His great-grandfather (his father's maternal grandfather) was a U.S. Senator from Iowa in the 1950's. So the pronunciation is mostly garbled Americanisms that are neither German nor English, to be honest. I am a close friend of Hans' father, and have talked extensively about the court case as well as his work on Linux. I don't know the formal phonetic rules, but Hans is pronounced as "Haaaans" with a ahh for a vowel, and Reiser to be pronounced like stair riser--- a hard "I" for a vowel. I hope this helps. --Robert Horning 13:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
That sounds like German with non-English sounds replaced? At least it would be transcribed the same in Russian. Thanks! --AVRS 15:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, English speaking people trying to correctly pronounce foreign languages is a pretty hopeless case because of the English multiambiguous spelling system. A german would pronounce it [IPA: haːns ʁa͡ızəʁ], or more rarely [IPA: haːns ra͡ızər], which is not too far from "Haahns Riser" [IPA: hɑːns ɹa͡ısɚː]. A German would probably recognize it. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 10:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

(random heading for non-spelling topic)[edit]

(inserted for readability ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 10:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC))

Does anyone have any information about the anti-semite conspiracy theories on this page - ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The only info I have on it is that the same kook, I mean contributor, likes to blog on, and is almost certainly (99.9%) the same person who included the ReiserFS benchmarks on this page. He seems to have a fascination with ReiserFS, and Jewish global conspiracy theories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Threat Level blog[edit]

Eaefremov (talk · contribs) has three times removed the link to [11], but this is almost certainly the single most detailed account of the trial available online. Our external links policy says not to link to blogs except those written by a recognized authority. This is one of those blogs. Threat level is written by a small group of journalists at Wired magazine.-gadfium 01:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I support including the wired blog in this article, and feel that removing these links on the basis that it is a unverified blog is simply out of order. There are some blogs that are incredibly informative and are written in such a manner that they are a primary information source. Clearly this is the case with the Wired blogs, and I whole heartedly agree that removal of these links is tantamount to vandalism. Editors who get into a self-righteous edit dispute to remove these links should be treated as common vandals unless they are engaging in this discussion. --Robert Horning (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I also support including the Wired Threat Level "blog". The external links policy is, as with most Wikipedia policies, a guideline, and in this case it is clear the word "blog" is having too much read in to it: Threat Level is written by recognized Wired journalists, to the same standard as the rest of Wired Magazine, and is in a blog format because it is most appropriate for coverage of an event that is on-going, not because it is informal or an opinion piece. This is very definitely one of those cases where the blog should be linked to, the article is poorer for not including the link. --Squiggleslash (talk) 14:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Fine, I read up on Wikipedia:External links and I see how this blog is appropriate. The objection I had to it was invalid. I still don't think that Wired magazine is as recognized an authority on the subject of murder trials as others do, but I recognize consensus when I see it. EAE (Holla!) 17:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sale of Namesys[edit]

I know this isn't the most reliable of source (or at least my credentials may be considered dubious), but I just had a telephone discussion with Ramon Reiser regarding Namesys and its future. The gist of the conversation was that Hans was intending to keep the company at least until the sentencing occurs and perhaps after that. Apparently there were a couple of half-hearted offers to buy the company, but they view Namesys now as a "tainted product" and are really just trying to buy up the company for pennies on the dollar.

This is an awful situation for the employees of the company (there are a few still working on Reiser4), and regardless of the outcome, even an acquittal, it is going to be a long road to even get back to where they were before Hans' arrest. I hope that regardless of what happens in relation to Hans, that they can get back to writing the file system that has made Namesys famous.

I don't know how to cite this properly, as it was just a telephone conversation, but I consider the source to be rock solid reliable (Hans' father) and relevant to this article. --Robert Horning (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm no policy expert, but I don't think that can be added to the article. As the first line of Wikipedia:Verifiability says, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". But posting the info here wasn't in vain - this info can provide useful hints to wikipedians who want to search for some verifiable sources for this or similar info. --Gronky (talk) 15:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, this can be verified.... I suppose that you could search the State of California registry of corporations (Namesys is a California corporation) to find out who the owners/majority shareholders are. It is also a simple statement of fact... which lends itself to verifiability. This is also why I'm including this more lengthy explanation here on the talk page to see if, perhaps, somebody with either access or knowledge of such databases might be able to confirm this bit of knowledge independently.
As currently written, this article seems to imply that Namesys has already been sold and is no longer associated with Hans. I'm just noting here that it is in fact quite the opposite and that Hans does intend to continue his work with Namesys if his name can somehow be cleared with regards to Nina's death/disappearance. Even as close as I am to Hans, I really don't know with 100% certainty that he is guilty/innocent and I'm not sure I'll ever know until either I or somebody else spots Nina in some fashion. I like Hans quite a bit, and I admire his work. What is disturbing to me in the whole mess is not even so much what they are doing to Hans (which is really opening my eyes in a negative light to the American judicial system), but how all of this is affecting those around him. --Robert Horning (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

loose citations[edit]

The following citations were found wandering around aimlessly below the "external links" section:

They should be placed inline near the facts they support, or left out altogether. EAE (Holla!) 07:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that they should be removed... as they are completely relevant to Hans and the topic of this article. Improving the article by using these primary sources of information to support specific factual statements with specific references would be useful, but I don't understand why they should be questioned as unreliable sources of information. Not everybody who edits Wikipedia is up to the standards you are trying to enforce here, and an "external links" section is a very legitimate method of suggesting responsible bits of additional information not directly addressed in the article. Please don't throw out useful information, even if it doesn't quite meet with your standards of excellence. --Robert Horning (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
It may be true that these sources can be used to support specific factual statements, but it seems that's not what they were being used for. The complaint, however, is that they were present 'aimlessly below the "external links"'. To add them to specific statments, please include them in ref tags <ref>CITE GOES HERE</ref> at the end of the statement they support. --Gronky (talk) 11:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Sturgeon Theory[edit]

The Sturgeon theory should probably be re-written if it is to be left in the article because as it stands now it looks like original research. Opinions? Switzpaw (talk) 05:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems well referenced. This is clearly a theory which has been presented in the trial. What part of it do you believe to be original research?-gadfium 06:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:SYN says Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research.. The Sturgeon theory paragraph is pieced together from facts given during the trial. There is no mention of the gag order preventing attorneys from discussing Sturgeon in front of the jury. I believe this theory is notable, but it should either be presented in the context of what Reiser has said to the media, what Reiser's attorney has said during the trial, or speculation presented by a notable, attributable source. Switzpaw (talk) 06:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I added a line with respect to Reiser's attorney bringing up the Sturgeon theory. Switzpaw (talk) 06:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


Verdict is guilty of 1st degree murder. Argel1200 (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Added the "Reiser juror: Never showed sympathy for Nina" link to the above list. Argel1200 (talk) 17:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I updated the article with a link to Henry Lee's article (Jury finds Oakland father guilty of estranged wife's death). Placement and details could be better of course but it will suffice for now. Argel1200 (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

What does "25 years to life" mean? Minimum period is 25 years, but he might be imprisoned for life? --Kjoonlee 11:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, parole could be possible after 25 years. I see. --Kjoonlee 11:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Kjoonlee for clearing that up! I'll put in a link. Please people, bear in mind, not everyone reading the english wikipedia knows figures of speech singularly applicable in the USA. --BjKa (talk) 08:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Nina Reiser murdered or not[edit]

The law is sometimes incongruous. It would be very helpful if someone could dig up something saying she had been legally declared dead OR that this hasn't happened yet. In the meantime, "missing, presumed murdered" is probably the most accurate statement you can make about her. If she is legally dead, "missing, presumed murdered, declared legally dead" would be more accurate. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Known for section[edit]

It states: Known for ReiserFS / Reiser4 / Murder of Nina Reiser

However, I feel as though removal of the last section would be appropriate. He is not known for that, he is known for the reiserfs/4. If he wasn't already "famous" for that, the conviction of murder of Nina would be irrelevant and noone would know who he is. Agree or disagree? (talk) 14:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree and was about to suggest the same thing myself. There perhaps is an argument that his conviction has drawn a lot more attention to him than he would have got if the whole thing had never happened; but, like you say, the reason he's known is ReiserFS. --Feelthenoise (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. ReiserFS may be the reason the trial drew attention but many people who do not even use Linux or ReiserFS have been keeping an eye on this trial. It's likely he will be remebered more as the geek who killed his wife now than for ReiserFS specifically. The trial will also likely be remembered for the "Geek Defense" which became the "Platypus Defense" during closing arguments.

Some sites that have followed the trial:

Some sites reporting on it now:

-- Argel1200 (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

What's the use of linking to Nina Reiser? In page geek joke? -- (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Convicted for murder Vs Proven Murderer[edit]

Ok, there's a slight difference between the two. Hans Reiser is a convicted murderer. He has not been *proven* a murderer, since there's no murder weapon OR a body. those two conditions are essential proving that he *is* a murderer. Until Nina Reiser's body is found or until Nina Reiser returns from wherever Hans alledgedly claims she is, the point still stands: he is convicted for the murder of nina reiser but he has not be proven to be one.

((((THERE's A BODY NOW)))) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

the court is not allknowing. they convicted upon the suspision of murder and hans reiser big fat geek mouth.

slight difference, but important one.

thank you. User:Project2501a —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, especially in the infobox. What is he known for? The murder. The murder was proven in a court of law, in spite of the other conditions. In the eyes of the law he is a murderer. It seems extremely POV to deny the ruling. Redrocket (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

See, i'm not denying the ruling. he is gulty according to law. he is not though a proven murderer. if a body was found or if a body will be found, then yes, hans reiser will deserve to be called a murderer. e.g. Ted Bundy is a convicted murderer who was proven beyong any doupt that he commited those murders: bodies, weapons, confession etc etc. there were no such things in this case. if any of those foramentioned items are ever aquirred, then yes, by all means, do write "known for: murdering nina reiser". untill then the reasonable thing to write is "known for: convicted for murdering nina reiser". The later wording allows for reasonable doubt that what Hans is saying is actually true.

Neutrality maintained, villagers rejoice.

Project2501a (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This really seems to be splitting hairs, and reading a lot into the court decision. You're saying he's guilty of murder, but he wasn't proven to be a murderer because there's no body. That POV basically undoes the court decision. Redrocket (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not splitting hairs, it is allowing for reasonable doupt. Mumia Abu-Jamal is a convicted felon, but whether he did or did not kill that cop in Philly *still* remains into doupt. How does this POV undo Mumia's current death sentence?

Project2501a (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a section on Mumia Abu-Jamal about the controversy, just like there's a section on Hans Reiser on other theories. Is the sentiment here that he's not a murderer just because there's no body, as you said "if a body is found"? Redrocket (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
One difference between Hans Reiser and Mumia Abu-Jamal or as another example, Damien Echols of the West Memphis Three, is that the latter figures have received considerable media attention following their convictions which consider the possibility that they were wrongfully convicted. Since a court of law has found Hans Reiser guilty, we as editors should accept that it is the majority opinion that he murdered Nina Reiser. It is not our place to take a POV based on our own original research or personal conclusions drawn from studying the case and write the article as if that is a majority opinion. That being said, if there is considerable public outcry with respect to the Hans Reiser verdict, then the article should give those opinions more weight. Until then, however, we should treat the court decision as the majority point of view. Switzpaw (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Switzpaw said it far better than I, but that's the sentiment. Putting "convicted of" into the infobox seems to impart a POV, which wikipedia should avoid. Redrocket (talk) 22:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
How is it POV? He was convicted of first-degree murder, that is a matter of public record. He led the police to human remains which were shown to be those of his wife by dental records. If that's POV, then so is calling any convicted murderer POV. Autarch (talk) 12:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Saw your edit summary said you were "pointing out flaws in Switzpaw's argument". Please note that you were responding to Project2501a, not me. He was the one suggesting that saying 'murderer' as opposed to 'convicted murderer' imparted a non-neutral point of view. Keep in mind that that thread took place when Reiser was convicted of murder based on circumstantial evidence before a body was produced. There were a number of editors both trying to keep in edits favorable to Reiser's possible innocence and there were others that wanted to scrub this article of theories that supported that idea. So some of us were trying to find a middle ground. Given the course of events, however, this debate is moot. Switzpaw (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
My most sincere apologies for mixing you up. Autarch (talk) 13:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Allowing for reasonable doubt? In American jurisprudence that's exactly what the jury is supposed to accomplish. If Hans Reiser was found guilty by a jury, then it is "beyond any reasonable doubt". But regardless, I agree that the phrase "proven murderer" or "proven to have killed..." or "Reiser murdered his wife" or anything like that is horribly POV. If his conviction is overturned, then I'd definitely consider it libelous, but only once that happens. But even then, it's still POV. And moreover, it's unsourced- as Switzpaw says above, those other cases received considerable media attention because of their possible wrongful convictions. When/if Reiser gets considerable attention in the media (if he hasn't already) then I think it'd be very appropriate to talk about his possible innocence. The fact remains that he was convicted. Mendaliv (talk) 04:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
if it was "beyong any reasonable doubt", then the circuit of appeals would be meaningless, now, wouldn't it? convicted != proven. two different words. Seriously. i'd link to wikiwords, if i knew how, to aid understanding the difference between those words. Project2501a (talk)

There have been several cases where someone was convicted (found guilty) of murder but was exonerated years or even decades later due to DNA testing. Considering he still maintains his innocence I think the NPOV thing to do is state that he was convicted of first 1st degree murder. Whether he actually did it or if the jury was derelict in their duty is beyond the scope of this discussion unless or until new evidence corroborates one or the other. Anything else is your POV. Argel1200 (talk) 23:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What you are saying is that because someone claims innocence, the ruling of a court and jury is POV. That seems to be the opposite of what should occur. In the eyes of the law, he's a murderer. As I said, we're splitting hairs here. Just because he claims he's innocent doesn't mean we should discard the rulings of a jury, or seek to undermine their judgement. Redrocket (talk) 04:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No, what he's saying is that there has to be impartiality as to the ruling. and it's not splitting hairs. It is a significant difference, as it would seem that the editors are willing to pass judgement on Reiser, as well. And if someone would *bother* read the damn jury and court decision, they would see that they refer to Reiser as a "convicted felon" or "Convicted murderer". Not just a plain "murderer". This is not the damn Deep South. You can't characterise someone without an adjective to that noun and proof, unless you got Nina's body in your hands/closet/fridge. Are you sure he did it? if you are not sure and you have no evidence, you are applying Ethical judgement. which is POV by default since there's not a single body of ethics. Aren't ethical judgements from editors POV by default?

Saying "Convicted murderer", on the other hand, implies that the person was tried in a court of law , and found guilty of his crimes by a body of his peers. Now, how hard is it to understand that? Project2501a (talk) 20:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


Project2501a (talk) 20:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

All POV aside, the infobox should reflect the article. The article says convicted, the infobox doesn't. Murderer is a subjective term. Convicted murderer is closer to objective. And we want to be neutral in editing right? This is in fact a living BLP and should be as neutral as humanly possible. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe this is splitting hairs, but since there are a number of editors who prefer 'convicted', which is definitely accurate, I will no longer be among those who revert or change that phrase in the infobox. Now, a more forward-thinking question is this: Will there be push-back from editors when he is sentenced and it is appropriate to apply the Criminal template for his infobox? Switzpaw (talk) 02:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Like almost all debate surrounding this case, Hans Reiser has managed to prove his own supporters wrong. So now that he is in talks to reveal where the body is located, can we just call the guy a "murderer"? I'm at a loss for words to understand how the word "murderer" can be considered "subjective". Unlike loaded terms like the word "Terrorist" or "Freedom fighter", which imply an opposition or sympathy with the actions of a specific individual, the word "murderer" (ie. someone whose killed someone) is objectively neutral. It says nothing about whether or not the person in question, or the killing they committed, were justified or not. The apparent problem, it seems, is that too many people read a value judgment into the term, and consider it an "insult". It is nothing of the sort. The fact that a minority read all sorts of things into it does not mean its incorrect. SiberioS (talk) 06:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think "murderer" does implies a value judgment. A policeman that kills during his job or a soldier who kills in a battle are not considered murderer. Someone that kills in self-defense may or may not be considered a murder. --Damiens.rf 19:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Hans Reiser was never a policeman, nor was he acting in self-defence. He was not a soldier - he was convicted of first degree murder, therefore the term "murderer" is appropriate. Autarch (talk) 12:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Both points makes some sense as regards to 1. WP:NPOV "murderer" and 2. WP:OR: if he is convicted of murder, then citable sources proves us so. Wouldn't "convicted as murderer", "convicted murderer", and similar signals that this is not WP:s original thought, be a good philosophy in order to avoid unbalancing the article? ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 10:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


What I fail to understand, is why Hans is credited as "Software Engeneer" or "programmer". He raised funds for Namesys, convinced Suse to include ReiserFS into their Linux distribution, he donated lots of idea to ReiserFS, but as far as I know, he hardly written a single line of code for filesystem in question. ( One can search for "Written by" in 2.2.x patches ) He is remarkable figure in open-source community and he played major role in maturing ResierFS, but his occupation isn't "software engeneer". May be it should be changed to "founder of Namesys" or "ReiserFS CTO" ? Malfet (talk) 23:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Founder of Namesys will probably be best occupation descriptor in a historical sense. In a present sense, his occupation is inmate. Switzpaw (talk) 23:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
"Bubba's Bitch" or "Bubba's cabana boy" is more like it ^_^ Project2501a (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. The term "computer genius" is bandied about quite a bit, but the truth is he finished college late, didn't stick around for a PhD, and about all he is known for is a niche file system. Both qualitatively and quantitatively, there is little to support calling him "computer genius".
However after his conviction, Jonathan Corbet, editor of, argued that the immaturity of the reiser4 feature set and Reiser's extensive combative relationship with the community meant that the filesystem's future had been limited in any event.
Anyway, look at his resume: He was for the most part a mid level Systems Admin / Help Desk Monkey. He didn't last anywhere very long, maybe he was "too smart" for them! Being crazy is not the same as being a "genius". Geeky mamma's boy, maybe. Murderer, with out much question... Proxy User (talk) 08:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Wrong. Designing a non-trivial filesystem is not a small task. Most "Systems Admin / Help Desk Monkey"s are incapable of doing that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Court appearances cleanup[edit]

I think a cleanup is required in Court appearances. There are 12 paragraphs devoted to the pre-trial hearings and one for the actual murder trial. I think we need to write more about the murder trial. In addition, it seems that much of what was written about in the pre-trial hearings was done as it was in progress, so some sentences are written in the present tense. Switzpaw (talk) 08:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Future of ReiserFS Section[edit]

In this section is the following statement:

For example, a Slashdot thread on the subject of his arrest garnered over 1,600 comments, significant numbers of which discussed the future of the filesystem.

First, since Slashdot is a blog / discussion forum, is it even proper to use it as a reference? Second, as a blog / discussion forum, quoting a specific number is meaningless as the number will certainly change over a short period of time.

Also, third, the statement is grossly misleading. Of the (currently) 4182 posts, the vast majority are at the 0 or -1 moderation score (trolls of some kind), and only 101 are moderated as +5. So suggesting huge interest (as the above statement does) based on TOTAL number of posts is meaningless.

The vast majority of posts in the referenced Slashdot thread discuss the murder case, not the file system. The consensus is that Reiser is a guilty nutter, which has nothing to do with the file system.

But as I said, I don't think blog / discussion forums meet the Wiki Standard for references. Proxy User (talk) 08:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't find anything that speaks to the reliability of using a blog as a source for the information about that same blog, but generally speaking we could probably use WP:SELFPUB: Slashdot can be relied on to provide information about Slashdot itself in neutral cases like this. It might be best to back away from the strength of the statement, something along the lines of "the Slashdot community was concerned with both Reiser's guilt and the future of the filesystem in a [whatever date] discussion." Thayvian (talk) 05:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

BA in Systematizing[edit]

Is there actually such a thing offered by Berkeley? The only thing that Google brings up for this is references to Reiser. Can it be confirmed that Reiser has such a degree, that such a degree actually exists? If this article is to be "factual", than shouldn't it be confirmed that such a degree can even be had? Proxy User (talk) 09:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That fact comes from this article [12]. I see no reason to doubt Henry K. Lee's reporting on this -- it sounds like an independent study curriculum. Switzpaw (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


"several theories were imagined up to try and disprove his guilt" -- though Reiser's guilt is more or less certain now, that statement still seems like poisoning the well. (talk) 15:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't really think the Mooted Theories section even belongs here anymore. The alternate theories used in court is relevant to the trial subsection, but bears far less weight as its own section now. Any other thoughts? Switzpaw (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the Mooted Theories section. I retained some of the material (compressed: it doesn't seem that every allegation about Sean Sturgeon belongs in the article any more when it wasn't even evidence at trial) in the Trial section. Thayvian (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Reiser Leads Police to Nina's body[edit]

This should probably be integrated into the article. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It was added by another writer and I editted the section to be more specific that it is indeed his wife's body. The article had previously suggested that this was not yet proven and they merely identified a location, while they actually found the body at the location. The identity of the body is not conclusively proven by forensic evidence, though so far the individuals involved have confirms it to be the body of his wife without a reasonable doubt. --KJRehberg (talk) 17:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Free image[edit]

Flickr has several photos of Reiser, but none under suitable (BY or BY-SA) Creative Commons licences. Does anyone have a photo of him from a conference or similar that they'd be willing to realise under a free licence? Upload to Commons if possible. Acceptable licences are discussed at commons:Commons:Licensing. Thayvian (talk) 23:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

- How about using the picture from the german version? (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Mail Order Bride ?[edit]

This term is inflammatory and inaccurate. There is no such thing as a Mail Order Bride. There are international dating sites, and there are marriage agencies. A dating site, and even most marriage agencies are no different that most local dating sites such as Although a marriage agency would be focused more on "marriage minded" people.. To say things like "he picked her from a mail order bride catalog" insinuates that she was nothing more than merchandise. The reality is that it's just like all other dating. Each person has choices of whether or not to meet, continue or discontinue the relationship, and a say in how far it goes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

No, this is correct. Please check Mail-order bride. (talk) 08:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes & no, I think Americans normally meet the bride abroad, and date internationally for months or years before marrying, so it's not like Asian mail-order brides. Well, he's said she was the translator. He was likely looking for a "mail-order bride", but the translator decided he was a good prospect, and stole him. Too bad she was wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Trial and Verdict and Post-Verdict[edit]

The "Verdict" section made it sound like the deal to reveal Nina's body was already in place at the time of the verdict. So I moved the sentence about the verdict to the trial section and renamed that to "Trial and Verdict" and then renamed the "Verdict" setion to "Post-Verdict". I think that will work better, at least until someone starts adding details about the trial. Argel1200 (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Murder trial verdict[edit]

He's been sentenced yesterday, it seems. 15-to-life. If someone would edit the funny little box in the upper right corner. I'm not doing it myself because I'm sure someone will be more familiar with the article than I am. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

  • The term "15 to life" could be explained or linked to an explanation. It is, I guess, something US specific. (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

RefList content and format issues[edit]


The footnote for Alameda County's "Case Management Statement of Rory Reiser, Niorline Reiser Filed" leads to blank pages. This needs to be corrected.


The 50+ item RefLlist contains this warning note:

Please do not use multi-column format here, as it is illegible at less than XVGA screen resolutions

Why is this page being singled out? Isn't this true of all pages with long RefLists?

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, so don't do it. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 01:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
A total non-answer. But typical of Wikipedia. *I* think it looks better with TWO columns. And so it does! =//= Proxy User (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Television Documentary[edit]

On the American television channel truTV, there is an hour long show called Dominick Dunne: Power, Privilege, and Justice with an episode "Programmed for Murder" which is entirely about the murder of his wife. You can add the reference, if it is appropriate. --- W5WMW (talk) 19:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

A "media" section might be interesting. =//= Proxy User (talk) 02:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Education/Early life Section[edit]

Link about his education contains no information on the subject, and information seems bogus — 13 years of continuous attendance with only a bachelor's degree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Aditional info[edit]

This article from wired gives interessting background info.--Max Dax (talk) 20:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


Can he be out of prison after 15 years? And can that happen in 2021 at earliest? (depending on how the sentence is counted) Electron9 (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It is *possible* bu not * probable*. The Parole Board would make that decision. Considering the nature of the crime, it is unlikely he'll make it on his first try. Given his horror and crassness of his crime, he should die in prison, but that's opinion. Johnny Squeaky (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

First sentence[edit]

This article currently begins: 'Hans Thomas Reiser (born December 19, 1963) is an American computer programmer, entrepreneur, and convicted murderer.' Anyone else think we might possibly have those in the wrong order? Arguably the murder is the most significant thing about him; it looks somewhat incongruous at the end of the sentence. Robofish (talk) 01:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I would mention two Wikipedia Policies that apply: WP:NPOV and WP:CITE. If you can cite a reference suggesting this is the most important thing about him, you might be able to support such a statement. This article was on Wikipedia before the murder, because he was already notable for being a programmer and entrepreneur and indeed the reason why the initial press coverage happened was because of this notability within the Linux community. Admittedly the bulk of the edits have happened after the arrest, so it is subjective. --Robert Horning (talk) 03:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


Why is there nothing in the article about Hans Reiser's motive for killing his wife? The motive is one of the most important parts of a murder case, so seeing NOTHING AT ALL about it in this article is strange. I'm sure such information has been mentioned in earlier news articles about this case.-- (talk) 19:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Some of it is discussed here" (talk) 05:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Pre-Trial Deal?[edit]

According to this:

"Ahead of trial, Reiser was offered a three-year deal if he led police to the location where he dumped his wife’s body. In his filing, he said he didn’t want to go to prison and wanted to fight the charges so he could ultimately regain custody."

Should this be included in the article? Did I miss it? (talk) 19:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)