Are you joking? The new title would barely be an improvement over a blank line. At best, it's poorly written clickbait (who is "he"? Why do we care?), but really it doesn't even qualify as a "title" except for where it's placed on the page. It might seem like anything would be better than a title which exaggerates the claims of the article (no, the article does not prove that he was involved in the creation of TC -- it does, however, hypothesize it), but we've somehow arrived at one which if not worse, is certainly very bad in a different way.

If dang wants to mangle the titles of articles into incoherency after they've already been on the front page for hours, that's clearly his prerogative, but let's not pretend that it's any kind of improvement. It would be easy to rewrite this title to both keep it in context and remove the factual inaccuracy. Instead, we get this.