Talk:Markus Persson

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2023

One claim has no link that backs it up. 213.113.146.68 (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Name of the article should be Notch

According to WP:COMMONNAME it is generally preferred to use a more recognizable name then a more technically accurate name. Since Notch is more recognizable of a name then Markus Persson (seen in the own citations on this article such as "Notch on leaving Mojang: 'It's not about the money. It's about my sanity'". Polygon) I think the title of this article should be changed to reflect this Roma enjoyer (talk) 09:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

You should try opening a formal move request. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:02, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

This article needs serious work

The entire article reads like the description of a fantasy character from a Dan Brown novel. It needs some serious re-working to remove fluffy language, speculation over his mindset and feelings, and also just removing non-career-based facts from the careers section and moving them into more relevant areas (i.e. personal life). Abacrombi (talk) 10:45, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

be polite my friend. I agree with your changes, were good toobigtokale (talk) 08:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I am always nice :) It would be good (and much appreciated) if you could review the Inspiration for Minecraft section. I cleaned it up as best I could but I still think it needs a bit of work. Abacrombi (talk) 01:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@Abacrombi The article seems to have a few POV issues and editorialising. I've fixed a few of these, but there is probably more work that needs to be done. Panamitsu (talk) 09:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

incorrect attribution under Personal

Under Personal it states 'In 2015, he reportedly tried using Tinder to find dates, but had little success.' The source link points to a source that does not state anything about Tinder or dating. Does anyone have an accurate source for this claim? If not I suggest deleting. Casforty (talk) 01:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Controversy section

This is honestly an inquiry, but I am actually not sure if articles current "Controversy" section even relevant and up to "standards" of encyclopedia? I am really not trying to belittle anyones point of view but do we really need so much description and highly detailed explanation of who said what on Twitter? Not trying to sound similarly dramatic but Wikipedia has more concise and objective representation of Holocaust and Holodomor. Nika1010 (talk) 06:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

You are correct. WP:CSECTION actively discourages this sort of sectioning. However, if controversies have been covered by many reliable sources, they are probably due for inclusion. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2023

"Leaving Mojang" cites a 2011 Wired article which is obviously not relevant for 2014 events. It should cite the Forbes article by Mac Ryan instead.

I'm also not sure what is the relevance of the last sentence in "Activities after leaving Mojang" since the cites do not mention Persson. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 06:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Someone inadvertently switched to the Wired citation from the Forbes citation--Wired had been named ref 12, and Forbes ref 4, but then got renumbered--so the Wired citation was being used throughout then entire article and I fixed all of them. Agreed that the final sentence of after Mojang is more relevant to the main Minecraft article than to Persson, so I deleted it. Xan747 (talk) 14:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Controversies

I know this is probably not the place to ask... but is this section needed at all? Are this guys personal beliefs really of interest to anyone? This all seems a bit "thought police". John arneVN (talk) 03:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, due to the coverage in reliable secondary sources, and the fact that they had a literal impact on his standing in the community and with Microsoft, to the point his name was removed from many areas. -- ferret (talk) 05:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Spelling errors

There are numerous spelling errors in this article which should probably be fixed. 2600:1010:B12C:7C2B:E9B0:329C:361:F8E1 (talk) 08:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@2600:1010:B12C:7C2B:E9B0:329C:361:F8E1 Such as...? Panamitsu (talk) 08:37, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Atheism

I removed the reference to his atheism; it seemed like a non sequitur, but I don't feel particularly strongly about it. Matuko (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Mensa

Markus got swindled by Mensa. @Panamitsu: wants to include this information, I do not. It is an irrelevant factoid. Imagine having to pay money because you are insecure about your brain. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information. See also User_talk:Panamitsu#Unexplained_revert_on_Markus_Persson. Polygnotus (talk) 09:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The claim appears in a Swedish tabloid. Our article says: "The journalistic quality of Aftonbladet and other tabloid newspapers has sometimes been questioned.". No other (more reliable) sources mention it. And we shouldn't include information just to make him look bad. He is already doing that himself. Polygnotus (talk) 11:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

1) I have never said that I want to include this information.. I reverted your change because you did not provide a valid reason for removing sources content.

2) Your claim about no other sources existing is incorrect as this articles cites Forbes. I've also found SkyNews and Vice saying that he is a member of Mensa.

3) Given that you have said Imagine having to pay money because you are insecure about your brain it is clear that you have a POV in this matter and if I was you I would refrain from making these statements which are not based on policy. —Panamitsu (talk) 12:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

1) Knee-jerk reverting is a very bad thing. In that case, you should not be patrolling recent changes. If you do not want to include that information in the article, why do you repeatedly put it back?

2) Those weren't in the article. And they don't really change the situation.

3) All humans have a POV. People join Mensa to brag about the fact that they are members of Mensa. Funny how statement 1) you made is clearly against policy. Polygnotus (talk) 12:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Panamitsu: And now you are starting a revert war, which is again against the PAGs. Discuss your concerns here instead of editwarring. Polygnotus (talk) 12:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLPREMOVE is clear. You need to stop reverting and have a normal conversation. It is OK if you don't like the guy; but you can't start a revert war over such a silly topic. Policy overrules any essay, and your interpretation of WP:BRD appears to be incorrect. We are at the Discuss stage. Polygnotus (talk) 12:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean?. WP:V and WP:BLP are policies. There is no reason here to make an exception to the rules. Polygnotus (talk) 12:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

https://i.imgur.com/aAksfz6.png is a googlewhack but probably for GDPR reasons. Polygnotus (talk) 12:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I still don't understand why you think this is encyclopedic information worth including. And you wrote: I have never said that I want to include this information. which is true, so does that mean you agree that getting rid of it is an improvement? Polygnotus (talk) 12:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Your points 1 and 2 do not answer mine. Addressing point 2, yes, it does make a difference, as you have repeatedly mentioned WP:V. —Panamitsu (talk) 12:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, it makes a bit of a difference, because I am strongly opposed to putting information from tabloids in BLPs, and Sky and Forbes are reasonable sources (I don't like Vice). But I still don't understand why you would include such trivial fancrufty information. Polygnotus (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Comment I've just reverted back to the stable version. I think there's no lack of verifiability that Markus Persson is, in fact a Mensa member. This has been confirmed by the guy, and also reported in reliable secondary sources (Sky news for instance). The question is whether it merits inclusion - the relevant point here is WP:DUE, not WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Given that this has been commented on by several outlets, I think it is fair for it to have one sentence in an article this long. I don't see the issue. It is true, it is relevant to the person's biography (the decision to associate with Mensa is an active choice, there are certain connotations associated with Mensa membership in popular discourse which the remover seems to be aware of), and it is not discussed in excessive detail that would violate WP:DUE.

https://twitter.com/notch/status/887804051257253888

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/minecrafts-markus-persson-moans-wealth-084925885.html BrigadierG (talk) 12:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Can we then at least use proper sources and not some tabloid? This information is clearly UNDUE. Polygnotus (talk) 12:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:VAGUEWAVE BrigadierG (talk) 12:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that is a useful shortcut to remember. It is clearly undue because it tells you nothing about the subject of the article. It is meaningless information. If a WP:RS reports that his neighbour is right-handed or that he has a labrador I would also get rid of that kind of fancruft. Polygnotus (talk) 12:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Counterassertion: it tells you something about the subject; that he is a Mensa member. I've given reasons above why I think it's verifiable, relevant, and duly weighted. If your only response is going to be restating that it shouldn't be included because it is "meaningless" (whatever that means) then there's not gonna be any movement here. BrigadierG (talk) 12:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

But my question is, why is the fact that he is a Mensa member information that should be included in the article? Dude got swindled, and is perhaps insecure (those are the connotations). Many people have been and are. It is perhaps an hour of his entire life. And one of the least interesting hours. If multiple RS report he got stuck in traffic once, we shouldn't include that either. Polygnotus (talk) 12:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources have deemed his membership relevant enough to be worth commenting on. Mensa is a notable entity that is well-known, and most people are not members. It is no different than if he was an enthusiastic member of his local ping pong club, freemasons, or gardening society and this fact had been remarked upon by reliable sources. Being stuck in traffic is WP:ROUTINE/WP:ROTM/WP:FART coverage which would be the justification for non-inclusion. BrigadierG (talk) 13:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

But we have no clue if he is an enthusiastic member (or even a member, people do lie sometimes). Most people take the test once, pay and then use it to brag to illinformed people (e.g. journalists). Polygnotus (talk) 13:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, which is why it would be wrong to call him an enthusiastic member or provide more weight to it than the single short sentence that mentions it at the moment. BrigadierG (talk) 13:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Being a freemason or a ping pong club member actually means something. It is something people put a lot of time in. I have been to a ping pong club and those people are really good at it. It is a big part of their life. Most of them trained at least one day per week, for years. Unlike Mensa. I am gonna agree to disagree. At least we got decent sources now. Editwarring to put a tabloid in a BLP is a bad look. Polygnotus (talk) 13:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The whole of Category:Mensans and List of Mensans awaits you. BrigadierG (talk) 13:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Hahahahaha. Even fictional Mensans. How cringe that people put this particular money machine on such a pedestal. Can't they tell its just a way to get money from insecure people, like makeup? It is very similar to the Who's Who scams and the Guinness Book of World Records. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/%E2%80%98dumb%E2%80%99-comedian-infiltrated-mensa-it-ended-really-badly-133317 Polygnotus (talk) 13:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Seems undue and unencyclopedic, without references that are far better than any mentioned or used. Please remember that BLPs have very high standards for references. --Hipal (talk) 20:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@Hipal Can you explain exactly why you think this? We've been through this before and at this point it is probably a good idea to start an RfC. —Panamitsu (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

https://news.sky.com/story/minecrafts-markus-persson-moans-about-wealth-10347752

Sky UK is reliable per WP:RSP. WP:TRIVIA explicitly "does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information", and what's your case for due given it's a single short sentence in a long article? BrigadierG (talk) 00:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up RSP re Sky News. Not as bad as I thought. However, an article about his tweets is NOTNEWS in my book. I don't see the author identified in either version. Am I overlooking it? --Hipal (talk) 02:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I think you're jumping from issue to issue here. The initial complaint was about source quality, a WP:V issue. Sky News satisfies V to a standard necessary for a BLP.

To steelman, I think the strongest argument for non-inclusion is WP:GOSSIP. WP:DUE has been brought up, but I think the issue is one of relevance, not of weight. The guidance given to us is as follows:

> Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches played, or goals scored warrants inclusion in the biography of that person, only those for which they have notability or for which our readers are reasonably likely to have an interest.

So if we were trying to work out whether it's reasonably likely that readers would have an interest in the subject, how should we determine this? I think the most reasonable test based on the sources looks something like this - If a fact has been included in multiple high-quality sources about an individual (not gossip magazines), then the editorial boards of those outlets have deemed that readers are reasonably likely to have an interest.

Here's my go:

https://news.sky.com/story/minecrafts-markus-persson-moans-about-wealth-10347752 - Low-prominence mention at end of article

https://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/news/2014/09/15/markus-persson-microsoft-minecraft.html - High-prominence mention in third paragraph

https://www.vice.com/en/article/4w5gwb/where-were-you-when-the-man-who-made-minecraft-had-a-mansplaining-meltdown-tvgtrn - High-prominence mention in third paragraph

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-man-who-created-minecraft-jxrrdzx30vt - Medium-prominence mention half way through the article.

This seems like more than enough editorial consensus to merit inclusion. BrigadierG (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I do not understand why you make such a big deal out of the removal of such trivia. You didn't even write it. You probably shouldn't use bizjournals (a content mill that publishes what amounts to little more than press releases) and VICE (reliability spotty at best) in a BLP. The location of fancruft relative to the length of the article is completely irrelevant. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not very convincing. We can use common sense to determine if a reader would be interested in any particular factoid about a BLP. Notch himself wrote: "I'm a member of Mensa Sweden. It's not important, but I like to brag about it." 1 Polygnotus (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

> I do not understand why you make such a big deal out of the removal.

I do not understand why you make such a big deal out of the inclusion.

> You probably shouldn't use bizjournals (a content mill that publishes what amounts to little more than press releases) and VICE (reliability spotty at best) in a BLP.

You shouldn't source contentious facts from VICE or the like. This isn't a contentious fact or a WP:ASSERT. I gave 4 sources, 2 of which are WP:RSP reliable, and 2 of which are lower quality. Why only comment on the lower quality ones?

> We can use common sense to determine if a reader would be interested in any particular factoid about a BLP.

Apparently not, because there is a 2-2 split of editorial opinion about whether it's interesting currently in this talk page. I made an appeal to the next best thing - sources about the person to outsource the editorial weighing.

> OTHERSTUFFEXISTS

I haven't at any point made an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, I've just deferred to secondary sources. To counterassert, you have not done this, and are currently making a WP:WEDONTNEEDIT argument.

> It's not important, but I like to brag about it

The second part is the more relevant bit - Notch states he advertises the fact and clearly considers it at least a small part of his identity. If you're as adherent to WP:BLPRS as you claim though, WP:BLPSELFPUB applies.

Right now there's no consensus, which means that per WP:NOCONSENSUS applies and the stable version should remain in place - the stable version includes the Mensa comment. BrigadierG (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-man-who-created-minecraft-jxrrdzx30vt

https://news.sky.com/story/minecrafts-markus-persson-moans-about-wealth-10347752

https://web.archive.org/web/20100218133531/http://www.mojang.com/notch/

The claim is verified. Hurray, we can go home. There are no verifiability issues here. BrigadierG (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:V applies which means that the onus is on those who want to include content to get consensus for its inclusion. Polygnotus (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

You should read WP:WEDONTNEEDIT so that you understand why it does not apply in this case. Gesturing to something's usefulness in a vacuum does not help assess its value on an encyclopedia. You need to say why something is useful or useless.

You have no evidence that he is currently a member of that organization, only that he liked bragging about it at some point many years ago. Polygnotus (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

> WP:V applies which means that the onus is on those who want to include content to get consensus for its inclusion.

No it doesn't. It requires consensus to change an article's state - WP:CONSENSUS. If there's no consensus, the result is no change. No consensus in an AfD = no deletion. No consensus to add content = no addition. No consensus to remove content = no removal.

> You have no evidence that he is currently a member of that organization, only that he liked bragging about it at some point many years ago.

Whatever, we can change the language to include a date. I don't actually care that much, maybe more specificity is good. There's not much coverage of him since his fall from popular grace anyway.

I honestly don't think there's much point going back and forth much further here. I will wait to allow others to weigh in, but right now there is no consensus to change the article to remove mention of it. I don't like the wikilawyering and leading with (incorrect) demands about policy over deferring to reliable sources, especially following an initial edit summary of "cringe". BrigadierG (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

If you don't like the wikilawyering, you can just stop it. Whatever, we can change the language to include a date Using a tabloid on a BLP is problematic. Making a claim that isn't supported by the source is also problematic. If your reaction is Whatever then that is a problem. Please read WP:V. I don't actually care that much some people just don't like like it when other people disagree with them, even when the topic is not important to them. If that is the case then it is time to move on. Polygnotus (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the material once again. I don't see any consensus for inclusion here, as BLP requires. Please review WP:ONUS and WP:BLP. WP:CT/BLP applies.

I'm not clear that my WP:NOTNEWS and WP:DUE concerns are understood, let alone addressed.

I don't have access to the reference from The Times. Can someone provide the paragraph that mentions Mensa, along with any other relevant, encyclopedic context? The author (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/profile/ben-machell?page=1) appears to be fairly reputable. --Hipal (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The relevant paragraph from The Times:

> How did 33 million people come to spend so much time punching trees? To better understand, we need to go back a few years, to Sweden. In May 2009, a 29-year-old computer programmer called Markus Persson made public a game he had been working on. Persson – a Mensa member and a bearded, bearish figure – had developed a simple 3-D game in which a player could break and arrange blocks to create shapes and structures. He called it Minecraft, and charged people €10 to download it. “The first released version was like a week of work,” he admitted later.

This is the first time in the article that Persson is mentioned, and his Mensa membership is one of the first qualities mentioned, even before his appearance. I've made the case for WP:DUE above in two separate points:

1. That it has been mentioned in particular by multiple high quality (not just churnalist) sources

2. That its inclusion in the article is a single sentence, and so is not unduly weighted as a relatively low-importance piece of information.

I don't think that WP:NOTNEWS is relevant as reporting on Persson being a Mensa member is none of the four things listed.

I have other objections to the interpretation that Persson being a Mensa member is at all contentious but I'll shelve that for now. BrigadierG (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Why do you think the location of fancruft relative to the length of the article is important? That's just something you made up, right?

Dude literally stated that it was not important but that he liked bragging about it. So your argument that it is due hinges on the fact that the fancruft does not take up much space?

If we want to include some fancruft about him, shouldn't we mention that he used to make music? He is in the musician category. Polygnotus (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Please do not cast WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:AGF, especially when WP:DUE reads Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery. BrigadierG (talk) 23:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Wut? Polygnotus (talk)

From BrigadierG's description, The Times mentions Mensa as part of their introduction to Persson. I believe we agree that it doesn't deserve such treatment here - it's clearly not due such weight in an encyclopedia article. It's a good example of why NOTNEWS exists: news articles include trivia to attract and engage the reader, while encyclopedia articles summarize and then expand upon the most important aspects of a topic.

The Times mentions Mensa in passing. BrigadierG didn't offer any further relevant context as to why it was brought up in the reference, so it seems just a bit of trivia. It didn't deserve a sentence in the reference, so why should we? --Hipal (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

And how exactly does that fall under NOTNEWS? —Panamitsu (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I believe I just explained. What's unclear? --Hipal (talk) 23:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

New Studio (Bitshift Entertainment)

Not sure if Twitter follows adequate sources, more-so now since Verification is paid for, but Notch has announced that he has opened a new game studio called Bitshift Entertainment.

I'm not well versed on Wikipedia rules for certain sources etc. so don't want to include it if it shouldn't be.

https://twitter.com/notch/status/1775233983791731084 Lyeuhm (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Levers and Chests

Since this is recent, not much is known about the new game. Maybe add a small section called projects? Tall Tall Mountain (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

"Nizzotch" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Nizzotch has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 21 § Nizzotch until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2024

Edit request: in the first paragraph of the article, remove the internal link from "Bitshift Entertainment". It redirects to this article, so there's no point for the link. --62.166.252.25 (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done I have removed the circular link, thanks. Jamedeus (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Looks good!

Perfect! It just needs some excitement Hiima1234134 (talk) 03:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)