Talk:Jonathan Blow

Deletion of "Criticism"

I would like to suggest that the "Criticism" section is deleted. The paragraph speak of Blow's works and not of himself. WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 02:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I dont see what the section adds to the readers understanding, and it seems like positive criticism would also need to be included, as that was the primary response to his work. I get the impression that someone wanted a way to spout their opinion.--Bcomnes (talk) 20:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, sounds reasonable; I've made that edit. 128.32.39.99 (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

minor change

Someone listed this guy as dying on the internet. Deleted it. 129.174.106.5 (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Added a sentence about his next game, which should probably be made into an article at some point. Whoops, apparently that article already existed, thanks for updating the link. Stringanomaly (talk) 03:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Article on Jon Blow in the Atlantic

At http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/05/the-most-dangerous-gamer/8928/ -- Jo3sampl (talk) 01:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Podcast where a lot is said about pre-Braid work

Link: https://www.idlethumbs.net/tonecontrol/episodes/jonathan-blow - this is two hours that begins talking about his experience at university, goes through times he was working on Munch's Odyssey/Deus Ex 2/Thief 3, and the other many-year-long-things he had going at the same time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.0.121 (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

A lot of talk about money?

I feel that there is a lot of mentions regarding debt, "zeroes in his bank account," and just, overall, a ridiculous mentioning of money when talking about Mr. Blow. Sure, it helps add to the article but it just doesn't seem particularly helpful in getting any point across other than the article's writer/Mr. Blow are a little money obsessed.

Yikes maybe we can revise that, the full quote actually has a very different message and our abbreviation may be misleading. The full quote is... “I opened up my Web browser and Holy fuck, I’m rich now,” he recalled. “There were a lot of zeros in my bank account.” Blow’s similarities to the average millionaire end right there, however, because unlike most wealthy people, he seems faintly irritated by his memory of striking it rich. When Blow told me, during a typically metaphysical conversation in a park near his Berkeley office, that his windfall was “absurd,” he didn’t mean it in the whimsical “Can you believe my luck?” sense; he meant it in the philosophical, Camus-puffing-a-cigarette sense of a deeply ridiculous cosmic joke. “It just drives home how fictional money is,” Blow said, squinting against the unseasonably bright December sun. 76.102.190.20 (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

JAI or Jai?

In the only sources that mention the language, it seems like the experimental programming language is called "Jai," not "JAI." Source on the ALLCAPS version? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nokkromancer (talk • contribs) 09:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

"Game 3" is not Sokoban

I think it's a little confusing to call Sokoban "game 3", as in the current draft of the article. During development of The Witness, it was revealed somehow that J. Blow as a side project had created like 40 hours of gameplay for a completely different game, and that game became known as "game 3". It is not Sokoban, and the public has never seen it. It is true that Sokoban is the next game after Braid and The Witness that J. Blow will release (except for Braid: Anniversary Edition). However, even considering that, "game 3" is still not a good name for it because J. Blow shipped an online tank battle game earlier in his career before Braid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.252.62.110 (talk) 19:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Past discussions on controversies

In my experience, disputes between editors are supposed to be discussed on the article's talk page before they escalate to the point where the BLP noticeboard needs to be involved. Since that isn't what happened here, let me just state for the benefit of future editors that a thread on Jonathan Blow was started there a few months ago. As a result, some low quality additions that didn't refer to any RS source were rightly removed. A better sentence about COVID conspiracy theorizing was also removed on the grounds that a single RS source was not enough. I have no problem leaving that out if another source does not materialize. Connor Behan (talk) 15:08, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Copyediting tasked before GAN

The article recently had some comments in a peer review, and amoung other things it was identified that the article needs to be copyedited before potential Good Article nomination. I have tasked the copyediting guild to do this. It will likely take several months for them to look at it. Please do not submit the article for Good article nomination until the guild has looked at it. Neuroxic (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Removed text

CC-BY-SA declaration; text in this section was removed from the article by me; see the article's history for full attribution. I'm removing this text because it's either off-topic, excessively detailed or otherwise doesn't belong in this article. I'm leaving it here for the benefit of future editors and in case its removal breaks any named references.

In Wulfram, players took control of a heavily armed hovertank, and joined one of two sides with the aim to force the other side off the map. The standard map size was around 31 km². In a February 1998 interview, Blow said the game was around 150,000 lines of C++ code, 2500 of which were assembly for texture mapping optimization, and the game ran on Windows 95, Windows NT, Linux, and Solaris. Scott Keur of MPOGD reviewed the game while it was in closed beta, praised its graphics, gameplay, lack of lag, but criticized its sound, and called it "the best combined action/strategy game to date". Wulfram was released in open beta in July 1998 and free to play on Total Entertainment Network. TEN shut down slightly more than a year later, however, after which Blow brought the game to Interactive Magic.

The name Wulfram went through several name changes, the final of which was Wulfram 2. For a while after Bolt Action Software folded, Habermeier ran the final version of the game for free on the internet.

2001–2004: contracting work

In the game, physics simulation was done on the server. The movement of robots was not implemented with animations but by applying forces to their joints. Players could shoot these joints and thereby affect the movement of the robots.

2005–2008: Braid

The 2D puzzle-platformer Braid (2008) was a landmark of independent game development. Released on the Xbox 360 through Xbox Live Arcade (XBLA), the game was "an immediate sensation", and a critical and commercial success. Braid demonstrated that it was possible for indie developers to release games on storefronts (instead of through publishers) and remain financially successful. The game "is often credited as the catalyst for the indie [game] boom of the following years".

Available only through download, the game represented an early shift in video games from physical to digital stores. The success of the game inspired many other indie developers; in particular, a designer at Supergiant Games claimed the studio wouldn't exist without the success of Braid.

2009–2016: The Witness

The game was released on Windows and the PlayStation 4 in January 2016 to critical acclaim and commercial success. It debuted at $39.99, a price point that was met with outcry in some gaming forums. Blow stated that the price point was "fairly reflective of what the game is", and journalists noted that other independent games of a similar scope and quality debuted with the same price. Blow reported that the first week sales revenue of The Witness totaled over US$5 million, and that it had sold more than 100,000 units. After release, Blow said that The Witness was one of the top downloads on illegal BitTorrent websites, was pirated "just as heavily" as Braid, and noted that pirating the game does not help fund Thekla's next game." The game received several BAFTA and Game Developers Choice Awards nominations, and appeared on 'Best of the decade' features from IGN, Polygon, NME, CNET, and National Post.

2017–present: Jai Programming Language, untitled sokoban game, and Braid, Anniversary Edition

Blow has noted that no previous programming languages have debuted with a piece of demo software as large and complex as a game. The game is intended to prove the capability of the language, thus reducing the risk associated with adopting Jai upon release. During a 2018 conference talk, Blow demonstrated that a clean non-optimized compilation of the 80,000-line sokoban game took less than two seconds on his laptop. He predicted that with additional work the compilation rate would increase significantly, with a target compilation rate of a million lines of Jai per second (for a clean non-optimized build). In July 2018 Blow felt the language had already improved his productivity by 15%, and thought that given time this could increase to 50–80%. Blow intends to release much of the source code of the sokoban game upon release, and said Thekla is trying to structure the code to be "very malleable" so that upon release it can "provide an in for people who actually want to start experimenting with a program." The Jai compiler is currently in closed beta and reached beta version 100 in December 2021.

The Jai-based sokoban game combines puzzle elements from a variety of other sokoban games while adding ideas of its own. The majority of characters from Jonah Ostroff's Heroes of Sokoban trilogy appear in the game, as do the lily pads and skipping stones from Alan Hazelden's Skipping Stones To Lonely Homes. By combining so many puzzle elements together, Thekla is able to "explode out the combinatorics [of the puzzle space] even further than Thekla did with The Witness." In mid 2018, two programmers were working on the game, and the art team consisted of five people. The sokoban game had over 700 levels as of May 2021, and Blow stated that it will probably have more than 1000 upon release.

In August 2020, Thekla announced Braid, Anniversary Edition, a remastered edition of Braid. The game's art is being repainted with significantly more detail, and will have smoother animations and enhanced sound. The new edition will include detailed and thorough developer commentary from Blow. Players will be able to toggle between the original and upgraded version while playing. Blow explained that the remaster will be faithful to the original, remarking that Braid will not get the "Greedo shoots first" treatment (a reference to a change made to Star Wars). Thekla planned to launch the game in early 2021.

References

Cheers, Baffle☿gab 00:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jonathan Blow/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: David Fuchs (talk · contribs) 17:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

{{doing}} Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, planned on getting this up on the weekend, but ran into real-world stuff. Anyhow, overall the article's in good shape. Comments as follows:

• Prose:
  • In 2002, together with Chris Hecker, Doug Church and Robin Hunicke, Blow co-founded the Experimental Gameplay Workshop at the Game Developers Conference. It'd be nice to get an explanation of what the Gameplay Workshop is here, besides just its creation.
    •  Done Neuroxic (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
  • The Braid section doesn't actually tell us anything about the game, neither its plot, nor even what genre it is.
    •  Done Neuroxic (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Blow hoped to release The Witness in 2013 as a launch title for the Sony PlayStation 4 but the game was not released until 2016. Redundant with the mention of the year before; makes sense to structure this more chronologically.
    •  Done Neuroxic (talk) 18:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
  • No info on how the Witness was received?
    •  Done Originally the article contain this and a lot of other game-specific info, however the copyediting guild removed it a couple of months ago; I added some of it back. Neuroxic (talk) 18:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
  • In 2020, when asked about the name of the language he said that in many projects "people put all their effort into the cool name" before working on the project, and that he was "doing things in the opposite way". I don't really know what this means, since Jai is apparently not a placeholder name?
    •  Done On consideration, this quote wasn't needed so I removed it. Neuroxic (talk) 20:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
  • a game engine written in Jai, and a sokoban game built in that engine, began If Sokoban is a game, why is it not capitalized throughout?
    •  Done Sokoban is a genre (e.g. it's a popular tag on the Steam store), so I added a note to clarify what it is and the etymology of the name. Neuroxic (talk) 20:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
  • As of 2023, the Jai compiler is currently in closed beta and reached beta version 100 in December 2021 more weird chronology stuff.
    •  Done I agree that when the compiler reached version 100 was not that important, it's now removed. Neuroxic (talk) 20:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
  • "high dynamic range" what does this mean?
    •  Done This was another quote the article didn't actually need, it's now gone. Neuroxic (talk) 03:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
  • and ensured he could provide the game in the future there's an (unreffed) note for this, but I think it really should be made clearer in the body what is meant here.
    •  Done I rewrote and expanded this part to try and make it clearer. I reduced the note and made it obvious enough as to not need a reference. Neuroxic (talk) 23:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
  • The lead mentions Jai and its compiler making beta version 100, which a) doesn't seem important enough for the lead, and b) seems pretty unimportant in general? It's source to Blow himself, so it suggests it wasn't important enough for serious secondary coverage, and version numbers are ultimately arbitrary so it's not really a huge deal.
    •  Done Yeah in retrospect I agree, it now simply states it's in a beta release. Neuroxic (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
  • In general I think there's a bit too much overuse of quotes and primary sources for the coverage. Blow isn't exactly the most succinct at explaining himself, apparently, because a lot of his quotes I don't actually find edifying but more confusing. I also want to hear more about what people say about him than his own talks and similar.
    •  Done (Or at least done to the best of my ability.) I've gone through the entire article and removed / trimmed quotes that I didn't think were essential – I agree that some unnecessary quotes were being used for coverage. As for including more about what people say about Blow / his artistic practice, I remembered some lines I had omitted and swapped them in to the article, but in general I think there are hardly any secondary sources covering these topics (let alone good secondary sources). I think this is for two main reasons. First, there is virtually zero academic scholarship on the craft of Blow's puzzles (and almost none on specific puzzles in videogames more generally). Second, while Blow is prominent enough to have profiles in The Atlantic, The New Yorker, NBC etc. and has done heaps of interviews, I haven't been able to find comments on his specific game design practice outside of interviews. (And annoyingly, I haven't found other game designers discussing his puzzles either.) In some fields like art history, famous artists like Jackson Pollock have had hundreds of academic articles analyzing their work, but I'm not aware of anything similar in videogames. Looking at other GA BLP videogame developer articles like Jenova Chen, Neil Druckmann and Andy Schatz, I think this is sadly the norm: for the equivalent artistry sections in these articles, I mainly see interviews with the subjects being used to construct these sections. In summary, I would have preferred to use secondary sources covering Blow's practice in the article, but I don't think they exist (yet). Neuroxic (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• Media:
  • Free images appropriately tagged and licensed.
    • As an aesthetic thing, [[:]] is not a great image (out of date, distant, and dark.) Of the images in the article I'd say a cropped version of File:Jonathan Blow, Gamelab 2018 (42432130094).jpg is probably the best one.
    •  Done Neuroxic (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure the fair use rationale for File:Wulfram hovertank screenshot.jpg meets NFCC. Wulfram gets only a single direct mention, and is part of a section/period of time covered in just two paragraphs.
    •  Done I think the only NFCC which the image maybe doesn't satisfy is 8. (Contextual significance), but if you think that if the image didn't actually communicate the scope of what Blow and Habermeier did then it has to go. Neuroxic (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• References:
  • Blow often identifies trends in games he thinks do not strengthen the medium and restrain it from reaching its potential, or are unethical. need an explicit source for this.
    •  Done (removed sentence) Neuroxic (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
  • By 2010, some other indie games had become commercially successful, leading Blow to co-found funding organization Indie Fund in 2010 This implies no indie games before Braid had been commercial successes, which I think needs a better source than the used one, which I don't think adequately supports that assertion.
    •  Done Oooh, this was a subtle one, great catch! I've rephrased it to remove this implication, there was certainly other indie game from around that time which also found financial success. Neuroxic (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
  • You've got inconsistent formatting on websites/publishers for certain citations, some are missing publisher info, some have them. Joystiq in ref 35 isn't italicized when other websites are, etc. Jonathan Blow is given as "John Blow" in some refs, which isn't how you spell his name, let alone the random shortening.
    •  Done I attempted to follow the guidelines at MOS:VG, with a focus on italicization and when not to include a publisher (e.g. when the publication / publisher's names differ significantly. Neuroxic (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Spot-checked statements attributed to refs 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 22, 25, 35, 38, 42, 54, 58, 59, 66, 77 and 80.
    • Ref 6 is used to cite Blow learning BASIC on the TRS80, but technically he just says "assembly languages" and mentioned BASIC only as an example of RadioShack books, so I'm not sure you can say for sure he was programming in BASIC specifically from that ref.
      •  Done Neuroxic (talk) 03:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
    • Ref 15 is to a podcast but it's missing the timestamp present on other refs from the same source.
      •  Done Neuroxic (talk) 03:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
    • Ref 55 has an archive template issue.
      •  Done Neuroxic (talk) 03:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
    • Ref 54 is just pointing to his Twitch channel, which I think is a step beyond what you can do to cite the statement of what his videos include (and what defines "regularly"?)
      •  Done (removed sentence) Neuroxic (talk) 03:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: Thanks for the detailed review! I've gone through and attempted to address your concerns. Of course please let me know of any further suggestions, or further improvements I can make if you're not satisfied with the improvements I've made so far. Neuroxic (talk) 20:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Most of what I brought up looks good; I'm going to do one more pass. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Vaticidalprophet (talk) 04:26, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Jonathan Blow thought he may not have finished creating the videogame Braid were he not simultaneously learning kung fu? Source: Gaynor, Steve (February 15, 2014). "Jonathan Blow". Tone Control (Podcast). The Idle Thumbs Limited Liability Company. Event occurs at 1:20:15. Note: After some motivating comments, Jonathan states (at 1:20:34) "I don't know if I would have finished Braid if I wasn't doing kung fu."
  • ALT1: ... that Jonathan Blow created his own programming language after being frustrated at programming videogames in C++? Source: Taylor, Ivy (July 3, 2018). "Jonathan Blow: 'C++ is a weird mess'". Games Industry.biz. Gamer Network.
  • ALT2: ... that Jonathan Blow ported Doom to a set-top box? Source: Machkovech, Sam (September 17, 2015). "The man and the island: Wandering through Jonathan Blow's The Witness". Ars Technica.
  • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Neuroxic (talk). Self-nominated at 14:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Jonathan Blow; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: - Nothing really of concern according to Earwig, but in the "Public image" section, I would clarify that VentureBeat was the source that described Blow as having a "reputation for doing outstanding work".

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: @Neuroxic: Nice work. Personally, I prefer ALT0 and ALT1, as I think ALT2 may not be interesting to a broad audience without specific knowledge of porting or set-top boxes. There is just one issue that needs to be addressed. Epicgenius (talk) 14:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• @Epicgenius: Oops, thanks for catching the quote issue! The phrase is now in quotation marks and attributed to VentureBeat. Have I now addressed your issue? Neuroxic (talk) 03:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes, everything looks good now. Thanks for fixing that. Epicgenius (talk) 13:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Following living person guidelines

individual editors are continually violating a number of guidelines on this bio.

The "Public image" section should be condensed to maintain **WP:UNDUE** and **WP:NPOV** compliance, focusing on his professional reputation rather than peripheral social media conduct. The current inclusion of specific Twitter disputes and personality-based attacks constitutes **WP:COATRACKing**, where minor personal interactions are given disproportionate weight relative to his contributions to game design. To align with **WP:BLP** and **WP:NOTNEWS**, these "he-said-she-said" anecdotes should be replaced with a single, neutral summary of his outspoken nature regarding design philosophy. This shift ensures the biography remains an encyclopedic record of his career and lasting industry impact, rather than a collection of non-noteworthy and biased personal criticisms. RealSpaceOddity (talk) 05:47, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

The content you've deleted twice now is noteworthy and well sourced. The articles used as citations are entirely about Blow's controversial statements, and come from reliable sources, eg: Bloomberg - "A Controversial Video-Game Designer Returns With a New Game and More Controversy" and NME - "Jonathan Blow claims COVID-19 is manmade and seemingly promotes anti-vax rhetoric". WP:BLP says Wikipedia articles concerning living persons may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved - this content clearly falls under this category. BugGhost 🦗👻 07:02, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

There’s a litany of problems here, but the point isn’t whether the sources are "reliable”. The issues are weight and lack of relevance. Just because a news site ran a story doesn't mean it deserves a large chunk of a permanent biography.

The section had become a WP:COATRACK. Blow is notable for game design, but you’re giving as much space to criticisms of alleged opinions, as we are to his actual games. RealSpaceOddity (talk) 07:25, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I could understand this argument if the content was minor - if the additions were saying "Blow likes cats" and cited an individual tweet, then yeah sure - the twitter opinions would be irrelevant. But in this case there are multiple entire sources purely about controversial statements Blow has made and public responses from collaborators. It's clearly relevant and WP:DUE. BugGhost 🦗👻 08:19, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Sources existing isn’t the test. weight is. Blow is here because he made Braid and The Witness. That’s it. A few outlets covering someone’s opinions on his alleged tweets doesn’t mean they should get as much space as his actual games.

And calling these views “controversial” is doing all the heavy lifting. Many of these alleged positions are held by huge chunks of the population. Sticking a loaded label on them in a permanent biography of a living person is exactly what WP:BLP and WP:LABEL exist to prevent. Handle contentious material about living people with care, and drop the value-laden terms. Let readers decide for themselves. RealSpaceOddity (talk) 08:47, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I didn't conjure up the term "controversial", it's the term the reliable sources use - see the Bloomberg article. Conveying what secondary sources say is literally the main objective of Wikipedia. If you don't like what's writen by secondary sources, contact their editors. This also is not a "permanent biography", I'm not sure why you keep refering to this article this way. BugGhost 🦗👻 09:05, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

RealSpaceOddity - I see you've deleted the content again. Your edit summary references a lot of different pages, so I thought I'd go through them to explain why none of them affect this scenario, as I feel you may have misinterpreted their meanings.

Undid irrelevant revision by (talk). These additions are in violation of multiple guidelines, including WP:BLP, WP:DUE, WP:UNDUE, WP:LABEL, WP:NPOV, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:PROPORTION, WP:BLPGOSSIP and yet have been consistently re-added to deface the article.

WP:BLP - as quoted above (Wikipedia articles concerning living persons may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved), criticism/controversies can be documented when there are reliable sources to back it up, which is the case here.

WP:DUE (and WP:UNDUE - these both go to the same place, so I'm not sure what the purpose of referencing both was) - similarly, this guideline says: Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. The prominence of the viewpoint "Johnathan Blow has made some controvesial statements" is pretty evident, seeing as there are multiple sources that focus on the statements and the fact that they are controversial - eg. Bloomberg, NME, The Gamer.

WP:LABEL - what "label" are you even objecting to? The words "controversial" and "controversy" you objected to earlier do not actually appear in the article text you deleted, they only appear in the cited sources. The actual text in the article just plainly states the topics Blow has talked on, without any labels attached.

WP:NPOV - the article text essentially just says "He said some stuff, other people criticised him for saying that stuff". It doesn't say "He said some awful bad stuff that is stupid and horrible", nor does it say "He said some really sensible stuff that some unreasonable haters disagreed with". The article text that you deleted described the events neutrally and didn't provide any further opinions on the topic. NPOV does not mean you cannot describe events related to other people's points of view when they are clearly documented, relevant and backed up by a reliable source.

WP:NOTNEWS - this is completely irrelevant - NOTNEWS is to indicate that articles shouldn't contain overly detailed updates about routine events that get regular news coverage, for example stuff like "Manchester United is playing this Saturday against Arsenal", or "Donald Trump did an interview with Fox on March 5th".

WP:PROPORTION is actually a reason to include this information - An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. As we've discussed a lot, there are a lot of reliable sources that reference this topic when covering Blow, which makes it obvious that there should be some inclusion of this in the article.

WP:BLPGOSSIP - the opening to this section is "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject" - the answer to to all of these questions is an obvious yes.

Also, on another note - please refrain from accusing me of attempting to "deface the article" and accusing me of acting in bad faith (like you have in other edit summaries). I'm just a wikipedia editor who is doing routine wikipedia editing stuff. These comments are WP:ASPERSIONS and aren't permitted. BugGhost 🦗👻 11:24, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

BLP says controversial material “may” be included when relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced. “May” is permissive, not mandatory. The existence of sources was never in dispute – the question is whether the volume of content was proportionate to the subject’s overall notability. You keep answering a question nobody asked.

On DUE and UNDUE – yes, they redirect to the same place. I referenced both because the section covers both inclusion and exclusion. You’re measuring proportion against the “controversy” sources themselves rather than against the totality of coverage. The vast majority of reliable sources about Blow across a 25+ year career cover game design, programming, and industry commentary. A handful of articles simply existing doesn’t override that ratio. This is compounded by WP:RECENTISM – the sources in question are from Dec 2025 and Jan 2026. A couple of recent news cycles don’t have established encyclopedic significance.

On LABEL – the word “controversial” doesn’t need to appear verbatim in the article text for it to apply. The framing itself functions as a label. When you present a collection of alleged political positions held by large portions of the population as noteworthy criticisms in a BLP, the structure itself is editorializing, regardless of whether the word “controversial” appears.

On NOTNEWS - The policy isn’t limited to sports scores and interview schedules, but content that amounts to news reporting without lasting encyclopedic significance. Whether a few articles about a game designer’s alleged social media posts have lasting encyclopedic value is exactly the question here, and you haven’t answered it.

On PROPORTION – you’ve quoted the policy back at me but applied it backwards. “Weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject” means the full body of material, not just the subset you’re focused on. The full body of published material on Blow is overwhelmingly about his games and programming work.

On BLPGOSSIP – “relevant to a disinterested article about the subject” is the operative phrase. An article about a game designer should be disinterested in cataloging his alleged political opinions. The fact that you can find a source doesn’t make it relevant to an encyclopedic bio of someone notable for game design.

On ASPERSIONS – characterizing repeated reinsertion of contentious BLP material over objections as what it is isn’t a personal attack. The edit pattern speaks for itself.

The current version keeps a neutral tone with clear that he’s drawn criticism for his contrarian industry commentary, and confrontational style, with citations intact. RealSpaceOddity (talk) 12:27, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

These arguments are ridiculous, and are clearly generated by AI (the repeated usage of en-dashes give it away, and it got a 100% score on GPTZero), something you've been repeatedly asked to stop doing. The LABEL response makes no sense - it's literally from MOS, it's clearly about the actual word choices. The recency argument also makes no sense, as The Gamer source comes from 2021. The rest of it is laughable. I've come to the conclusion that you aren't going to be changing your mind on this, despite being clearly mistaken about seemingly every single wikipedia policy, and you will likely be just AI generating further responses rather than actually writing anything yourself. I'd prefer not to be spending my time arguing with a robot, so I've added this topic to WP:3O. BugGhost 🦗👻 16:18, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Calling my arguments “ridiculous” and “laughable,” and accusing me of using ai/being a robot, doesn’t engage with the substance. Assuming good faith, I’ll drop it there.

Regardless, I welcome a 3O review. BugGhost’s editing record here is informative. Their first edits on Feb 12, 2026 (soon following the Bloomberg article) only added or expanded alleged political views and social media content (+538 bytes to the lede, +157 on views, +708 on social media). Nothing touched career, game design, or sourcing. These weren’t written as neutral and give the material undue weight throughout.

The core issue is proportion under WP:DUE. Alleged political opinions shouldn’t dominate a game designer’s bio. The controversy section was nearly as long as the one on The Witness. Sources on Blow overwhelmingly cover his games and programming over 25+ years. Recent pieces don’t outweigh that.

Additionally:

TheGamer source is January 2026, not 2021 (NME is). WP:RECENTISM applies.

Hazelden’s criticisms belong in the relevant game article, not here. RealSpaceOddity (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

It's clear that you use the phrase "controversial opinions" to mean non-leftist views, presupposing that nobody is entitled to those views. ~2026-29895-28 (talk) 17:24, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

• Third Opinion Came here from 3O. I don't think these are UNDUE. There are multiple outlets reporting on his political views and they are not occupying much space in the BLP. Considering how much impact these appear to have on his image, I would be surprised to NOT see them mentioned in his BLP. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:28, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

  Unfortunately thin and flippant 3O response that doesn’t engage with the substance. We will take this to an RfC. RealSpaceOddity (talk) 17:41, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

  And who exactly are you to determine what is 'thin and flippant'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:20, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Restoring stable article version before improper editorializing

I have restored the stable version from 21 January 2026 (oldid=1334066026).

This removes all contested material added since 23 January that violates WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, WP:RECENTISM and WP:COATRACK. The subject’s notability rests on Braid, The Witness, and game design over 25 years. A handful of 2025–2026 news-cycle items about alleged social-media opinions do not justify the weight they were given.

The current version is now neutral and policy-compliant. I welcome a formal RfC if anyone disagrees, but repeated re-insertion of the same contested block is edit-warring. RealSpaceOddity (talk) 18:40, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

I welcome a formal RfC if anyone disagrees Two editors already disagree. Do you need help with the RfC? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

@RealSpaceOddity I've added a discussion to the BLP noticeboard which may help. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2026 (UTC)