Talk:John Carmack

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:John D. Carmack)
Jump to: navigation, search


We need to nail down his birthdate. A previous version said he was born in 1965. Which is it? Is there a source somewhere with this info? If not, I vote we just leave off his birthdate until we can verify it. Anyone else? —Frecklefoot 13:42 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Googling, I've found an interview with him [1] from 2000 where he says he is 29 years old. Another source also says 1970 [2]. Apparently, Carmack is from Kansas City [3]. And that's how I found a link [4] from the Kansas City Star that says 1970 (as well as other useful bio info). I haven't read Masters of Doom, that might contain more. Looks like 1970 checks out. --Mrwojo 14:11, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
It's got to be 1970- I went to school with this guy and he was a year ahead of me. My birthday is Dec. 1970. --

But it's entirely possible that he skipped a grade or two (or even *gasp* flunked a few). We need some source that gives an exact date. Frecklefoot | Talk 16:22, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Simple enough, I'll just drop him a line. Will post here later. --
Sent him an e-mail. Asked him to drop by and review the information in article. Drop me a line at lando2@gmail if he doesn't reply within a week or two. --
What exactly are you asking us to do? Email you for information? That's not the way things work here on Wikipedia. Why don't you just post the information when you get it?
But still a personal email isn't something we can refer to in the References section. On Wikipedia, we aren't supposed to do original research. A personal interview by a Wikipedia editor with a person, for example, isn't a verifiable source. An interview conducted by Barbara Walters posted on the ABC website is.
Next, I wouldn't post my personal email address on any website. It's spam fuel.
Lastly, always sign your posts. This is done by using 3 or 4 tildes (~~~ or ~~~~) at the end of your post. The latter is preferred since it also adds a timestamp. Cheers. Frecklefoot | Talk 16:11, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
Just to throw another wrench into the works, there is no hospital in Shawnee Mission. Shawnee Mission Hospital is actually in Merriam, Kansas. Kroot 15:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
      • I attended Raytown South Highschool from 1984 to 1987, we had a publication called "Calling Cards" that was basically a student directory. I still have copies of the 1984 and and 1986 editions. John is listed in both as being born on 08/21/1970. Howlingmine (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC).

Opening wording[edit]

That A talented programmer with an entrepreneurial spirit comes from a article ([5]). Can we come up with something a little less plagiaristic? RickK 21:12, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

How much was the rocket prototype worth? 40,000 or 35.000$?-FredrikM

All the news outlets I've seen have said $35,000. -- nknight 15:18, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
"In the final total, after accounting for absolutely everything, the vehicle replacement cost is about $40,000 instead of $35,000. The new vehicle has a few more expensive machined parts, so total cost will be about $45,000."[6] -- Quoth 07:02, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Made some substatial edits to get this page out of cleanup - removed quotes and sent them to Wikiquote, removed POV throughout, removed trivia, cleaned up some of the text. Nothing here was terrible, but that which I removed was unencyclopedic or POV. Anyone with problems or offended? Feel free to revert if I've stepped on anyone's toes too much, just let me know on my talk page. Hope this can now be out of cleanup. Niceguyjoey 01:47, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, it's odd that this article was on cleanup; I don't recall a notice ever being here. I agree with most of the edits, but Carmack is one of the most widely recognized and influential game programmers. The bit about his family should probably be restored as well. --Mrwojo 03:50, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I restored the bit about his family. He is one of the most influential game programmers ever, so I didn't think the wording was too POV, but it's fine the way it is now. Frecklefoot | Talk 15:26, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Highly techincal graphic rendering details[edit]

"Many believe that he was the first to have used 0x5f3759df as the initial guess for finding the inverse square root of a number using Newton's method."... This is interesting, but has no explanation of why it is important for those of us who are not graphics programmers. Feel free to put it back with an explanation if this truly one of his more notable accomplishments. --Cshay

You also removed the date of birth of his son. I have no idea why—you give no explanation. While the exact time is irrelevant, I think the date is worthwhile. I'm restoring that. And why in the world would you remove the fact that he graduated with a 4.0 GPA? That is very significant. I'm restoring these two items.
Also, sign your posts. I inserted your signature above, but you can do it with either 3 or 4 tildes (~~~ or ~~~~). The latter is usually preferred, since it also adds a timestamp. Frecklefoot | Talk 14:36, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
High School GPA matters in an encyclopedia entry of a famous software engineer? Let's focus on what people really want to knoiw about him and not clutter things up with arcania. I don't see Bill Clinton's HS GPA in his Wiki entry.
--Cshay 18:35, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
First off, don't insert your comments inline with mine (or any other Wikipedian's). It makes it hard to follow the trail of comments. It also makes it look like I forgot to sign my post—which I didn't. You just usurped my signature. I removed your comment from within my comment to below it for clarity.
Now, yes I do think his GPA is noteworthy. If it was something like 3.5, it wouldn't be so interesting. But a 4.0 GPA is hard to acheive. It gives the reader a frame of reference for what his scholastic performance was.
Next, Wikipedia isn't paper, which allows us to insert a number of interesting facts that paper encyclopedia's can't. Useless trivia we should still exclude, but his high school GPA doesn't fall under that category.
I see you removed that information again. I won't engage in an edit war with you. I think we should resolve it here first. I vote we let others voice their opinion on this tidbit. Anyone else? Frecklefoot | Talk 18:57, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about the improper inlining of my comments. As to the arcania, I really do think it clutters any article and makes it difficult to follow. As I said, you don't see the HS GPA or time of birth in other biographical articles. I'm not going to get in an edit war over it of course, but I edited boldly to make the article more focused, and more readable. This article IMHO should center around his groundbreaking role and his innovative inventions in the graphic programming space. There's alot of missing info about this that needs to go in this article. --Cshay 20:50, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I think it's relevant, but I'll abide by whatever everyone else says (this article is watched by a lot of people). If we do have the GPA for other people, I think it's fine to add it to their articles. Maybe the reason it's not in their articles is because we don't have it. :-)
Yes, there is a lot of information missing from this article. Feel free to be bold and add more. :-) Frecklefoot | Talk 21:07, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
Personally I like the idea of having his GPA score in the article. Although I would expand a little for non-US readers who might not pick up on the significance of a 4.0. AlistairMcMillan 21:16, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Seriously though, what's the signifigance of a HS GPA? There's no standardization across schools... here in CA everyone who has half a brain get a high GPA. Adults don't put a HS GPA in their resumes... it's that insignificant. Put it back if you will, but arcania explosion and the resulting loss of focus is one thing I dislike about Wikipedia in general. --Cshay 21:26, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, since he doesn't have a college degree, it's about the only thing people can use to judge his academic performance. I didn't put my HS GPA on my resume, but many colleges do use it as acceptance criteria (along with SAT scores). Once I got my degree, I put that on my resume instead since it was more relevant than my HS performance.
I went to school in CA, and it took work to get my A's! But I have no idea where you live or what school you attended (I attended this school). Despite this, a 4.0 is a 4.0 and in most areas is a notable acheivement. If you don't think it is much of an acheivement, cite sources and state why his 4.0 wasn't noteworthy.
AlistairMcMillan, I understand that a 4.0 GPA may not be internationally recognized, so I included a link to hopefully clarify it. Frecklefoot | Talk 14:58, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

You guys sound young. No one cares about HS GPA except maybe recent HS grads doing dick size comparisons. Any hiring manager can tell you that. Also as I said there are no standardization across schools. Yes some schools it is really hard to get a 4.0, other schools it does not. Focus on the his real achievements. Most software guys are brilliant and get good grades if they feel like it, but very few of them could have created DOOM. --Cshay 20:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm 37, does that count as young? ;-) I find it hard to put much stock in someone's comments whose most notable acheivement is liking geese... Frecklefoot | Talk 21:20, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone know if John Carmack was valedictorian of his graduating class? I read "Masters of Doom" recently and I don't think it mentioned whether he achieved that rank or not, but it seems like a more valid assessment of academic ability than pure GPA.--Zukin
In many schools, valedictorian is not determined by marks. Personally, I had the highest GPA in my graduating class, but I came runner up, as valedictorian was entirely determined by popular vote.--Slavik81

Still Laughing... Laughing harder now.. Who told you John graduated with a 4.0? Or even a 3.0? I know one class he failed in high school... I know this didn't come out of John's mouth.. ROFL. 4.0? ACT's and SAT's godlike.. yes.. GPA.. negative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

A random factoid: According to this article, Carmack denies inventing the 0x5f3759df inverse square root approximation hack. And I suppose this wouldn't be the best possible article for that stuff anyway. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 02:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Anna Kang[edit]

I would like to suggest that the link to "Katherine Anna Kang" be changed from a redirect to "John Carmack" (her husband) to her own page (even if only a stub). She is a somewhat prominant figure in Machinima circles, running such events as the annual Machinimation Festival. She also worked for id for a while and runs Fountainhead Entertainment.

Before some suggests that I just do this myself, I'm a new wikipedian and don't know how to edit redirects, and am not really sure how to make a new page either. --JBolla

Okay, here's one way you can do it:
  1. Click on the wikilink of Katherine Anna Kang in the article.
  2. You'll be redirected to this article.
  3. Underneath the large John Carmack title, you'll see a message which says (Redirected from Katherine Anna Kang). Click on the Katherine Anna Kang link.
  4. Instead of being redirected again to John Carmack, you'll actually be at the Katherine Anna Kang article.
  5. Click the "Edit this page" link.
  6. You'll see an edit box with the text #redirect [[John Carmack]]. Replace it with your text.
  7. Start the article with '''Katherine Anna Kang''' is a <state the obvious>. For example: Katherine Anna Kang is a film producer.
  8. Then fill in the rest of the prose for her article. Be sure to mention her connection to Carmack.
I could kinda tell you're a new user because you didn't sign your post. I added your signature above, but you can do this with 3 or 4 tildes (~~~ or ~~~~). The latter is preferred since it also adds a timestamp. HTH, peace. :-) Frecklefoot | Talk 14:24, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
I second this, also because Ms. Kang is simply not John Carmack. They're different people and should have different pages. And to the uninformed, searching for "Katherine Anna Kang" and ending up at John Carmack is very confusing.

Okay, created the article, Katherine Anna Kang. Take a look, enjoy. edit... — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Next Gen Consoles: Xbox 360 vs PlayStation 3[edit]

I removed this section because it has very little to do with who Carmack is and his contributions to programming, 3D graphics and the video game industry in general. It's just a summary of an interview with him on the next-generation consoles which, last time I checked, id Software doesn't even develop for (their engines are for Microsoft Windows). If someone disagress, please discuss here:

While millions of opinions (written by gamers) spreaded all over the internet debating which next generation video game console is the most powerful, Carmack gave his opinion in recent interviews with the media.
On comparing Microsoft's Xbox 360 and Sony's PlayStation 3, Carmack admits that Sony's console is probably more powerful "in terms of raw flops and graphic operations.”
Carmack admits however that the Xbox 360 is his preferred console because it has better programming tools as well as a more interactive development environment.
Carmack: "I make little nitpicky decisions about say, well, I prefer the symmetric approach that MS has over the asymmetric Cell approach, but you can do great games on either one of them, and I make fundamental decisions based on development tools and depth of documentation, which Microsoft has been superior on,"
When it comes to long term programming and game development cycles, Carmack stressed that having the best development tools is more important than having superior hardware power.
In regards to the other next generation console, Nintendo's Revolution, Carmack has not yet made a comment on it.

Frecklefoot | Talk 14:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Id Software develops their engines for cross-platform compatibility. All Id games can be played on Macintosh and Linux systems. -Emhilradim 05:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Not true. Some were developed by id for other systems, some were ported by other entities. They may program them to make cross-platform programming easier, but they don't develop games for all three systems at once. They do use OpenGL, for example, which makes porting easier. — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Carmack programmed graphics games as a kid and that's why he became a game programmer[edit]

I removed this section:

During his younger years, Carmack originally wrote a program which displayed his name [Carmack] in big box letters, and then changed the program to allow the name to spin and rotate. It is speculative that, this simple program was what inspired him into graphics programming. While at the time he was by no means a specialist, he did spend the time to develop games that made use of graphics (while many of those around him were making text-based games).

because it is unsourced and contains speculation. Where is the source for him programming such games? How do we know that because of the programs he become a game programmer? It's POV and unsourced and doesn't belong in the article. — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The source for that information is Masters of Doom, and it is valid information. Why he became a programmer is not something that can be covered, true, but as a kid, he did program said games and graphics demos. -Emhilradim 22:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
It's fine if you put it back in and remove the speculation and add the source of the information. Otherwise it looks like pure speculation. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

High School[edit]

Looking around, I noticed a factual inconsistency with Shawnee Mission School District. This article states that he went to Raymond South, but that it is commonly believed that he went to Shawnee Mission East. The school district's article claims him as an alum. When I Googled him, most sources do say Shawnee Mission East, but of course that's not enough to make an edit. Does anyone have a trusted source on this information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

According to David Kushner's Masters of Doom, "Carmack was transferred to the 'gifted and talented' program of the Shawnee Mission East public school" (page 20) but after his parents split, he moved to Raytown where he attended "a junior high with no gifted program or computers." (21). It is possible that he went to high school in Raytown. 06:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

      • This is a fact. I went to school with John and his brother Pete. They both graduated from Raytown South. You can contact the high school to confirm if you are bored. I simply corrected it as it is one of numerous erroneous statements that pop up about John and that one for some reason has always annoyed me. John did attend Shawnee Mission High School for a while but transferred to Ray South. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
I may well have been the (Wikipedia) source for the assertion that he graduated from SM East. I attended SM East, but I graduated 1 year earlier than he did. Given that we weren't close friends, he may well have transferred to Raytown South and I didn't know it. GeoGreg 21:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I went to Raytown South Middle School (1982-1983) and have checked my yearbooks (The Southerner) for his picture. John DOES NOT appear in these years.
I also attended Raytown South High School (1984-1987) and have checked for John's picture in those yearbooks (Polaris).
   John DOES NOT appear in the 1894 edition of Polaris.
   John appears in the 1985 edition of Polaris on page 91 as a Freshman (9th grade).
   John DOES NOT appear in the 1986 edition of Polaris.
   John appears in the 1987 edition of Polaris on page 160 as a Junior (11th grade).
   John appears in the 1988 edition of Polaris (page unknown) as a Senior (12th grade). Note: the picture used was a blown up version of the 1987 picture.
We also had a publication called "Calling Cards" that was basically a student directory. I still have copies of the 1984 and and 1986 editions. John is listed in both as being born on 08/21/1970.
There is no listing in any of the above yearboooks or student directories for anyone named Pete Carmack. As far as I know, he had no brothers, but he did have a stepsister that I graduated with in 1987.

Howlingmine (talk) 01:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


I thought it would be a good idea to separate personal information from "Other Items" so it now has "Personal" and "Other" separated. I have a good source that tells me the original information was incorrect so I replaced it with the correct information. I also deleted the detailed information about their son because this type of information is extremely invasive to the minor and it is not relevant to someone wanting to know information about John Carmack. 05:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You should list your "good source" as a reference to the info you added. It needs to be a source that can be verified. The info of any children is fair game—the birth dates and names of children of celebrities is posted all over the place. If you're a high-profile person, you gotta learn to expect that type of stuff. Plus the info is in the logs—you can't get rid of it. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Seems cold blooded to say "any children is fair game". I agree with the first post that the child's name and birth date is irrelevant. The only people who'd find it helpful are probably up to no-good. The child didn't ask to be born into a "celebrity" home (if you could even call John Carmack a celebrity). You don't see Bill Gates' or Steve Job's children's names and birth dates on Wikipedia. Also, when fact checking, why doesn't anyone just e-mail John Carmack or ID? Seems like a good way to check facts to me. 20:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
As far as children go, no, the child didn't ask to be born into a celebrity family, but if one is famous, that type of information is going to get out. And I wouldn't jump to conclusions that those who are interested in the birthdates are necessarily up to no-good. Some people just want to know to be able to understand the context of the person's family status. For example, if a child's birthday is 2006, the reader can understand that the person is the father of a very young child. If the child's birthday is 1985, however, the reader can reasonably assume the child has moved away from the home. I'm not even really interested in these dates, however, and I didn't add them to the article. But wanting to know such things isn't always sinister.
Emails to id or Carmack probably aren't going to be effective for two reasons:
  1. id and Carmack get 1000s of emails everyday. Assuming they'll get to yours—Wikipedia editor or not—is pretty presumptuous.
  2. Even if they did answer you personally, the information obtained that way isn't verifiable. A prerequisite for information in Wikipedia is that it is sourced with a reference that can be publicly verified. It doesn't have to be available online, but even a book or magazine article qualifies, whereas a personal email message does not.
HTH — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I stay with my belief that those truly interested in the full name and date of birth of minors are up to no-good (either by action or in principal). I'd go as far as to say that even IF the minor was the topic, it's irresponsible for fans, media, et al to expose children. In my opinion, in doing so, these individuals are up to no-good. Just because someone is curious about a minor does not make it OK to trample on their privacy. "Wanting to know" does not make it OK. Even criminal minors get privacy protection! The date of birth of Bill Gates' and Steve Jobs' minor children are not exposed in Wikipedia so I don't see why it should be an issue that the birthdate and full name of John Carmack's child has been removed from the main page.
Different topic - It's odd that an e-mail from a direct source is not considered a valid source of information. News articles have been known to contain incorrect or false information. It seems backwards to me that a news article written by a 3rd party is considered a valid source but an e-mail from the subject is not. 23:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
It's not permissible because it can't be verified. Anyone could put in any article "in an email I got from John Doe, he says he invented the typewriter." That email, supposedly sent to that individual, can't be checked or verified. Even if the entire contents fo the email is posted in the article (or Talk page), it's still inadmissible. Emails are easily faked. It can't be proven that the email even ever existed. Articles—even if they contain errors—can be checked. But I didn't make up these rules; they are the rules of the Wikipedia community. — Frecklefoot | Talk 00:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
My question is what sources are there to say that Carmack has children, I don't doubt the information, he has been married for almost or more than a decade, it is just that I have only ever seen word of Carmack having a child on Wikipedia (and the quote from the Katherine Anna Kang article "Kang and Carmack are expecting their second child in 2009." also factors into this). It would be nice to have some confirmation on this important issue on a person's life and thus something important to any biography. Though my sympathies go out to any Carmack Junior, as people are going to expect them to be math geniuses! Comrade Graham (talk) 02:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
This issue occurred so long ago, I don't know what sources were used for his children's names and birthdates. It's in the history, though. But, yeah, children's names and birthdates are expected of any comprehensive biography. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Noticed he was listed as an American Atheist, could we get the reference listed, perhaps an article? -AtheistKingmcKingerson — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


Talk:John Carmack directs to this page, so I feel like it's appropriate to talk about it here. John Carmack currently disambigs between this and some church guy; Googling the other John Carmack's full name turns up more about the game programmer than the actual person I'm looking for. Looking at the article, the other Carmack doesn't seem notable at all. I'd really rather John Carmack go directly to the game programmers page; that is who people are looking for. Anyone agree? Chaos on the internet 04:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. John Carmack should go to the game programmer, with a small link to the other fellow. The church Carmack doesn't seem all that notable. I could even see deleting that page. He was fairly high up in the church, but he was still just an administrator. Even the page doesn't list anything that he did that was notable. Nairebis 12:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed that it should just go to here with a small link to John K. Carmack. But K. Carmack was a general authority in the Church. While it sounds mundane by its title, it's pretty significant. So his article should remain. I know we're not discussing deleting his article, but just thought I'd mention it. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 14:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Wolf3D for SNES not in table[edit]

Carmack did end up porting Wolfenstein 3-D to the Super Nintendo Entertainment System himself. "Masters of Doom" pg. 133 states that Burger Bill, who was contracted by id, failed to deliver. id fired him, and Carmack did the port himself. Madman420 (talk) 10:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the current table doesn't list platforms, so I guess this comment was OBE. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

'Game' and 'Recognition' entries in opposing chronological orders[edit]

Wouldn't it make more sense to have both the 'gameography' list and the 'recognition' list to both be in reverse chronological order? When you're reading it, trying to track his history, it feels strange to first read his games, from latest to first, and then his achievements first to last. In my opinion, it breaks the flow of the article. I suggest reversing the chronological order og the 'recognition' list. Thoughts? --Pinkopf (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a personal preference: neither order is right or wrong. I changed the Recognition section into a sortable table so you can look at it in reverse if you prefer. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


For a while, this article stated that Carmack was located in Mesquite, Texas. Recently an anon user changed it to Heath, Texas. They stated that "appraisal records clearly state that he is located in Heath, Texas." I don't care where he really is, but we really need a ref for that fact. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Asperger's Syndrome?[edit]

There would appear to be a number of prima facie characteristics indicating Asperger's Syndrome. Is any information on this available? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Is the name really "John D. Carmack II"?[edit]

Outside of Wikipedia I've never heard of the "D." and the "II" part of his name. What does "D." stand for? Are there any sources for this name (vs. just "John Carmack")?

Emmy Awards, how many, when?[edit]

The article says honored, not an Award (source unavailable), while the "Emmy" page that is linked to says award (but no source). Lots of sources say award but not sure if they are reliable.

[7]: “For the first time in our 59 year history, not all winners will be presented with an Emmy statuette at this year’s ceremony due to litigation with the Hollywood-based Academy of Television Arts & Sciences,” said Peter Price, President and CEO, National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences. comp.arch (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Residence - politics[edit]

I looked up the address, is in conflict with the Infobox? I do not care where he lives, just not sure how to read this (and he might have moved). On the other hand should we link to info that gives the address? Would it be illegal in (some other?) countries? And while it's (official) public information (ok then?), is it appropriate/notable and/or legal to include political information about a (non-political) person? What if he (are we sure it is he) has published his views on some message board as he seems to have done, is it then ok? Saw some general info (not Ron Paul or looked for that). comp.arch (talk) 15:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

You may want to consult WP:BLP. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
In any case, on 24 June 2015, this sourced, publicly-available information, provided by the US FEC, was removed on the grounds that it was "unsubstantiated," and that there are "plenty of people in the U.S named 'John Carmack'." However, the source lists the subject's occupation as "Technical Director" at "id Software." As the information seems to be rather well-substantiated, I've restored it. -- (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


"Having ... no belief in luck, fate, karma, or god(s)" strictly speaking would not make him an atheist. Not having a belief in god(s), is not the same as believing that there are no god(s).

To quote the Wikipedia entry on Atheism: "In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities." To quote Carl Sagan: "An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed."

Based on the provided quote, we can't determine whether he is an atheist or not. Unless of course so other article confirms it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

"Not having a belief in god(s), is not the same as believing that there are no god(s).". This is a true distinction, but irrelevant. You're talking about lacktheism vs atheism. It is either true or not true that a person is convinced god/s exist. That is a true dichotomy. If it is true that a person does not believe in any gods, then it is true they are atheists. There are no people for whom it is true that they do not have a belief in god, but do not also believe that there are no gods. This kind of non-atheist lacktheism only applies to babies and inanimate objects like rocks. If a person says they do not have a belief in gods, that person is what we all would call an atheist. They are absolutely not theists. "Negative" atheism is still atheism. "Weak" atheism is still atheism. "Soft" atheism is still atheism. [1] Volound (talk) 08:31, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Move to "John Carmack"[edit]

Is there any reason why the initial is included in the article title? "John Carmack" redirects to "John D. Carmack" right now czar  23:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it's because there were other John Carmacks, so John Carmack was made into a redirect for John Carmack (disambiguation), and so this article was made into it's current form to distinguish it from other John Carmacks, like John K. Carmack. But then it was decided that this John Carmack is the primary topic for John Carmack, so John Carmack was a redirect to this article, but by that time, no one remembered that John D. Carmack used to be John Carmack, but was just renamed for disambiguation purposes. It makes sense to move it back to John Carmack, but by now you'll need an admin to do it. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on John Carmack. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^