Jump to content

Talk:Steve Jobs/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Threads from 2008 and older have been moved to Archive 1 to keep chronological order.

Fallout with a Yahoo! executive

Didn't he throw a chair at someone who worked for Yahoo! once? Or am I confusing him for someone else? 24.189.90.68 (talk) 03:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

You are probably thinking of Steve Ballmer#Lucovsky/Google. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm getting my Steves mixed up, thanks. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 04:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Job's

IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH PAST SUMMARY THERE IS A "Job's", FIX IT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.16.224.17 (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

fixed. BashBrannigan (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Kmajor31986, 6 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Replace "Jobs' birth parents, Joanne Simpson and Abdulfattah Jandali—a Syrian Muslim[24]" with "Jobs' birth parents, Joanne Simpson and Abdulfattah Jandali—a..."

For encyclopedic reasons, it would seem that this is irrelevant information. Why is there no mention of Joanne Simpson's religion or nationality? Are these not important, or is there a reason why the Syrian/Muslim background of Job's father is considered more relevant than the background of his mother?

Kmajor31986 (talk) 00:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)kmajor31986


Done. Tim Pierce (talk) 01:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is there nothing about his "philanthropy" ?

In all the articles about billionaires, there are informations about how much they have donated to charity and their foundations. Where are the informations about how much Steve Jobs has donated? --Onesbrief (talk) 19:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, although I could be wrong, Jobs has kept any charity he may have done private. Or, at least not made it a public issue as Gates has done. BashBrannigan (talk) 21:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Please Take Out the LSD Sentence

It is not needed because the very next "counter culture" quote relays the same information (taken from the same source). Can I put every verifiable quote I want pertaining to Steve Jobs here? I am not arguing the quote's truth but it's necessity and even destructiveness. The names and ages of the kids (which I found easily) are likely not on the bio for the same reason and I won't be the one to change that. I understand Wikipedia is not about censorship, so how about not censoring me in removing this quote? I guess if this request is removed, I will start looking for valuable Steve Jobs info. to place before this quote. Will you censor my additions...maybe some philanthropic editions?

166.183.178.85 (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)Concerned Mom

Well, that quote is both verified and quite notable pertaining to Jobs; it's staying and such a quote is allowed as per Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. GB86 21:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Given the context, I would agree that the information appears to belong in the article. Taroaldo (talk) 00:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

"Nationality: Muslim?"

Are we sure this is correct? Is "Muslim" a nationality?MrMontag (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Health concerns photo

That picture under Health Concerns reportedly showing Steve Jobs at the 2008 WWDC is incorrect. That picture was not taken at the 2008 event. He was even thinner at the 2008 event. Find a correct picture from that day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danm7799 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

First you start new comments at the bottom. Second, please sign your comments with four tilds. And finally, is your only reason for saying the photo is wrong is because to you he doesn't look sick enough? To me, the photo looks comparable to many of the other photos of that event. BashBrannigan (talk) 01:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I've corrected this. I took both the current photo of Steve (holding an iPhone 4) and the MacBook Air photo. That MacBook air photo was actually from the Macworld conference. When someone brought my photo back and inserted it in the health section, they must have incorrectly labeled it as WWDC 2008. Matt Yohe (talk) 22:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Liver transplant controversy

I came to this page to learn a bit about the controversy surrounding Mr. Jobs' liver transplant. Coming from a bioethics background, I expected to see something, but strangely the article is silent on the issue. I don't think there needs to be much--and it needn't be a vicious notation--but at least one sentence related to the topic seems appropriate, in my opinion. There's a nice article on the American Medical Association's web site that quotes noted bioethicist Art Caplan on the issue. Here's the link: http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2009/07/27/prsa0727.htm. April.13.1743 (talk) 23:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a complicated, controversial issue and even the article you linked says Jobs did nothing wrong. It might be appropriate to use Jobs' transplant in an article about the transplant controversy, but not dealing with transplant controversy in an article about Jobs. BashBrannigan (talk) 06:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 80.192.5.123, 28 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} It has been stated that his salary is this should be removed or corrected, because he clearly does not get paid a $1 salary.

Ronnies1312 (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

KlodCK (talk) 06:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)His salary is $1 and has been for a very long time (article here). What you're confusing is the shares he's holding: 5.5 millions shares and a salary. Shares are not a salary and seriously, who needs a sticking salray when you own 5.5 millions shares of a company that gained 60 % in value in 2010 alone?

Edit request from 222.153.64.27, 19 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Consider reversing 'inventor' in first sentence in favor of 'technologist', as the present term may not properly reflect Jobs' role within Apple.

222.153.64.27 (talk) 05:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Technologist currently goes to a disambiguation page, which has nothing listed there for IT/computing technology, and will be confusing for readers. - S Masters (talk) 08:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, Jobs is NOT an inventor. He really works with design teams and lays out "Requirements" which the engineers than go figure out how to do. Stipulating requirements is not strictly speaking "inventing". Invention has more to do with the hard science behind something. Ex. Steve likes his devices to not show screws. The engineers have to figure out how to construct something that is held together without any screws showing. Steve didn't invent anything, he merely came out with some requirements. 19:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NathanielPoe (talk • contribs)

What you're expressing is personal opinion. Wikipedia can only use whatever is from reliable sources: newspapers, magazines, reputable websites, etc. There are numerous that refer to Jobs as an inventor. 02:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

All knowledge is "personal opinion". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.200.143.164 (talk) 11:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but this doesn't mean we can change Wikipedia policy to adapt wording for one specific article. Regardless of what information is, Wikipedia has a strict policy on biographies of living persons that any statements that are likely to be controversial must be backed up by reliable sources. Numerous sources state that he is an inventor, and while I'd be inclined to agree with you on the use of the word "technologist" instead, there isn't any published material that refers to him as such. elektrikSHOOS 16:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

"currently goes to a disambiguation page, which has nothing listed there for IT/computing technology, and will be confusing for readers." wtf? That doesn't mean the guy's an inventor ...

"What you're expressing is personal opinion. " Utter, utter, UTTER piffle. He hasn't invented anything. Matter of fact, of public record, quite clear and probably something he'd tell you himself. He is a salesman. I don't intend that in any pejorative sense, that's just what he is, as evidenced by what he does. As an aside, I'm getting a bit sick of wikipedia being run by fanboys, agendists and generally 100-IQ defectives running round throwing indignant, "You can't say *that*!"s at anyone who doesn't entirely agree with them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.229.10.203 (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The article notes (with reference lists of patents, sourced to the US Patent Office) that: "Jobs is listed as either primary inventor or co-inventor in over 230 awarded patents or patent applications" -- Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Liver campaign

Could someone please add some information on Jobs co-campagning with Arnold Schwarzenegger for something relating to a donor/transplant list. I'm not quite sure on the specifics, but I read a few months ago that Jobs and Shwarzenegger where campaigning for something relating to health care in California. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.242.165 (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

First, could you please sign comments with four tildes "~". Second, you are welcome to add the information yourself if it's properly referenced. Or, at the least, if it is something truly important to you, then you really should have put more effort into it than simply "I read a few months ago". Give us more to go on. BashBrannigan (talk) 22:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I apologise. That was a bit half-hearted of me. Here are a few articles about the campaign:
- 86.143.242.165 (talk) 02:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.17.48 (talk)

Steven Paul Jobs supposedly tested positive for HIV-1

Why are the wikileak documents not added to the article stating that he had been tested positive for HIV in the year Sep,2004 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.179.58.36 (talk) 13:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks concluded those photos were not legitimate: http://mirror.wikileaks.info/wiki/Correction_of_DPA_article_in_respect_to_WikiLeaks_and_Steve_Jobs_HIV_test/index.html Tweisbach (talk) 15:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Agreed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.179.58.36 (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Salesmanship & reality distortion field

the article currently says that the reality distortion field is particularly evident in his keynote addresses. But the reality distortion field link says that the term was coined to describe his persuasiveness with developers working at Apple. So at a minimum, it should say "also evident" not "particularly evident", though since the whole thing is unsourced and is opinion it would probably be better to stick with facts such as he is considered to be a good salesman and pursuasive to developers, etc. 96.224.167.176 (talk) 05:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Typefaces, fonts

Also, while I'm here, in the address he gave at the Stanford graduation (and also in this article), he states that sitting in on a college class about calligraphy gave him the idea to include typefaces and fonts in the Macintosh (and it was about taking credit as shown by his accusing Microsoft of copying Apple), but since he saw typefaces and fonts already implemented on the Alto at Xerox PARC, this story seems highly suspect. Charles Simonyi who invented WYSIWYG at PARC, and who went from Xerox to Microsoft prior to seeing the Macintosh, has a much better claim on this particular piece history, and it seems wikipedia should contain the truth, not the reality distortion field. (actually, now that I think of it, this story was probably stitched together when Apple was sued by Xerox; that was his story and he's still sticking to it) Even if Jobs had sat in on a calligraphy class, you don't need to take calligraphy to grasp serif and sans serif, it's in ordinary typesetting; typesetting is not calligraphy, and the Mac included as a core element the same typesetting style features as the Alto and Bravo X, rather than including calligraphy (the only calligraphy was the iconic script "hello" screen. 96.224.167.176 (talk) 05:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I engaged in some speculation as to how the story more likely played out. I'm not advocating that the article contain speculation. I'm advocating that if the article is going to mention the "oh, I took a class in calligraphy without registering for it" story, then the article should also mention that Jobs visited Xerox and saw the technology there. Note the word Xerox appears only in a footnote to this article. How could this be? Perhaps locking the page is not enough to protect it from vandalism, eh?

Ambiguous wording - just needs a couple simple changes

I was confused by "Jobs might have married Baez", at first thinking the writer is unsure if Jobs and Baez wed. If the phrase were changed to "Jobs might otherwise have married Baez" I'd be less confused.  :)

I was also confused by the reference to Bill Clinton. I think Jobs lent the motorcycle to Bill Clinton, but he might have lent the house to Clinton.

Sorry to be a pain. You guys do a great job. Thanks. Theresavalek (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Oddity

"In 1982, Jobs bought an apartment in The San Remo, an apartment building in New York City with a politically progressive reputation, where Demi Moore, Steven Spielberg, Steve Martin, and Princess Yasmin Aga Khan, daughter of Rita Hayworth, also had apartments. With the help of I.M. Pei, Jobs spent years renovating his apartment in the top two floors of the building's north tower, only to sell it almost two decades later to U2 frontman Bono. Jobs had never moved in.[78][79]"

I'm not sure why this was included except that it is odd. This seems like a common buddhist practice of making a work of art, then destroying it to show how 'unattached' you are. If any columnist or reporter mentioned this connection, I think it would be valuable to add to the article. Better than leaving the reader wondering why he did it, or assuming he's just fickle. Four tildes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talk • contribs) 10:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Recent health issues

So, should we add anything about the Enquirer's images of him? (They're on Gizmodo..)

First, please sign your posts with 4 tildes. Second... Are you kidding? No. National Enquirer is not a reliable source. BashBrannigan (talk) 02:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't you say something along the lines of "The Enquirer Has Reported That Steve Jobs Has Six Weeks To Live"?

Oversizedguitar (talk) 03:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

No. HereToHelp (talk to me) 04:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Wealth

The wealth section of the article states that Apple does not partake in any philanthropic activity. Surely the company's contributions to (Product)RED render this point a falsity. What do others think? 203.122.198.214 (talk) 11:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually I think the entire section is a hack piece. It's entitled "wealth", but discusses little about Jobs wealth. It's mostly a one-sided attack on Jobs and titling it "Jobs' greed" would be more accurate. First, while it mentions Jobs may donate privately, it does so dismissively. Some people consider it immoral to discuss their charitable acts publicly or to use them to improve their image. Second, it appears to be taken for granted that companies must give to charity. It' s not so cut and dried. There are many who argue that companies are better to reinvest their earnings in products and employment and leave charity to shareholders. The section should be removed. BashBrannigan (talk) 23:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Most of this section is undue weight given to a non-NPOV, with the underlying assumption that someone who has money must give to charity. And OR that sounds more like someone has spent quite some time to "dig up these facts". That he has been criticized for not giving as much as Bill Gates etc. is the maximum that the section can sustain, if that. To what extent this criticism is notable in terms of reliable sources is another question (i. e. did notable e.g. newspaper or magazine articles discuss the issue?). I came to this talk page after having been struck by the jolting break in continuity (of encyclopaedic style) of the article, which I had started to read for the first time. And I was going to start a discussion myself if I hadn't found it to be already taking place. So I whole-heartedly agree, and given that no contrary opinion has surfaced so far I will likely cut down the section. -- Nczempin (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I cut it down to contain more facts and less interpretation. The last sentence about cutting down Apple's charity expenses is still somewhat questionable, as it is close to OR-synthesis: "SJ's charity is not on Gates' level, he also cut down Apple's donations, hence ...". That information more properly belongs to the Apple article; putting it here in SJ's article is tendentious. But the section is now not as bad as it was when I first looked at it. -- Nczempin (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
It should be noted that Bill Gates is giving away a (small) portion of his *personal* wealth, not money belonging to Microsoft. Many people rightfully feel that publicly traded companies should not donate to charity, because that money belongs to the shareholders, not all of whom are wealthy, and that it is up to wealthy shareholders to donate a portion of their dividends themselves. Also some shareholders might object to the specific charities that are chosen. (PS: I'm no fan of Steve Jobs, just trying to be fair.) Bostoner (talk) 02:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Early years

In the documentary Triumph of the Nerds, Steve Jobs talks about his first computing experience, programming in BASIC at the age of ten (circa 1965). BASIC was developed at Dartmouth in 1964 and was probably not widespread by 1965. I'm curious as how Steve Jobs had access to such a computer at such an early age. If anybody here has the right resources, it would be nice to shed some light on that point in his life. 166.250.33.113 (talk) 23:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

signature??

What is the justification for including his signature in an encyclopaedia article about him??? -- Nczempin (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Why not? It is related to him. Use some common sense, man (/woman)! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.51.252 (talk) 15:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
A lot of things are related to him but are not in the article, for example his social security number. So why the signature? I could remotely see how that may be interesting for someone like Picasso, but for a WP:BLP? -- Nczempin (talk) 21:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
OK! You have a point. But no one would want his social security number to go public. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.8.225 (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Many people are interested in signatures; they are like personal art. If you check out the signature of Elizabeth I of England on her Wiki page, you will see what I'm talking about. They can be very interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.54.2 (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Resignation as Apple CEO

Any reputable sources for this yet? 74.203.102.30 (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal: http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2011/08/24/steve-jobss-resignation-letter-to-apple/ Illegal Operation (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I also see that HuffPost, TechCrunch and Reuters are reporting on it. TC and Reuters links are in the article already. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 22:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Here are a few more:
Argel1200 (talk) 23:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
The Gray Lady: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/24/steve-jobs-resigns-as-apple-chief-executive/?hp Tree Falling In The Forest (talk) 23:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
That's technically NYT's blog, but I'm positive they'll have a full report on their front page within the hour. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 23:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Nevermind, that is what's on their front page. Pardon me for a moment while I self headdesk. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 23:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Impact of resignation

Please editors help gather information regarding the impact of Steve Jobs stepping down as it will have a huge impact on Apple shares. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 23:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the section again. As Electrik Shoos says, there's no impact right now. Once there are reliable third-party sources reporting on the impact, feel free to add it in. Shubinator (talk) 23:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
See above. His resignation was announced less than half an hour ago. There has been no time whatsoever for analysis, and certainly none for any long-term effects. Let sources be written, then add it, not the other way around. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
There are plenty of articles that allow that placeholder so it can be easily expanded. Besides, I believe the impact of his resignation will be huge and very noticeable within the next hours and tomorrow where it will probably be reflected on Apple's shares. (Of course, that falls within WP:Crystal and I am not implying we should add anything yet) but I think is ok to shepherd new additions towards that important aspect. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
There's no need for a placeholder here. How large the impact will be is speculation at this point; let's wait and see. Shubinator (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Simpsons S20E07

With Steve Jobs retirement in the media at the moment, out of curiosity I looked him up on Wiki. I am surprised that it is not mentioned in the "In popular culture" section that Jobs was parodied in an episode of the Simpsons. While no actual names or Apple trademarks were used, it is clear that much of the humour is lampooning Jobs and Apple Inc in the episode Mypods and Boomsticks. IMO it's worth adding. Codymr (talk) 09:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. There are other Simpsons and South Park parodies of Steve Jobs, Apple and the 'i-devices', which, through irony, make significant social comments on the Apple / Jobs culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.174.7 (talk) 22:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Quotations

The single quotation about Jobs in this section is both a little bland and not even credited to a person. Let's remove this section until/unless we can get a good selection of quotes about/by him. --96.233.85.176 (talk) 06:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Salary

In the infobox it says that he earns $1 in salary per year. However, as far as I can tell, this only refers to his work at Apple Computer. Note that he also is a board member of The Walt Disney Company, for which he probably also earns money. Is there any US service similar to Ratsit which can be used for checking this? (Stefan2 (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC))

There are already four references for this. Note also that this is "salary" and it's likely his other earnings aren't from a salary. BashBrannigan (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Note that all four references explicitly refer to salary from Apple (e.g. "Apple again pays Jobs $1 salary"). Thus, they don't tell us anything about salary from other companies, so he may receive any amount of salary from any other company. In particular, he is presumably paid salary from Disney. (Stefan2 (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC))
It's all assumption on your part that he's paid a salary from someone besides Apple. Find a source for this, then feel free to add it to the article. BashBrannigan (talk) 23:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The one making assumptions is obviously not me but you. The four sources state one thing (Jobs's total salary from one company, Apple Computer, is $1 per year). The Wikipedia article states a different thing (Jobs's total salary from all employers is $1 per year). Obviously, the former does not automatically imply the latter, so the Wikipedia statement is clearly unsourced. The number of sources is irrelevant -- as long as they state something different than what is stated on Wikipedia, the sources are useless. His total salary could be anything; from the four web sites we just know that it is at least $1, as opposed to exactly $1. (Stefan2 (talk) 09:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC))

Trim back Pixar content.

The intro has 346 words, with 102 words (nearly 30%) devoted to Jobs' connection with Pixar. That is way, way disproportionate to Pixar's importance in his biography. Moreover, his involvement with NeXT (fulltime work for more than a decade) is given less than one sentence.

Because I don't know the editorial history of this article, I don't want to make these edits myself (stepping on toes, etc.), but I hope some of the more involved editors will try to improve the balance of coverage in the intro. Cheers, ChrisB 14:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.174.26 (talk)

WP:BOLD
Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 18:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Broken link: "Thoughts on Music"

In "external links" this link: "Thoughts on Music" by Steve Jobs, February 6, 2007. is broken. The link after it, "Thoughts on Flash", follows the same pattern but goes to the correct place. I tried adding hyphens to the music link but it isn't there either. I did find what I think is meant to be linked to at http://www.apple.com/fr/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/, but even though that page is in English, the address is to the French apple site. Eagleclaw6 03:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eagleclaw6 (talk • contribs)

Edit request from , 5 October 2011

Have some information

Atyrau-mosquito (talk) 10:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You haven't actually said what edit you want. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Steve Jobs and gaming

I stumbled upon a blog.

“Everyone knows the true reason why Steve Jobs resigned. Apple cannot compete with dedicated handheld gaming devices. What Apple fans are not familiar with is that Steve Jobs was an employee of Atari and received his business training from Atari’s main investor. The Apple II was designed around the video game ‘Break-Out’ which Wozniak essentially designed. Video games created the personal computer, not the other way around. In the same way, handheld video games created the handheld computers, not the other way around. And despite Steve Jobs’s origins in gaming, his success in media only comes from old media such as movies (Pixar) to music (iPod). Steve Jobs has had the same exact effect on video games as Bill Gates: none. Aside from providing computer hardware that can also play video games, the nature of video games has been unchanged and uninfluenced by Jobs. “It is wise for Steve Jobs to exit his role in the company now when it is clear that he has failed for the second time (the first time was in home game consoles, the second was handheld game consoles) to take over gaming. Steve Jobs has failed to surpass his original employer, Nolan Bushnell, in influence over video games.

I don't know whether if this true or not. What is the relation between Steve Jobs and gaming? Komitsuki (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

-- Very much opinion and not for Wikipedia. The iPhone/iTouch/iPad is the highest grossing gaming platform out there, although I don't have the citations to prove that on hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.189.82 (talk) 02:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

died?

MSNBC is now reporting breaking news that he died. 69.245.8.234 (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Steve Jobs dead, 10/5/11

Preemptively creating this section for editorial discussion of this event. How it should be covered, worded, etc. Might as well get it started now. --mboverload@ 23:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

http://www.apple.com/stevejobs/ Edward Vielmetti (talk) 23:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh no! —stay (sic)! 23:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't think we need a mention in the intro since that's already covered though the info template and death date. Other thoughts? --mboverload@ 23:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree, it is redundant and this isn't intended to be a news source. Pkok3 (talk) 23:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)pkok3 User:pkok3
Also, should we remove the statement that he died of pancreatic cancer? While that is the most probable cause of death, there haven't been any news sources that state that was the exact cause. --Pvvni (talk) 00:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
We must remove it until it's 100% confirmed. I'm leaving the computer now, if someone could do that that would be good. --mboverload@ 00:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I second removing the cause of death as pancreatic cancer until it's officially confirmed. --Skeven (talk) 00:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Concur. It's the most likely cause given the published medical info, but we don't have a reliable source providing a definitive statement. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 00:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Exactly my thoughts Grnberet2b (talk) 00:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Removed. Once the cause of death is announced by a reliable source, it can be included. Meanwhile, remember that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia's Main Page has pancreatic cancer as his cause of death, I think that should be removed as well. - SudoGhost 00:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Nevermind, it was removed right after I hit save page. - SudoGhost 00:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

If the info about his death is being merged into the health section, perhaps it could be renamed to "Declining health and death"? 75.80.61.43 (talk) 00:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

CBS reports Steve Jobs has died

http://twitter.com/#!/CBSNews -Chris L — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.123.86 (talk) 23:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC) I'm seeing it right now!Gregory Heffley (talk) 23:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Steve Jobs - Additional Citations

Please add as main citation to "Steven Paul "Steve" Jobs (February 24, 1955 – October 5, 2011)". Confirmed with letter from Apple http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/10/05Apple-Media-Advisory.html Rtfmoz (talk) 00:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Not necessary, IMO. HurricaneFan25 00:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry guys :(

A mistake was made, and has been corrected. Nothing to see here, move along.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Sorry guys, clicked the wrong button here on Twinkle :/. Really, really, sorry. HurricaneFan25 01:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thought this might be the case, it would have been a major dick move otherwise. Bobbitybob (talk)
yeah i saw your speedy deletion under G1, it's fine no harm done. Ald™ ¬_¬™ 01:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it lasted more than a minute. No harm done. I figured it was a mistake, too. —Digital Jedi Master (talk) 01:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted as lacking sufficient context to identify its subject, because it does not meet the criterion cited for speedy deletion, namely insufficient information to identify the person discussed therein.

Even a cursory reading of the article reveals that such speedy deletion claim is astonishingly ludicrous on its face. --Trujaman (talk) 01:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

P.S.: Apparently the speedy deletion box has disappeared as I was writing this. Good riddance.

Please see the topic above yours. It was just a goof. −Digital Jedi Master (talk) 01:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. Cheers. --Trujaman (talk) 04:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Applecom homepage after death of Steve Jobs.png

I'm not sure this is would be considered a historical image. Also, we have other (free) images that adequately describe Jobs. I know about the "RIP Steve Jobs" mentality, but do we seriously need this image when we have an entire section that describes his illness and death? –MuZemike 01:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, everyone keeps removing the image from the article. I presume, then, that the image should be deleted, right? –MuZemike 01:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Other websites are using the image as well. Fair use seems to apply across the board I would think.--JOJ Hutton 01:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Is it conveying any additional information and/or context to readers, though? I mean, we have an entire section devoted to his illness and death, and, as a result, the image may seem more purely decoration than anything else. The issue of whether or not it is being widely used across the Internet should not be a factor. That's my point. –MuZemike 02:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe that there is anything on the image cannot be expressed through words. In fact, what is already in the article expresses exactly what is found in the image, IMO. The image would give the reader no additional information. - SudoGhost 02:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. I think the image and sentiment are iconic and the picture should remain. GG The Fly (talk) 02:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
However, we don't keep non-free images merely because they are "sentiment and iconic", especially when we have full color free images of Jobs already. –MuZemike 02:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Respectfully, I think iconic would be premature at this point, and that it should be removed per WP:NFCC. It has no contextual significance (non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding). Also, the words themselves are already described through fair use in the article itself, I don't see a reason to have a second instance of of the words in a different format, when that second instance can be adequately described in the article. - SudoGhost 02:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the rest. This image doesn't seem to convey anything significant that text couldn't, it clearly isn't iconic yet, no reason for it to be used under NFCC. In the mean time, I've shrunk it to 475 wide. IMHO it's still readable at 450 or even 400 but in case there was dispute I decided to start with 475. Nil Einne (talk) 10:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh FFS! Apple aren't going to sue you for having this image on Wikipedia. Leave it where it is. In the incredibly unlikely event that Apple or Steve's estate complain then delete the image. Haven't you got more important stuff to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.158.7 (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
That's not how we do things around here. We don't just put up any old images because we can or otherwise for mere decoration. We use them to increase understanding of the article (i.e. the prose) to readers. Given that the entire section is about his illness and death, not to mention that we have other free images of Jobs all over the article as it is (we are primarily a free content encyclopedia after all), I still fail to see why the image is necessary. Given, I respect the guy for his contributions to society and to the computing world, but we all want the article to be as concise and informative as we can make it. –MuZemike 22:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
So, given the discussion in this thread, should the image be removed from the article? - SudoGhost 13:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Probably, but I'm not sure it's urgent, since the image will likely be deleted in a few days due to its bad fair use rationale. -- Rrburke (talk) 13:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't see that tag on the image. - SudoGhost 14:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I just read the balance of the thread and only now realize no one has explained this: the image is in all likelihood going to be deleted because the fair-use claim ("unique historic image") is faulty. The reason is that while the event may be historic, the image qua image is not. Really, unless the image itself is the subject of discussion or critical commentary in the article in which it appears, any claim of fair use is groundless. This is a useful test for deciding whether the image itself is historic, in which case a fair-use claim might be asserted, or whether only the event it commemorates is, in which case the claim is weak to vanishing.
A useful comparison: Eddie Adams' Pulitzer Prize-winning photo of the killing of Nguyen Van Lem or Nick Ut's photo of the aftermath of the napalm attack on Trang Bang qualify as unique historic images because the images themselves, not just the events they depict, are well-known and are subjects of discussion and commentary in the articles in which they appear. -- Rrburke (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Recentism

There seems to be a lot of recentism in the death section. It needs to be about one third as long. The article is not a newspaper. Long quotes not needed. All seems a product of over-excitement. Less is more. Span (talk) 02:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree but if there was to more quotes added to the page perhaps consider starting a new article. YuMaNuMa (talk) 03:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Lead

Don't want to mess things up, but we don't need so may citations for the DOD. 1 would be sufficient, but ideally they should be all moved to the body. (the lead reflects the body of the article) – Connormah (talk) 04:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 6 October 2011 - number of patents held

Update Steve Jobs invention

Steve Jobs possess 510 patents worldwide http://www.directoryinventor.com/people/sQf1Z8t/steven-jobs.html#patents

Michaellinli (talk) 04:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think we will need to have a more reliable source for this information before it can be added. I am going to decline this request pending further confirmatory sourcing. It would be useful information to include, however, if someone can find other reliable sources. Risker (talk) 04:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Don't have an opportunity to work this into an appropriate edit, but the NYT has a discussion of Jobs' patents here. There are 317, but these are just the ones related to Apple; he no doubt has more, given the period when he wasn't working at Apple. Risker (talk) 13:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 6 October 2011

Page has been vandalized. Needs immediate correction of first paragraph


66.185.45.100 (talk) 04:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Done by User:Jasper Deng. - SudoGhost 04:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Illness and death => Illness, Death

I think Jobs' regrettable death, while probably related, should be distinguished from his illness in a separate section - especially for people who might only look for info on his passing.

I will effect such a separation. If you disagree, please discuss here. Thanks --Trujaman (talk) 04:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The main article could be improved if it specified how he died. I looked all over the place. Unless I missed it, it isn't mentioned. Note that posting a link to a supposed source, is not how the main page of this article is improved. Just say 'cancer' and a real world source. (Not a link to a place I can't get to.) Remember, not all webbrowsers are as efficient or reliable as yours. 216.99.201.134 (talk) 10:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Jobs and Wikipedia

General complaint by IP editor about the article being semi-protected. Heap big smoke, no fire, and doesn't serve to improve the article.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

While Jobs was a visionary and innovator, there wasn't much rules or restrictions in him bringing about the latest technology gadget or gizmo into the market. Here we have Wikipedia and its over zealous administrators restricting the flow of information in nearly all their articles. In most articles you see a semi-protection tag or edit tag, over minor issues like recent-ism, etc etc etc. Some editors have to asked permission in the discussion pages to edit the articles. How ridiculous and innovative is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.217.154.242 (talk) 04:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

That is because when a significant story becomes headlines, there is often a large inflow of unregistered users showing up to a wiki article on the topic and they start vandalizing it en mass. By restricting edits to registered users, this adds stability to the article, particularly by preventing many vandalisms by anonymous users. Nothing ridiculous about that. — al-Shimoni (talk) 04:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Unless, of course, the person complaining about the restriction intends ill toward the article. To them, it's ridiculous. To most of the rest of us, vandalism is ridiculous. Who's right? (For anyone just wandering by, that last was rhetorical and needs no response.) --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 04:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
The page protection is to stop IP vandalism. Page protection is enforced due to a high amount of vandalism that the page received before or is foreseeable to receive. It is better for 1 or 2 IP editors to as to edit an article rather than dozens of IP vandals destroying the article. Those IP editors who really do wish to edit an article can always make themselves a Wikipedia account and edit even with page protection enforced. Administrators don't restrict the flow of information, regular non-admin editors make 90%+ of all edits you see on Wikipedia. Administrators are just here to enforce the rules and make decisive judgement if an issue was to arise. If you read one the 5 pillars of Wikipedia, you would understand that Wikipedia does not censor and welcomes new information to all of its articles as long as it is verifiable and properly referenced. YuMaNuMa (talk) 04:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

(trying not to use any policy-talk or anything else) Almost 300 edits to the article have been made since the announcement of his death. Multiply that number by about 4 to account for vandalism and subsequent reverting, and what you get is a virtually uneditable article (though it was uneditable enough without the vandalism). And I didn't even talk about the fact that the article has been semi-protected for years (as far as I can see, almost since 2006). Yeah, Jobs was a visionary and innovator, but that doesn't mean he wasn't also widely hated. –MuZemike 05:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Then what is the point of having the watchlist function at the top right corner of the article page? Vandalism can be removed real quickly, its just that people in Wikipedia have gotten lazy and paranoid over vandalism. And I like to point out the famous words in the main page of the article - Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Isn't that an oxymoron? Mr Wales, care to comment? Was it your intention to have hundreds or volunteer policemen aka administrators restricting the flow of information when you created Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.217.154.242 (talk) 05:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia editors have better things to do than just vandalism reversions. Laziness isn't a valid argument when you consider that registered editors must take out time to respond to such requests.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Anon138, here's the interesting thing. Instead of complaining about the page being semi-protected, you could (a) register an account, make a measly 10 edits and then edit the page, (b) suggest an edit here and one of us will get to it really darn quickly, or (c) stop complaining in a way where others may misconstrue what you are saying as trolling. You know about watchlists and such, why not log in instead of posting here anonymously? Just a thought... ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 05:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
And yeah, everyone can edit Wikipedia and its the same in society where people often claim that their country is meant to be a free country. It's a free country when you oblige the laws and formality but when you don't there are punishments. If everyone sped in a school zone then the law enforcers will have to think of a new tactic to tackle this problem which hence would be speed bumps. Same situation here, if there is a large amount of vandalism then page protection would be imposed. Get my analogies? YuMaNuMa (talk) 05:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I hate to be the wet blanket, but the talk page is better reserved for discussion of the article itself, not general wiki policies or random trolling (OP). Let's close this down, shall we?204.65.34.206 (talk) 14:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Statements on his Death

Why have a section with "statements on his death"? That doesn't sound neutral at all, it reads more like "The Steve Jobs Cult Corner". D0nj03 (talk) 05:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

How would you word it? What aspect to you perceive as non-neutral? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 05:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I'd use statements from obituaries only. Parrot of Doom 06:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
There's plenty of rubbish in obituaries too.. why not simply drop things from this section that noone will care about in twenty, ten, even five years, and just leave the statements by Gates, Murdoch, and the Woz? Nevard (talk) 09:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I suggest to simplify the section "Statements on Jobs' death". Otherwise, to represent the European condolence, there are also the words of the President of the European Commission Barroso (link). --Enok (talk) 11:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. The statements are complete garbage. Might as well write statements made by Leopold Infeld, Nathan Rosen and Peter Bergmann on Albert Einstein's death. This is an encyclopedia not a forum for statements on his death. elemented9 11:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't think this section should be included at all; it's not common practice for other celebrities on Wikipedia, it shouldn't be here. Write the facts and move on. 97.64.237.173 (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not persuaded anything but the briefest excerpts from the statements is warranted, and I'm not even persuaded they are. This section is bloated and unencyclopedic. A single sentence in the section about his death with a handful of prominent names would suffice. This is Wikipedia, not Kensington Palace. See Mourning sickness. -- Rrburke (talk) 17:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
You're probably right, but I know from experience with Apple events on Wikipedia that the best course of action is to wait a week, see what the community built before losing interest, and then try to make an encyclopedia out of it. Much of what gets created will be valuable on WIkiquote. HereToHelp (talk to me) 17:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
The nightmare continues. This tide needs to be turned back. It's become mawkish and maudlin. I have a sensation like I'm drowning in honey. -- Rrburke (talk) 18:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm with you Rrburke, this thing will probably be a eulogy instead of an encyclopedia for the next couple of days. It needs to be taken back as soon as things chill out a bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.23.136.33 (talk) 01:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 6 October 2011

Please Update Steve Jobs portrait with the below one.

File:Steven Paul Jobs.png
Steven Paul Jobs 1955-2011

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Steven_Paul_Jobs.png

Amar007sv (talk) 05:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

This image has been deleted from the Wikimedia Commons as a copyright violation per Wikimedia Commons' licensing policy. There was no indication that this specific photo was in fact released under a Creative Commons license, which it was originally tagged by the uploader. The source provided for the image only said "apple.com". This web site is "Copyright © 2011 Apple Inc. All rights reserved.". Unless it is specifically stated that this image is free content, such images instead should be uploaded here locally on Wikipedia, provided that it complies with the non-free content policies. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

?

This article is covered by WikiProject Syria? 71.146.8.5 (talk) 06:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

His biological parents were Syrian. –MuZemike 06:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
One was. -- Rrburke (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you 75.6.243.251 (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you 75.6.243.251 (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 6 October 2011

The thumbnail for the screenshot of the Apple.com homepage's tribute to Steve Jobs is wrong! Please change it, thanks.

137.132.250.13 (talk) 07:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It's possible that the servers might not have caught up yet with that vandalism upload, which was reverted and deleted. At least I tried purging, bypassing the cache, and making an edit, and it's still there, so that's the only explanation I can give. Hopefully, it should revert back on its own shortly. –MuZemike 07:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 Done – I just needed to purge the cache of File:Applecom homepage after death of Steve Jobs.png, and it went back to its normal self. –MuZemike 07:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 6 October 2011

Maybe we could put Sergey Brin and Larry Page (Google founders) statements about Jobs death:
https://plus.google.com/109813896768294978296/posts/dwmWyNSoXTh
https://plus.google.com/106189723444098348646/posts/4wkYwTCCgAc

I don't know exactly how to do it in the right way.
Analton (200.4.69.153 (talk) 07:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)) .

Edit request from , 6 October 2011

Steve Job's respect comes through in DJ KRΦSS's recent Steve Jobs Tribute track http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=texBm4kKQfE

Aqua91264387 (talk) 08:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done. Although the sentiment is heartwarming, DJ KRΦSS does not appear to be a notable musical artist. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 6 October 2011

Under paragraph "Next Computer"

It says "going to revolutionise [sic] human communications and groupwork". The word revolutionise is spelled TOTALLY correctly and does not deserve the SIC comment!

Smartdave (talk) 09:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Sic refers to a text or phrase copied exactly from the source. It has nothing to do with the spelling of a word. — Abhishek  Talk 10:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


@Abishek: SmartDave is right. You are wrong. According to your logic there should be a Sic (properly [sic]) after each word. You are wrong, Abishek.

"Sic" is Latin for "thus" and is used to indicate "Hey, this isn't my mistake! It was like that when I copied and pasted it." You couldn't be more wrong, Abishek. SmartDave is our winner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.4 (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)



That doesn't answer the request. Why is [sic] in there at all? Tim (Xevious) (talk) 10:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Illness and death & Memorials sections far too lengthy

The "Illness and death" and "Statements on Jobs' death" sections appear grossly out of proportion for the rest of the article, partly, one would imagine, due to the recency of his death and the fevered speculation about his health that preceded it. Certainly, there's no reason to invest far more writing in covering his battle with cancer than his role in the founding of Apple. As to the memorials section, not even the entry for Winston Churchill, a far more extensively memorialized individual, has this sort of extensive block-quoting. Do we really need separate, detailed statements from the Prime Minister of Australia and the CEO of Nokia? Ultimately, I would imagine, this will transform into a "Legacy" or "Technological and Cultural Influence" section. For now, though, any objection to finding a proper weight to the overall article? ThtrWrtr (talk) 12:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Short summaries here, split into illness and death sections, and perhaps a dedicated article for the Death of Steve Jobs. Agree? Shencypeter (talk) 12:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the death section will warrant its own article but splitting death and illness sounds like a fine idea as Steve was ill for quite a while. YuMaNuMa (talk) 12:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Done, looks more balanced now..Shencypeter (talk) 12:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Personal life

Ref 98 about diet is near the sentence about his car. Klisanor (talk) 12:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

google page has link to steve jobs

google page has link to steve jobs.212.143.49.98 (talk) 13:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 6 October 2011

Statements from Larry Page:[1]

I am very, very sad to hear the news about Steve. He was a great man with incredible achievements and amazing brilliance. He always seemed to be able to say in very few words what you actually should have been thinking before you thought it. His focus on the user experience above all else has always been an inspiration to me. He was very kind to reach out to me as I became CEO of Google and spend time offering his advice and knowledge even though he was not at all well. My thoughts and Google's are with his family and the whole Apple family.

Statements from Sergey Brin:[2]

From the earliest days of Google, whenever Larry and I sought inspiration for vision and leadership, we needed to look no farther than Cupertino. Steve, your passion for excellence is felt by anyone who has ever touched an Apple product (including the macbook I am writing this on right now). And I have witnessed it in person the few times we have met. On behalf of all of us at Google and more broadly in technology, you will be missed very much. My condolences to family, friends, and colleagues at Apple.

108.73.129.26 (talk) 13:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. — Bility (talk) 17:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Typo needs correction

The following line has a typo,

Abdulfattah John Jandali, an Syrian Muslim immigrant to the U.S

Should instead say,

Abdulfattah John Jandali, a Syrian Muslim immigrant to the U.S

69.171.160.35 (talk) 14:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Cause of death

I have again removed references to Steve Jobs' death as having been caused by pancreatic cancer as unverifiable. I haven't found a single source that says his death was caused by pancreatic cancer. Certainly no source cited in the article says that explicitly (some say he died after a battle with pancreatic cancer, but that's not the same thing).

It's reasonably probable that he died of pancreatic cancer; however, reasonable probability is not the threshold for inclusion: verifiability is. It's possible, for instance, that his cancer had metastasized and that his death was caused by the secondary cancer at the site of the metastasis. Certain types of chemotherapy also carry increased risk of heart attack. In short, we don't know what caused his death -- or, rather, no reliable published source identifies a cause of death, so until one does, references to his having died from pancreatic cancer should continue to be removed. -- Rrburke (talk) 14:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

BBC is now reporting the cause of death as pancreatic cancer, and it's been properly cited in the lede. I've been one of the more strident voices saying the article can't state a cause of death without a source to back it up, and I'm willing to allow this to stand as is. Does anyone wish to voice any reservations regarding the reliability of BBC as a secondary source? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Multiple independent sources explicitly identifying pancreatic cancer as the cause of death would be preferable. It is curious that amid all the coverage, this single BBC story is the only one that explicitly mentions pancreatic cancer as the cause of death. Not even the BBC's own obituary does. I somehow doubt Jobs' family gave an exclusive to the BBC on his cause of death, and strongly suspect this is just a (sloppy) uncorroborated assumption on the part of the article's author that should have been challenged by the editor before it was published.
This is a high-profile article linked off the main page, so I think scrupulous accuracy is especially important. -- Rrburke (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
After I contacted the BBC for clarification, the story was changed to read "died at 56 after a long battle with pancreatic cancer." So I guess that answers that question. I'll remove references to death from pancreatic cancer pending publication of that claim in reliable sources. -- Rrburke (talk) 17:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Good call. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 19:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Date of the death

There is no evidence that he died on the 5th of October (there is no concrete date in the official statement on the Apple site and in his family statement). He could died in September when the rumor was being circulated (moreover, CBS twitted about his death). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.167.127.54 (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

October 5 statements from Apple and Jobs' family both say he died "today". -- Rrburke (talk) 16:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Using historical images of Jobs under fair use provision

Not wanting to be too blunt (I think it's a great loss too as I always enjoyed his keynotes, even though they never caused me to buy Apple products) but does Jobs' death allow historical images of him (like him presenting the first Mac) to be used in this article? SpeakFree (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

No, because such use fails WP:NFCC 1: where free alternatives exist (or could be created), fair-use can't be asserted. The images in this article, for example, are free, so free alternatives exist. An exception would be if the image itself were historic. -- Rrburke (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
OK thanks for clearing that up. SpeakFree (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Occupation

I don't know what the guidelines are for this, but considering Steve is no longer around surely his occupation in the infobox should list all his notable occupations in life (ie. CEO and Chairman of Apple with years), or if only one prefer CEO as undoubtedly his most well-known and significant role. U-Mos (talk) 17:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. Let me see if deceased people get occupations at all before I change it. HereToHelp (talk to me) 17:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Best Business Entrepreneur on Earth?

"In 2011 Jobs was voted Best Business Entrepreneur On Earth." I feel like this is simply a shameless plug capitalizing on Steve Jobs' death to direct traffic to someone's website, and it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cvggrrl (talk • contribs) 17:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 6 October 2011

Through Jobs' death he leaves a legacy of revolutionizing communication in a world marked by flattening and globalization. From the micro-level of the sport of tennis, the Apple product has revolutionized the way people talk about, learn, watch, and interact with tennis. American Tennis star and 27-time Grand-Slam Champion, Serena Williams said, “Steve Jobs the Thomas Edison of our day. You will be missed but your Legend will Live forever.” [3] 75.148.230.89 (talk) 18:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

This section is already hideously overblown and should be substantially reduced rather than expanded. -- Rrburke (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Archiving bot?

Is it OK that we put in some automatic bot-archiving of this talk page, as it is getting quite large as-is? I was thinking of 48 or 72 hours should keep the page accessible and help drown out the noise given by stale discussions. –MuZemike 22:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

No argument from me...in fact, I'm a bit surprised it wasn't already set up. Maybe that should become part of the routine for high-profile articles, or articles that become high-profile some time after creation. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 22:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Additional Statements of Steve's death

Scott Adams, of Dilbert Comic Fame wrote: "I once thought his success was mostly a matter of luck. Anyone can be at the right place at the right time. But then he did it again. And again. And again. And again. He was my only hero."

He wrote this as his blog on 10/6/2011

I think it's another great "statement on Jobs' life" but I can't add it to that section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.3.138.124 (talk) 22:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

What we should really do it let this topic undulate for a few days/weeks and then come back and do Steve the honour of fixing the article up nicely. fr33kman 22:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, the first external link is broken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iyassky (talk • contribs) 23:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Statements on Jobs' death

I was reading with some sadness today about the death of Steve. As I read this article I came across the ===Statements on Jobs' death=== and noticed the order in which they had been placed; the US president, a man who's personally known Steve for decades, and then a person who has worked with Steve for years. I hate to say this but it seems to me that this order is (unintentionally) US hierarchy biased. I'd suggest that the order would be first Bill Gates, then Disney and then the US president. I know it seems trivial but it really struck me that Barack Obama's statement had been placed first when he likely knew Steve very little and probably [IMHO] doesn't even know what and Apple I is. To me, that seems to be giving undue bias to a political leader rather than the people who know him. Would we place Woz's words below the Presidents? Any thoughts? fr33kman 22:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Um, yes: none of it has any place in an encyclopedia article. -- Rrburke (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Pixar's Statement About His Death

Has anyone else considered to post about Pixar's statement regarding Steve Job's death. He was one of the biggest people involved with Pixar for the longest time, until he sold it to Disney. They create a page for him on their homepage and I feel that it would be appropriate to incorporate their statement as well as Apple's since he bought Pixar after he left Apple during the 80s. --SpaceChase123 (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Straw Poll

Should we consider making a Death of Steve Jobs aritcle? It could better place info on his passing at a greater extend. And he was a pretty high-top guy. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 0:29 7 October 2011 (UTC)

God no. -- Rrburke (talk) 00:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
AgainstJeancey (talk) 00:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Holy crap no. The intro already has too much about his death. We are all really sad to see him go, but this isn't a eulogy... I'm guessing it will stay for a few months because people are probably visiting this page right now looking for something like a eulogy, but it really needs to be pared out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.23.136.33 (talk) 01:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 7 October 2011

I suggest adding a section called "Cultural Influence" (or similar). Jobs arguably had a significant influence in world culture. I don't propose that my initial version of the text for this section is adequate, but it could be used as a starting point.

Steve Jobs influenced the way the world perceives what it means to live in the computer age. He was an icon for the personal computer during the period in which it was first introduced to the world at large. For many, Jobs put a human face on the experience of living with the computer as a human tool. He helped carry the transformation of the computer age into human life in a way that gave it meaning.

Daniel347x (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Decline. I don't see any content here, and I don't think the article needs a trivia section chronicling how many times he was mentioned on the Simpsons. -- Rrburke (talk) 02:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Early years and Personal life sections

Some of the material in the "Early years" section should probably be put in the "Personal life" section, esp. the material about his later relations with his family, including his sister, whom he didnt know in his early life. The flow here is wrong. I am not up to tackling this right now, and also want some consensus on whether to do this and how. I'm surprised that Mona's article is so short, as she is a major writer. her novel "A Regular Guy" got some attention as being possibly a thinly veiled sketch of Steve. That could possibly go in this article.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Bias

The article demonstrates considerable bias in favour of Jobs, which one would think has no place in an encyclopedia. Most of the additions pertaining to his death should be assessed and rewritten not to glorify him beyond what is encyclopedic knowledge. "Some say he was a genius" is not a fact... I'm sorry. 174.7.82.244 (talk) 04:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Category: Designers

Category should be reinstated because he was not solely a computer designer. E.g., see: Steve Jobs: Designer First, C.E.O. Second. By NICK BILTON. October 6, 2011. New York Times. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/06/steve-jobs-designer-first-c-e-o-second/ Metta3001 (talk) 02:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request October 7, 2011

I'm requesting that the citations in the end of the lead be cleaned up, many are there multiple times, and the amount of breaks created in the text make it, as I find, unreadable. Could the citations be moved to the end of sentences, to facilitate readability and reduce redundancy. Thanks. --99.241.29.3 (talk) 05:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Infobox Website

The website linked in the infobox is apple's website not Steve Job's. I am fixing the aforementioned issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihir.khatwani (talk • contribs) 05:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


Opening readability

The section:

At the time of his resignation, and again after his death, he was widely described as a visionary,[21] pioneer[22] and genius[21][23][24]—perhaps one of the foremost[25][26]—in the field of business,[26][25][27] innovation,[20] and product design,[28] and a man who had "profoundly"[29] changed the face of the modern world,[20][23][22] revolutionized at least six different industries,[21][20] and an "exemplar for all chief executives".[21][26][27] His death was widely mourned[30][31] and considered a loss to the world by commentators across the globe.[24]

Content itself it written fine, however, the large amount of citations after every clause really breaks up the reading of this. Could some of these not be removed to make it easier to read? le Dan (talk) 09:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Also; there is info there that is not mentioned in the main text. We should move the detail to that section and summarise the lead with reduced cites. --Errant (chat!) 11:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. Someone feel free to go ahead with these changes, I am not very experienced with editing these days. le Dan (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 7 October 2011

PERSONAL LIFE… Kobun Chino Otogawa.[101] The couple have a son and two daughters.[102] Reed Paul Jobs (born 1991); Erin Sienna Jobs (born 1995): Eve Jobs (born 1998)

Source: CNET article - Apple co-founder, Chairman Steve Jobs dies; OCTOBER 5, 2011 4:41 PM PDT http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20116336-37/apple-co-founder-chairman-steve-jobs-dies/ Pdonoso (talk) 14:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Steve Jobs Dead

Steve Jobs died on 5 October 2011 at the age of 56.

Vodaben (talk) 00:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

This is already in the article. - SudoGhost 00:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
"Being the richest man in the cemetery doesn’t matter to me … Going to bed at night saying we’ve done something wonderful… that’s what matters to me.” Steve Jobs -[The Wall Street Journal, May 25, 1993]> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aking174 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

In the statements about Jobs' death, I feel it is not appropriate to include Zuckerberg or Iger. Zuckerberg is a kid with norelelvance to Jobs or Apple. Iger is just a CEO appointed to run Disney, nothing else. Let's include only TRULY relevant people here; relevant to Jobs and his life like Gates and others.

You do know Jobs was more then the that Apple guy right? See Steve Jobs#Pixar and Disney. Iger is the CEO of Disney a company of which Jobs was the largest shareholder of and a member of the board of directors. Iger was also the person who patched up the relationship between Disney and Pixar/Jobs the problems of which lead to the ousting of the previous CEO, and managed to convince Jobs to let Disney buy out Pixar. In fact, if we ignore the deaths section there seems to be more discussion of Iger then of Gates. Nil Einne (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Iger should be in. Zuckerberg should be out. --Joseph123454321 (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Why remove Zuckerberg? His statement regarding Jobs' death is neither more nor less notable than Iger's. Or, for that matter, that of Russian President Medvyedev. The text of the statement doesn't need to appear in the article (and, last I looked, didn't), but I see no issue with mentioning its existence. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
We need to limit who we list. We can't list Zuckerberg, and Sugar, and Medvedev, and the man who lives across the street from me. We only list people who worked closely and/or are associated directly with Jobs. Jobs was on Disney's board and was the largest shareholder in the company. Gates was considered to be one of Job's archrivas. Zuckerberg and Sugar have only one thing in common with Jobs: they're all billionaires. --Joseph123454321 (talk) 22:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
They're also notable in their own right, unlike the man who lives across the street from you. I recognize the association between Zuckerberg and Jobs as both being high-visibility persons in the technology industry. With that said, I agree that there should be a finite and small number of mentions, but I see no reason to prune below what's there now...just as I see no pressing need to graft additional names into the paragraph. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Medvedev and Sugar are also notable, but don't belong on the list. The only argument at contention here is whether or not Zuckerberg is sufficiently linked to Jobs. The "technology business" is too broad, and I'm pretty sure every single notable technology executive has been quoted as saying something about Jobs' passing. I see no reason why Zuckerberg should be added, just like you see no reason why Zuckerberg should be removed. I'm afraid we're at a deadlock. Rocks, paper, scissors? ;) --Joseph123454321 (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually, as it stands, it's 2 users for removing Zuck, and 1 user for keeping Zuck. If this thread goes silent, I'll assume consensus is on the side of removal. --Joseph123454321 (talk) 00:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Make that three for removing Zuckerberg. They were not contemporaries, nor does Zuckerberg say anything significant about Jobs. Sunray (talk) 01:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't think this is a Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon competition. However, if WP:CONSENSUS is to remove them, so be it. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Most viewed article?

According to WP stats, Steve Jobs was viewed by some 7.4M readers yesterday October 6 - a new record? --Bruzaholm (talk) 15:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Could be. Beat out Michael Jackson (after his death) by a bit. –MuZemike 15:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
you could say he Beat It...oh, never mind — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.9.194.7 (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Children

Jobs has 3 children from his wife. Do we have any idea of their ages or names? Green Cardamom (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

In the article, under Death. "Jobs is survived by his wife, Laurene, to whom he was married for 20 years; their three children, Reed (born 1991), Erin (born 1995), and Eve (born 1998); and by Lisa Brennan-Jobs, his daughter from a previous relationship.[152]" Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
There's no need to list their names; we usually don't do so for non-notable children. See WP:BLPNAME --Errant (chat!) 12:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Personal Life

Steve Jobs was raised with Patty Jobs, his sister- also adopted. She works at De Anza College. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.77.89 (talk) 20:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 7 October 2011

please change "Steve Jobs" to "Jobs" (where appropriate). many unneeded instances of "Steve Jobs" (vs. "Jobs") sprinkled throughout prose (not talking about any quoted matter). thanks.--96.232.126.111 (talk) 21:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

96.232.126.111 (talk) 21:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

File:SJAPPLEDEDICATE.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:SJAPPLEDEDICATE.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

edit request - october 8, 2011

please change some instances of "jobs" to "he".

almost every mention of the subject is by his name. thus, the article reads as if generated by a robot. please substitute the pronoun "he" appropriately. thanks. --96.232.126.111 (talk) 06:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done: This request is too vague. Please be more specific about what you want changed. — Bility (talk) 18:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

facebook and google announcement

why the announcement of Larry and Mark are not mention in this article. They are also part of the industry.ProgramAngel (talk) 10:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The Henry Ford or Thomas Edison of his age? I think not!

He's a brilliant man and did a lot to advance the personal computer industry, but he is not in the same league as these two people. He inspired others to create, but he didn't invent a single thing. His legacy is motivation, not creativity.108.23.147.17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs#Inventions Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 07:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Additionally, Edison invented few things personally as well, having a large army of workers to do the work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.139.116 (talk) 00:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, multiple RS state that his name is on 313 patents. I would say he qualifies as in inventor, though not of the stature of Thomas Edison, probably ahead of Henry Ford. Sbowers3 (talk) 03:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Honestly, The Edison comparison is apt, though probably not for the intended purpose. Edison was a brilliant marketer of, essentially, other people's technology. He took existing ideas (stole would not be too far off the mark in some cases) and brought them into the public mindset. Jobs didn't invent tablet PCs, computers, mp3 players, etc...he took existing technologies, improved their design and usability, and marketed them brilliantly. He was a product designer at heart, not really an "inventor" in the traditional sense. He invested user experiences, not the tech itself. For better or worse, that matches Edison fairly well. 204.65.34.206 (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
This is not the place to share your reflections or original research on Jobs' life or accomplishments, unless it's somehow relevant to writing about them on Wikipedia. There are lots of other places on the net to talk about this. --Saforrest (talk) 15:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what you (or any other editor) thinks. The article simply states what has been said of him, it (and WP) doesn't make any judgments one way or the other. -- Jibal (talk) 03:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Personally I think it was his intuition and messages, such as his Stanford Commencement speech that made him a Thomas Edison or whoever else. Sure, maybe he isn't Bill Gates, but he is Steve Jobs. --xx.xxx.160.51 (talk) 22:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
For whatever it is worth, xx.xxx.160.51, putting in the x's doesn't eliminate your ip address from the history records in Wikipedia. But getting a Wikipedia account does eliminate your ip address from the public records, if you care. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 22:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Steve Jobs is dead!

Per http://www.apple.com/ —stay (sic)! 23:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Full link: http://www.apple.com/stevejobs/ --MahaPanta (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Every news outlet in the industrialized world is issuing "official statements" regarding this (I doubt I'm exaggerating). I think just one's plenty for proper sourcing, and I already see at least two on the section regarding his passing (I haven't looked in the past twenty seconds, there may be more). --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
This sucks. RIP--JOJ Hutton 00:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I added the statement on Apple's website. I hope it was not excessive. --Trujaman (talk) 01:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


Very sad day for the folks at Cupertino, and for everyone who loved Apple. :( —stay (sic)! 00:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
confirmed Ald™ ¬_¬™ 00:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


Being the richest man in the cemetery doesn’t matter to me … Going to bed at night saying we’ve done something wonderful… that’s what matters to me.” Steve Jobs -[The Wall Street Journal, May 25, 1993]
Aking174 (talk) 03:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
This is slightly off-topic of building an encyclopedia, no? 71.146.8.5 (talk) 05:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

......End of a great legend. -- 220.136.47.197 (talk) 05:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

People, please stop adding your personal opinions and commentary to WP ... they have no place here. -- Jibal (talk) 04:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. 71.146.8.5 (talk) 00:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request *How Steve Jobs Lived* - Philosophy on Life, 6 October 2011

How Steve Jobs Lived

Below, Steve Jobs dilineates his views on life, death and his philosophy behind them.

Stanford Address Quote

I am honored to be with you today at your commencement from one of the finest universities in the world. I never graduated from college. Truth be told, this is the closest I’ve ever gotten to a college graduation. Today I want to tell you three stories from my life. That’s it. No big deal. Just three stories.

[...]

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/steve-jobs-2005-stanford-commencement-address-20111006-1lami.html#ixzz1a1j24dK4


165.196.0.12 (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Not suitable. The text is copyrighted and unless released into a free license by the Jobs estate will only become PD after 70 years, so it could only be added on October 5, 2081. SpeakFree (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Consider rewording it. 123.24.82.152 (talk) 07:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Philanthropy?

I was asked by friends if he was a significant philanthropist and what his philanthropic activites or philosophy was. I have no idea but do believe this is an important dimension of his life worth addressing. Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 23:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks sorry to have missed that. I see now why it is addressed under "business" I was looking for it under "personal".--Lbeaumont (talk) 01:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

On its facebook page, the Greater Bay Area Make-A-Wish says "Make-A-Wish mourns the loss of a visionary and friend. Thank you Steve Jobs for all the contributions you made to the world, and the generosity you demonstrated to Make-A-Wish. You made so many wish children's dreams a reality. We will miss you." http://www.facebook.com/SFWish

He also made contributions to fighting AIDS in Africa (RED). Bono made a statement as such "As a founder of (Product)RED, I’d like to point out that Apple’s contribution to our fight against AIDS in Africa has been invaluable. Through the sale of (RED) products, Apple has been (RED)’s largest contributor to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria – giving tens of millions of dollars that have transformed the lives of more than two million Africans through H.I.V. testing, treatment and counseling. This is serious and significant. And Apple’s involvement has encouraged other companies to step up.

Steve Jobs said when we first approached him about (RED), “There is nothing better than the chance to save lives.”

I’m proud to know him; he’s a poetic fellow, an artist and a businessman. Just because he’s been extremely busy, that doesn’t mean that he and his wife, Laurene, have not been thinking about these things. You don’t have to be a friend of his to know what a private person he is or that he doesn’t do things by halves."

http://www.intomobile.com/2011/09/06/u2s-bono-praises-steve-jobs-his-contribution-fighting-aids-africa/

The article needs to be changed to reflect these two items (hopefully by someone who is a better writer than me ;-) ). While not on the level of other philanthropists, to state that Jobs did nothing is false.(HMS Bellerophon (talk) 06:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC))

Proposal to change infobox image

User:Tree Falling In The Forest proposes swapping out the current infobox image (File:Steve Jobs Headshot 2010-CROP.jpg) for File:Steve Jobs WWDC07.jpg. I oppose this change because I think the head-and-shoulders headshot is more suitable for the infobox than a half-length, because the headshot is more recent, because the image quality of the headshot image is superior, and because User:Tree Falling In The Forest's rationale for the change -- that it is more flattering to the subject and more "respectful" -- is faulty and rooted in unencylopedic concerns. I'm starting this discussion thread to generate discussion in order to see if there is a consensus for such a change. -- Rrburke (talk) 01:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I also oppose User:Tree Falling In The Forest's decision to undertake this change unilaterally without first seeking to see if a consensus for a change that alters the reader's first impression of the article actually exists. -- Rrburke (talk) 01:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
We're putting together an article that is supposed to give an overview of his life, and it is inaccurate and sloppy to use an image of him in ailing health as the representative of his entire life. That photo does not represent him accurately. I'll admit the alternative I offered isn't the ideal choice, but I see it as far better because it is very close -- closer than many other info box images for other people -- and shows him in a healthier condition. Tree Falling In The Forest (talk) 01:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
In what way could a more recent picture of him be considered "inaccurate"? -- Rrburke (talk) 01:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Because it offers a single representation of him as a man that looks like that. That's inaccurate. He was sick. Tree Falling In The Forest (talk) 01:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
First, I don't agree that he looks especially sick -- or, at any rate, not greatly sicker than in the 2007 pic. He certainly looks thin, as he has for a few years. It's probably more pronounced here, but, more importantly, how is that an issue of accuracy? If you think he looks sick, I guess the image accurately depicts that he recently looked sick.
But if your objective is, as you said, to find a more flattering image -- a wholly unencylopedic motive, since this is Wikipedia and not Vogue -- why not reach back for a picture from twenty years ago? He looked way better twenty years ago. Many of us did. :) Only that has nothing to do with improving an encyclopedia article. -- Rrburke (talk) 02:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
The image we use should be the popular image of Steve Jobs. I don't believe that late picture does. That's what I mean when I say it should be "respectful" -- it should portray him in the way popular memory, and therefore history, will most closely remember him. That isn't as 80s Steve, or as thin and gaunt Steve, but as the guy who trumpeted the iMac, the iPod, and the iPhone. The Steve who was on the cover of magazines and who was able to be the face of Apple. Just because there are pictures of him from later doesn't mean that they're accurate to who he was. Plus, I'm going to be honest, I really hate the image with the white iPhone. The white balance is terrible, the phone is all blown out, the shape of the image is odd, it's a little too close, and the colors are a little off. Plus, all that stuff about him not looking right. I, like many others, look up to this guy. I feel like it's important to make sure that Wikipedia, one of the most accessed points of information on the Internet, portrays him in a way he would have preferred -- with a photographically perfect image. The white iPhone image does not do that. Tree Falling In The Forest (talk) 03:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "I, like many others, look up to this guy"
  • "portray[ing] him in a way he would have preferred"
With respect, these are near-perfect examples of the kind of factors that should play no part in selecting an image. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and concerns like these are unencyclopedic. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I disagree wholeheartedly. Wikipedia's main goal is accuracy, and it would be inaccurate to use an image that does not line up with public perception of the man, and a little of his own perception. We should apply his own ideals. It's a moot point, though, the image there now seems perfect. Tree Falling In The Forest (talk) 23:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I have been looking through the guidelines on this, and it would seem that recent pictures are more appropriate. There is nothing about him being sick being an issue. More over, he doesn't even really look sick in either photo, therefore I would think that the more recent photo is preferable. Jeancey (talk) 01:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Infobox images are not always the latest one available, but they tend to be a compromise between visual appeal of the image and closeness. Tree Falling In The Forest (talk) 01:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
The 2007 image seems like a better representation. Take a look at the photos for people like Nicola Tesla. It's a good representation. It looks like it could be in a newspaper. We should be aiming for such a thing. The white iPhone image is not as well taken. aido2002talk·userpage 01:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I prefer the current of Steve Jobs holding the white phone. He's also depicted holding a MacBook Air, and showing the Russian President his black iPhone 4, both of which I believe is more iconic/specific than the proposed photo, with a more general stage appearance. Shencypeter (talk) 02:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Maybe "flattering" is the wrong word, but if we've got two pictures, and he looks more like he did for a majority of the time he was in the public eye, the. We should choose that image. We should take a bit of pride in our work here. One image is taken from an odd angle, too close, and with him looking clearly away from the camera. The other looks more like a portrait of him, with him looking towards the camera, and looking like the Steve Jobs that most people remember. But, all that aside, I think I've got a compromise that will make everyone happy. Take a look at File:Steve Jobs.jpg. If we crop it a little closer to his face (but not too close), it'll show him looking fairly normal to his memory, in focus, and overall nice. It's a good portrait.
By the way, Rrburke, I apologize if it seemed like I was trying to unilaterally enforce my will when I switched the picture; I honestly didn't think there would be this much debate. it seemed like a no-brained to me. Tree Falling In The Forest (talk) 02:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I prefer the current one in which he is looking directly out at the viewer -- and you don't have anything to apologize for. -- Rrburke (talk) 02:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
He's not looking out to the viewer in any of the images. If we're going to use one where he's not looking, let's use one where he committed to not looking. Also, see my above comment for my other issues with the image. Tree Falling In The Forest (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Er, he's looking out toward the camera Steve Jobs Headshot 2010-CROP.jpg right here, and I'm not sure what "one where he committed to not looking" means. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Take a close look. He's not. If he's going to not look, it should be enough that it doesn't just look like it's slightly off. Tree Falling In The Forest (talk) 23:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
So I took a look at some of the photos of the men Jobs is now being compared to (Thomas Edison Henry Ford) and guess what? Neither are looking at toward the camera. Also, your photo critique above really raises questions about your ability to even judge photos in the first place. "The white balance is off" and "the color is off"? First those are saying the same thing. And, that phone there looks pretty white doesn't it? If the white balance was off, you'd think that white iPhone would not actually look white. Matt Yohe (talk) 09:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The current one (File:Steve Jobs Headshot 2010-CROP.jpg)is better as the other one lacks the amount of focus and clarity (picture-wise) as opposed to the current one, which is clear, crisp, and concise. Something similar to one without him holding a device would even better, but the current one is fine. –MuZemike 02:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree that one minus the gadget might be better, but on the other hand it's an iconic device with which he was closely associated. -- Rrburke (talk) 02:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, I consider it secondary, though, to a clear and concise free picture of him – holding a device or not is not that big a deal for me in that regard. –MuZemike 02:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree completely. -- Rrburke (talk) 02:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
There is a cropped version of that image here: File:Steve Jobs Headshot 2010-CROP2.jpg But to be honest I agree with the rationale that him with a gadget in hand at an Apple keynote is the epitome of his public character :) --Errant (chat!) 11:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing inaccurate about showing him in a recent picture, just because he used to look different, because the same logic would apply....no one looks the same for any part of their life. If you used a past picture, one could also make the same argument: that it was not representative of his whole life, just one part of it. The picture is good, and doesn't need sanitizing.204.65.34.206 (talk) 18:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Recently died article banner

I think we need to decide if this is staying, I think it should, because it was on 2 days ago, off yesterday, so I put it back on, then somebody removed it and now its back on again. He has recently died so I think it should stay for about 1-2 weeks --Thanks, Hadseys 11:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

it's a no-longer-needed template for this article. you may wish to read the prose provided at template:recent death which explains the template's intended usage.--96.232.126.111 (talk) 22:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I've removed it again per the template documentation. The editing rate has fallen off well below the threshold where it might be called for. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 22:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Visit to India

There is a discrepancy in the timeline of the article. It states that Jobs joined the Homebrew Computer Club and took a job at Atari in 1974, so that he could make enough money to go to India. It then mentions which guru he met with in India. Unfortunately, said guru died in 1973. Somebody needs to remedy this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.250.107.103 (talk) 03:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

delete thx

Actual name

According to the listing in his high school yearbook, his actual name was "Stephen" (not to mention Mr. Wozniak). Suggest the name be changed from "Steven." Pic here http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Slideshows/_production/ss-111004-steve-jobs/ss-111005-steve-jobs-high-school.ss_full.jpg 75.109.136.234 (talk) 10:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done: I think a high school yearbook is far less reliable than the variety of other sources listing him "Steven". — Bility (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, well, how many of those sources are from his childhood? 75.109.136.234 (talk) 09:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

His death

Since Jobs death date has more views on wikipedia page view statistics (7 million) than at the deaths of Osama bin Laden and Michael Jacvkson which reportedly jammed wikipedia, is there a similar occurence for the death of Steve Jobs? If so, any sources? Pass a Method talk 12:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

2 years is a long time in computing terms so what may have been a problem in the past may not be anymore (upgraded servers, improved software/code). More importantly, where are you getting more than MJ statistic? The MJ article had 8.68 million page views in the first 24 hours after his death [1] so if your 7 million is for the first 24 hours it's obviously less. More importantly the big issue with MJ was seemingly the 1+ million hits in the first hour [2] [3] if the SJ views were more spread out this would likely have been less of a problem. Also the nature of MJ's death likely lead to a greater level of editing, even with protection, and editing tends to me much more server intensive then page views (although lots of people viewing a heavily edited article doesn't help I believe). Nil Einne (talk) 14:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Thats untrue, MJ had 5 million page views, so this 7 million mark could be a new record. Pass a Method talk 19:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Not it's not untrue. MJ had 8.68 million in the first 24 hours according to the person who does most of the wikimedia statistics and uses the raw data, who is a far more reliable source then some generic stats page, particularly when poorly intepreted. The blog post has a decent explaination of the MJ stats. See also Talk:Main Page#Most viewed_article? (permanent link). Do note there's an obvious difference between 'UTC day' and 'first 24 hours' and how time of death will make a difference to these. Nil Einne (talk) 17:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Biological parents

It is not clear that Jandali was a "professor" at UNR though he is loosely referred to as such in some of the British cites, the weakest of which is the Financial Times blog [blogs.ft.com/the-world/2011/10/the-wrong-syrian-died/]. The short FT blog piece is long on hype and short on facts.

This article from the Reno paper, probably more accurately, mentions that Jandali taught political science at UNR.[4] If he had been a professor, he would have had tenure. Clearly he did not and he does not mention that period of his life on LinkedIn [5] except to mention his education at University of Wisconsin, Madison.

So I say take out the professor part because it is probably wrong and note that he goes by the name John now.

According to this article, which appears here [6] and is no longer accessible at the Green Bay news source, Schiebel and Jandali married in December 1955, four months after her father's death and ten months after giving up their baby boy. Their daughter, Mona Simpson, was born in 1957; Schiebel and Jandali divorced in 1962, according to the Green Bay newspaper, which checked court records.

I'd insert this myself but this article is busy today. Skywriter (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Introduction quality

I feel like the introduction should be more chronological. Currently, it jumps around time out of order. Cosprings (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I concur. In addition, the Smithsonian interview is rich with information about the adoptive parents who raised Jobs and yet this article emphasizes the biological parents who did not. I am going to insert a bit about Clara & Paul Jobs and their son's early life in Silicon Valley. Skywriter (talk) 01:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to correct the part «which led to the creation of the Macintosh», but the article is closed for editing of non-registered contributors. I want to include *the important info that is omitted 99% of the time* : that one year BEFORE presenting the Apple Macintosh they presented the more sophisticated *Apple Lisa*. The text could be something like «which led to the creation of the Apple Lisa and, one year later, the Apple Macintosh». 201.19.234.178 (talk) 04:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for spotting that omission. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 18:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The last name has been variously pronounced to rhyme with "nobs", or to rhyme with "lobes". Can anybody find a definitive reference for the correct pronunciation, and place it at the beginning of the article? Reify-tech (talk) 03:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done Good suggestion. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 19:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

New single-day article view record???

Looks like Steve Jobs Article was viewed more on the day he died than The Michael Jackson Article was on the day that he died.

1. Are there stats kept on the most viewed pages in a single day?
2. Is this a new article record, minus the main page?
3. Is this notable for the article?

Just posing some questions to give us something to think about, and to create some discussion on the matter. Still a whole heck of a lot of views for one day though.--JOJ Hutton 20:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Woah, hard to believe. On the Michael Jackson article, it says "The Wikimedia Foundation reported nearly a million visitors to Jackson's biography within one hour, probably the most visitors in a one-hour period to any article in Wikipedia's history." I don't know if a million visitors arrived to Jobs' biography within one hour; I guess it's notable that there were 7.4 million different viewers that viewed the article on the day that Jobs passed away. --Bryce Wilson | talk 01:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that it was even mentioned in the MJ article. I guess that adds more credence to an addition here.--JOJ Hutton 02:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Agreed! --Bryce Wilson | talk 04:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
So perhaps like the MJ article,this info could go into the reactions section.--JOJ Hutton 16:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal: Abdulfattah "John" Jandali says Jobs replied to him twice

The last one arrived six weeks before Mr. Jobs's death, Mr. Jandali said, and said simply, "Thank you." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203499704576620911395191694.html Oppenht (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Cause of death - cite request for one point

We now have confirmation that the cause of death was "respiratory arrest and a pancreatic tumor" per death certificate. But no confirmation that the respiratory arrest was a complication or result of the tumor, at this time. Right now for all we have in reliable sources, these could be completely independent and not cause-effect, although obviously the assumption is the respiratory arrest was due to the cancer. So we have to say he died of "A and B", not "A - a complication of B".

Can someone check into this? Thanks,

FT2 (Talk | email) 20:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I presume this is settled by the cited Bloomberg story which states that the death certificate lists "metastatic pancreas neuroendocrine tumor" as the "underlying cause" of death. The WHO defines underlying cause of death as "the disease or injury which initiated the train of morbid events leading directly to death". -- Rrburke (talk) 00:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Time of discover of cancer incorrect

The article currently states that Jobs told his employees of his illness in mid-2004. According to the latest Bloomberg BusinessWeek issue, the entirety of which was devoted to the man, this in fact happened in late 2003. ("1997-2011: The Return," by Brad Stone, pg. 40) Imagine Reason (talk) 05:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Bloomberg has published a timeline here ([7]), for those keen on updating. It's true he was diagnosed earlier, but it only became public knowledge in 2004.Shencypeter (talk) 07:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Apple obituary images

If it is appropriate to add the screenshot of Apple obituary on its homepage? For Apple Inc historical purposes.

File:Steve Jobs Apple Statements.JPG
Jobs' obituary on Apple's webiste
Jobs' obituary on Apple's website

Bonvallite (talk) 02:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I see that they were speedy deleted without discussion. Typical.--JOJ Hutton 02:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) My opinion is that it would be a maybe after Apple stops using those pages for its home page. Right now, Apple is still using the page with the picture of Jobs for their home page, and the one stating for people to email that email address with their thoughts, etc., is still easily accessible by clicking on the aforementioned picture of Jobs on Apple's home page. Once Apple stops using those pages for its home page, then it may be appropriate to add screenshots of those pages to this article. Note that I said "may" and not "will". Just my thoughts on this.
Regards,
—{|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|} 02:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC).
As it was essentially the same issue (and pretty much the same image), this is relevant to this discussion, although it was already archived. The very last comment on that thread seems particularly relevant. - SudoGhost 02:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Merged discussion from below

If pictures of the Apple homesite displaying Steve Jobs's picture is not acceptable for use, would a picture of an iMac displaying that page at the Apple Store, or iPhones and iPads paying tribute with that image, be ok? In other words if an uploader had photographed that picture himself.... Shencypeter (talk) 05:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Simply putting a frame around a copyrighted image doesn't mitigate the copyright violation. An image of a bank of screens all displaying an image where the image is incidental and not a principal focus might be different, but I don't see the point of expending effort trying to come up with ingenious ways to smuggle in an image that is pure schmaltz and contributes nothing encyclopedic to the article anyway. Wikipedia is not Kensington Palace. -- Rrburke (talk) 14:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


Richard Stallman quote

I thought I'd throw in my 2 cents as someone who just read the article. The Stallman quote seems appropriate, but it seems to "hang" on its own and feels out of place. I would include it in the Public Recognition section (even if it is negative recognition).

I'd save the Criticism section to address other issues. Possible topics for a short list are:

• Lack of philanthropy as CEO of Apple Inc and personally. • Detractors of his management style (perhaps this could be in three sections: Apple 76-85. NeXT 85-96. Apple 97-11. • Labour issues at companies partnered or subcontracted by Apple Inc. • Environmental record at Apple Inc under Jobs' tenure. • Criticism of the Apple "ecosystem" fathered by Jobs and his Apple Execs. • Use and repeal of DRM media in the iTunes Store.

I am sure there are more. The trick is to be thorough, but not to give undue weight in the overall context of this article. Further, these issues have to be tied to Jobs and choices he made as CEO directly, otherwise they are probably better suited for the Apple Inc article.

Overall this is a very well written and well sourced piece, which is especially challenging since it is updated several times a day due to Jobs' recent passing. Well done to all of the contributors. Codymr (talk) 05:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Realistically, the only item that deserves mention on the Criticism section of this page is his management style. Lack of philanthropy, Apple's environmental record, or RMS's rant are not in any way specific to Steve Jobs. The lack of philanthropy seems so out of place. I mean, Fred Phelps announced plans to picket the funeral, but no one is suggesting "lack of giving glory to god" as worth mentioning in the article. The Apple ecosystem and DRM in iTunes is a huge issue, but more appropriately addressed in an article dealing with Apple. kevinpet (talk) 11 Oct 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.36.55 (talk) 06:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. You cannot argue on the one hand that he was central to all the alleged good stuff to come out of apple, yet has no responsibility and should bear no criticism for the foul stuff. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
That's as may be, and I agree that the article looks to be headed down the too-oft-traveled road of "once a tyrant dies, he's a saint", but now might be a good time to remind people that we aren't here to discuss Jobs; rather, we're here to discuss how to improve an article about him. There's a fine and sometimes blurry distinction between the two.— Preceding unsigned comment added by User:N5iln (talk • contribs)
The issue is WP:WEIGHT: criticisms should be included in proportion to the coverage they have received in reliable sources. For example, if Jobs' philanthropic record came in for substantial criticism and that criticism was widely reported in reliable sources, then it may merit treatment in the article. Some dude kvetching in his blog, not so much. Assessing weight will typically involve judgments about the importance and reputations of the publications in which such criticisms appear, the breadth and depth of coverage, and the prominence of the critics.
Fred Phelps' view, for example, is that of a tiny minority and as such doesn't merit inclusion at all.
Criticisms of Apple probably belong in the article on Apple, unless Jobs' direct role in instituting or directing the measures or policies criticized is established by published reports in reliable sources. In cases like the cancelling of Apple's philanthropic ventures shortly after Jobs' return, for example, the proximity of those two events might simply be noted -- provided, of course, the subject has received sufficient coverage in reliable sources to merit inclusion at all -- but attributing this change to Jobs personally requires adequate sourcing or else is original research. -- Rrburke (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Jobs and Hare Krishna

The fact that Jobs visited a Hare Krishna temple for meals is now included in the article as there is a reference (his Commencement address on June 12, 2005 at Stanford). The same statement was added by someone earlier. Why was it removed? Because there was no reference? Even if authorized editors are allowed to edit, still, strictly speaking what is the guarantee (rigid proof) that authorized authors will write facts? It all boils down to faith. It may be reasonable faith, but still it is faith. Then why are many people against religion. Why can't someone have reasonable faith there too?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.51.252 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 14 April 2011‎ (UTC)

is the fact that he visited a temple for meals really that notable to include in an encyclopedia? LogicalFinance33 (talk) 17:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Far too many dissenting obituaries not to include response

After the initial rush of obituaries praising Jobs as a genius, a notable number of dissenting writeups have been published, criticizing him for:

1. Lack of philanthropy as both an individual and head of Apple
2. Insulting, rude, tyrannical ways - the term "fascist" has been used frequently
3. Apple's illegal and immoral conduct and policies, including:
3.1 Its "Worldwide Loyalty Team," widely characterized as the "Apple Gestapo," known for its:
3.1.1 Censorship of the press
3.1.2 Illegal searches
3.1.3 Legal threats and harassment
3.1.4 Thuggish bullying
3.1.5 Special relationship with police departments
3.2 Censorship of content in the App Store, including:
3.2.1 Pornography, except pornography from large distributors like Playboy
3.2.2 LGBT apps
3.2.3 Political satire and cartoons
3.2.4 News outlets that have published sexual content, e.g. Germany's Stern and Bild
3.2.4.1 Including attempts to make these sources censor their own publications
3.2.5 Political candidate apps
3.2.6 Numerous controversial apps in multiple categories
3.2.7 Apps not originally written in Appe-approved coding languages
3.3 Media Manipulation, including:
3.3.1 "Controlled Leaks" - intentional leaking of upcoming product information, with an emphasis on making sure not to leave paper trails to avoid scrutiny by the press and the SEC
3.3.2 Forced shutdowns of numerous blogs
3.3.3 Forced retractions from larger news sources
3.3.4 Misinformation, willful deception, and open hostility relating to reports of Jobs' health issues
3.4 Human rights violations, including:
3.4.1 Use of child labor in manufacturing plants
3.4.2 Sweatshop conditions in manufacturing plants
3.4.3 Use of Foxconn as a manufacturer in particular
3.5 Unjustifiable retail markups
3.6 DRM restrictions and engineered limitations of consumer products
3.7 Hindering open source development - Richard Stallman said, "I'm not glad he's dead, but I'm glad he's gone."
4. Denying the paternity of his daughter, denying his health complications

These things need addressing. Obviously they shouldn't dominate the article, because that'd be undue weight, but the level of criticism, especially considering that the man just died, is very notable. 24.62.204.224 (talk) 03:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Even though many think it's sad that Jobs died – the article cannot be overflowed with just everything good about him. Like you stated, we need to address the criticisms. Let's get started --Bryce Wilson | talk 04:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Just be sure everything is cited by a RS and not just some op-ed piece; also statements will have to be pretty solid to avoid possible legal ramifications. Additionally, it is important to separate Apple Computer from Steve Jobs in the criticisms. HammerFilmFan (talk) 06:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree with above, a "criticisms" section is reasonable or better still, merging other significant views into the main text where relevant. But RS are needed and due weight is crucial, as others above had said. But encyclopedic, not due to a POV or an agenda. Endorse if done right. FT2 (Talk | email) 20:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear... the list above are all things said in obituaries? Or are you just making that section title up? And, I think you'd better search George W Bush's wiki to see if it contains "fascist" before attempting to add it to Steve's. Matt Yohe (talk) 08:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You should put these in Apples page. It's not really fair for you to put Foxconns alleged use of child labour(False) as a criticism of Steve Jobs. So a problem with a large manufacturer that manufactures parts for many other companies(such as Sony, IBM, Microsoft etc) is the fault of Steve Jobs? Thats not really a fair criticism to make. You should therefore add this criticism to Sonys,I BMS, Microsofts etc wiki page and their respective CEO's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.205.28.203 (talk) 01:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay. --Bryce Wilson | talk 10:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
At present, this is nothing more than a laundry list of kvetches with no sources adduced. There's nothing to debate yet because nothing has been proposed for addition that meets the threshold for inclusion. Note that simply meeting the threshold for inclusion does not mean that something is automatically entitled to be added. Whether something that does meet the threshold for inclusion (that is, Wikipedia:Verifiability) ought actually to be added to the article depends on whether a consensus has been reached to include it, but until the threshold is met, and it hasn't been, there isn't anything to discuss. -- Rrburke (talk) 17:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Philanthrophy section

I read the section a week or so ago and it didn't reflect well on him and now it.. does (main differences can be seen here) However the sources for the new positives are a google answers page (I've honestly no idea on the reliablity or not of that source, it may be fine) and an interview in Playboy from 1985, well before the elimination of philanthrophic activities at Apple for example - did his attitude change over time? His/Apples work with Product Red seems fine (and presumably any critcism of the project would belong on the projects page anyway), but it looks a little as if his recent death and his popularity amongst sections of the public are leading to a little rose-tintedness. BulbaThor (talk) 13:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that his death is most likely the reason for the additions to the section. But if the sources check out and its true, there's no reason to remove it. It's still a pretty small and mild section. LogicalFinance33 (talk) 17:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

First off, I think Steve Jobs was a fantastic innovator and businessman and I'm truly sad to see him go. However, for a complete Wiki article, the criticisms section does need to be expanded. Even before his death, he was used in medical ethics lectures as an example of dual-listing on the donor transplant list (getting himself listed twice). While this is currently considered legal, it is extremely controversial. More so, doctors have questioned why someone with cancer metastasized to the organ in question would receive the organ transplant with such a high chance of metastasis again. Therefore the second question would be, why was he so high up on the list, quite possibly above others that would normally receive it? (Normally organs go to people with better scores, people that are more likely to get better "use" out of the organ. With such a limited supply, it is the way it's done right now.) I don't have time to write this part of the article right now, as criticisms require even stricter standards in my opinion, but I hope someone else can.The Haz talk 03:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Criticize away to your satisfaction on a Wordpress or Blogger site. This is hardly the place to do so. — QuicksilverT @ 18:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is exactly the place to note controversies surrounding a topic, in a controversies section. We're trying to achieve neutrality which means covering all sides without bias. If there isn't any controversy, then it shouldn't be included, but this article is somewhat biased at the moment and could use what people consider to be the other side of the story, adding to its neutrality, not taking away from it. To do this correctly, opinions should be avoided as much as possible of course, and many facts need to be referenced and included with non-judgmental language, but it's not impossible. It won't be easy.The Haz talk 19:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Whether or not there's a controversy that ought to be discussed in the article depends on the depth and degree of coverage of the controversy, if indeed there is one, in reliable published sources. The appears to have been a handful of stories at the time of the transplant raising questions about possible queue-jumping, quickly followed by a few stories denying it. An admittedly cursory look the news coverage of Jobs' liver transplant turned up no references to dual listing, and whether dual listing in itself is controversial is not a reason to include a reference to it in the article unless Jobs' own putative dual listing generated controversy that received substantial coverage in reliable sources.
My impression is that the coverage appears to have been relatively minor, and in the full sweep of Jobs' life the matter was negligible. It might merit at most a brief mention in a short relative clause in the article's (single) sentence about the transplant, but it probably doesn't merit being mentioned at all.
WP:NPOV isn't about finding equal numbers of good and bad things to say about somebody, or hunting for controversies and criticism to balance praise. It's about including both praise and criticism in rough proportion to their prominence in reliable sources about the subject. See WP:WEIGHT. -- Rrburke (talk) 21:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply we needed to find bad things or equal amounts. What I meant was that if the controversy exists and has reputable sources and facts, it deserves a mention and one or two sentences is more than fine. I suppose I am exposed to the controversy more as it's mentioned at many ethics or transplant talks I've been to so it's something that in my eyes has been covered to a good extent. However, if reputable, written sources do not exist for the controversy, then no, of course it shouldn't be added to the article. If I get the chance later I'll see if I can dig some up around here as at least Arthur Caplan (considered a medical ethics expert by the field) has talked and I believe written about it. In the end though, it's not a big deal to me. I just felt that such a public figure should have a "complete" article. It has nothing to do with not liking him (as in fact I consider myself biased toward him, not against). The Haz talk 22:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Sure, there are things I felt when I saw the way Steve Jobs defended iPhone 4 glitches (antennagate). "We're not perfect, but hey, look at everyone else's antennas..." Shencypeter (talk) 01:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
There was a discussion above, we only just started writing the Criticism section. --Bryce Wilson | talk 10:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
The problem with criticism of Jobs is that for Jobs it is rarely clear-cut. For example, what is "fascist" behaviour to one is demanding of high quality to another. There is almost always two sides to any criticism of him. BashBrannigan (talk) 00:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ {{cite web|author=Larry Page |url=https://plus.google.com/106189723444098348646/posts/4wkYwTCCgAc
  2. ^ {{cite web|author=Sergey Brin |url=https://plus.google.com/109813896768294978296/posts/dwmWyNSoXTh
  3. ^ http://www.tennisnow.com/Blogs/Tennis-Gets-Me-Giddy!/October-2011/Steve-Jobs--Impact-On-Tennis-And-Player-Responses.aspx
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steve_Jobs/Archive_2&oldid=1145820251"