Jump to content

Talk:Steve Jobs: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
SineBot (talk | contribs)
m Signing comment by 76.25.189.82 - "→‎Steve Jobs and gaming: "
Line 107: Line 107:
:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs#Inventions [[User:Darrell Greenwood|Darrell_Greenwood]] ([[User talk:Darrell Greenwood|talk]]) 07:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs#Inventions [[User:Darrell Greenwood|Darrell_Greenwood]] ([[User talk: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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/70.53.139.116|70.53.139.116]] ([[User talk:70.53.139.116|talk]]) 00:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Additionally, Edison invented few things personally as well, having a large army of workers to do the work. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/70.53.139.116|70.53.139.116]] ([[User talk:70.53.139.116|talk]]) 00:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

: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. [[User:Sbowers3|Sbowers3]] ([[User talk:Sbowers3|talk]]) 03:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


== Broken link: "Thoughts on Music" ==
== Broken link: "Thoughts on Music" ==

Revision as of 03:14, 6 October 2011

Former good article nomineeSteve Jobs was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 12, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
October 23, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

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?

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))[reply]

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)[reply]
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))[reply]
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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

-- 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)[reply]

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).[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs#Inventions Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 07:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 (talkcontribs)

Edit request from , 5 October 2011

Have some information

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

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

died?

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

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)[reply]

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

Oh no! —stay (sic)! 23:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I second removing the cause of death as pancreatic cancer until it's officially confirmed. --Skeven (talk) 00:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Exactly my thoughts Grnberet2b (talk) 00:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Nevermind, it was removed right after I hit save page. - SudoGhost 00:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Steve Jobs is dead!

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

Full link: http://www.apple.com/stevejobs/ --MahaPanta (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
This sucks. RIP--JOJ Hutton 00:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added the statement on Apple's website. I hope it was not excessive. --Trujaman (talk) 01:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Steve Jobs Dead

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

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

This is already in the article. - SudoGhost 00:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • lol ok I thought some d-bag heard about Steve Jobs Death and deciced to come and do that.AMERICAN 1 ENGINEER (talk) 01:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]