Talk:Steve Jobs

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))

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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) 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) 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)

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)

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:

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:

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: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — 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? S_peakF_ree ^(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. S_peakF_ree ^(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.” 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)

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. S_peakF_ree ^(talk) 18:25, 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)

• There are so many people already, we don't need any more. Infact, we probably need less. Jeancey (talk) 22:42, 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)

• Which one? Jeancey (talk) 23:47, 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)

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)

• He didn't do any philanthropy at all that I know of. This is actually addressed in the article.Jeancey (talk) 00:01, 7 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)

I noticed the article's lack of discussion of his religion. Steve Jobs is certainly in hell now. His fame, wealth, and accomplishments do not help him there. Satan greated him as any other lost soul, but he does not call him "Steve Jobs" in hell. Like assigning prisoners a number in prison, Satan has a name for each of his souls and it is a name that means nothing to us here and for everyone's sake I hope you do not learn of the name and its meaning, as that would mean you would be there with him.

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Declined as not requesting a specific change from X to Y and adding unneeded and unencyclopedic detail. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 14:44, 7 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)