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?— 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. — Quicksilver^{T @} 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)

Personal Life

Jobs wore Issey Miyake shirts, not St. Croix [[1]]. Apologies if this isn't in the correct format -- this is my first attempted Wiki contribution/edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristwin (talk • contribs) 00:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Welcome Kristwin. Done. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Quote Steve Jobs: if you want another Steve Jobs, stop killing of Syrian children

I just came across this quote from Steve Jobs in the Wall Street Journal of Oct 12: 'If you want another Steve Jobs, stop the killing of Syrian children.' It's a great quote and refers back to his Syrian roots. Can someone with editing rights include this quote? Link to article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203499704576622973183225918.html Thanks 217.164.11.111 (talk) 07:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's behind a paywall. -- Luk ^talk 07:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

why would that be a reason not to include the quote? E.g., is it not allowed to cite from books because you have to buy them? In this case, anyone can go to their local library to access the WSJ, if one is willing to make the effort, one can find this article for free 217.164.11.111 (talk) 08:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

FWIW - And At The Moment -> According To A (casual) Google Search (Seventh Top Search Entry Cache Down Currently), A Web Cache Link To The Entire Wall Street Journal Article/Quote Seems To Be Available Here - Perhaps Not The Best Kind Of Linking For Wikipedia Articles (due to the changeable nature of web caches, paywall ramifications, etc) But I'm Presently Unclear If Such A Link Is *Entirely OK* (or not) For Use As A Citation In A Wikipedia Article - A Wikipedia Search For A Clear Determination On Using Such Links Hasn't Been Found - So Far At Least. Drbogdan (talk) 12:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I'm misreading the link, but it doesn't appear to be a quote from Steve Jobs, but from a random Elaph reader's comment. The link says One reader strained for a connection. "If you want another Steve Jobs, stop the killing of Syrian children," he opined. - SudoGhost 12:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I *Entirely* Agree - The Quote Seems To Have Been Made By A "Reader" - And *Not* By "Steve Jobs" Himself - To Best Evaluate The "Source" Of The Quotation, The Relevant WSJ Paragraph, Containing The Only Instance Of The Quotation In The Entire "Content" Of The Article (Note: The Same Quotation Is Repeated As The "Subtitle" Of The Article?), Is Copied Below:

The matter of Jobs's genius engaged Elaph's readers. One reader strained for a connection. "If you want another Steve Jobs, stop the killing of Syrian children," he opined. A proud national chauvinist or two noted the educational accomplishments of Jobs's biological father, his doctorate from an American university, and argued that the son's genius was an extension of his father's.

In Any Case - Hope The Above Helps. Drbogdan (talk) 14:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Jobs' or Jobs's?

It would be great to agree what the proper possessive of the Steve's last name is, at least for the purpose of using it uniformly in this article. The article has been changed back and forth several times to reflect both forms. According to most respected authorities on grammar and style, the proper form should be Jobs's and not Jobs' (see here for specific sources: Apostrophe#Singular nouns ending with an "s" or "z" sound). The popular press has been known to use both versions (see the References section for examples of both), so it's not clear that one is clearly preferred to another, at least in popular use. But in any case, Wikipedia articles should reflect our contempt for steve jobs and his family proper grammar, so I'm therefore inclined to follow authorities on grammar and style and use the form Jobs's. Any other opinions? cherkash (talk) 02:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

My copy of The Elements of Style says since it's a proper name, the possessive should be "Jobs's", although it does appear unwieldy to many. I can't lay my hands on my copy of the AP Style Guide, but I believe it says the same. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Most guides agree that there are only a small minority of exceptions to using 's after a name ending in s (one commonly cited one being Jesus'). Some say base it how you would pronounce it. For me, that means use Jobs's. Dicklyon (talk) 05:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Innovative Tribute for the Man Who Changed Everything

On October 13th, a college student, Brenda Melgar, performed a tribute speed painting of legendary Steve Jobs. She did so on a 4ft x 4ft canvas in a span of 25 minutes at the University of Houston. The young student's Time-Lapsed Video is part of a class project for her entrepreneurship class. Regarding why she decided to paint Steve Jobs, Melgar stated, "As a future entrepreneurship student, I find Steve Jobs' willingness to overcome any obstacle highly admirable. I decided to pay tribute to him in an artistic form because he is proof that you can do what you love and be successful."

(Bmmelgar (talk) 06:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC))

Pointing out the obvious

Do we really need to have "Steven Paul "Steve" Jobs" at the start of the lede, with emphasis at the "Steve" part? Is it really hard for readers to figure out that:

1. "Steve" is a shortening of Steven, and that
2. He is commonly called Steve, as shown in the article title two centimetres above?

Unlike Bill Clinton (William Jefferson Blythe III/Clinton) and Bill Gates (William Henry Gates III), where some people may not be aware that "Bill" is a shortening of William, it's quite obvious as to where "Steve" comes from. Is it really necessary to point out the bleeding obvious? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 16 October 2011

The line " The case is the subject of active criminal and civil government investigations " should actually be

" The case was the subject of active criminal and civil government investigations "

Andyscott12 (talk) 17:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done mabdul 19:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

On what evidence? Presumably any personal criminal case might be closed with him gone, but a civil case would likely keep going, against his estate, no? Or was there some news on case closures that we can cite? Dicklyon (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)