Talk:Steve Jobs (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Steve Jobs (2015 film))

Seth Rogen and Steve Wozniak interviews[edit]

Excellent interview with Seth Rogen on both meeting and his particular interpretation of Steve Wozniak. I don't have time to add the information at the moment so I was hoping someone else might do so?

"Seth Rogen On Building a Sketch of Steve Wozniak in ‘Steve Jobs’ "(Variety) by Kristopher Tapley, September 7, 2015 -Classicfilms (talk) 02:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a full length interview with Steve Wozniak as well - I suspect that entire section will have to be rewritten.

-Classicfilms (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When the Steve Jobs movie came calling[edit]

Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 12:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Set index article for Steve Jobs films[edit]

There is a discussion about Steve Jobs (film), a set index article listing films named after Steve Jobs. The discussion can be seen here. Editors are invited to comment. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plot section[edit]

The plot section looks like it was copied from promotional material for the film, but the source doesn't mention a synopsis. Thoughts? --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 23:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, it seems to have been fixed by an IP. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 15:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Biographical film[edit]

I find that reliable sources are calling this a biographical film or a biopic, so we should use this label in the opening sentence. This does not mean that the label cannot be contested, but the label is prevalent in sources that we need a fuller examination of these challenges, which are best done in the article body. If the debate is substantial enough, a summary of it can be put in the lead section. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm following up here with a comment - Erik is right, sources are referring to it as a biopic. From a point of view that isn't usable in a WP article, if you view the film and have a basic knowledge of the history, it is clear that it is a work of fiction that utilizes a few actual events. This statement is based on more than the invention of dialogue which is not unique to this film, but rather in talking points that do not reflect the actual history or individuals in this film. According to what is usable for a WP article, Sorkin himself has stated in a few interviews that while he began with the SJ biography and interviews, the film is a work of fiction. Here is one sample:

http://www.wired.com/2015/10/aaron-sorkin-turning-steve-jobs-film-icon/

There are a number of articles now coming out making a similar statement. Fictionalizing an actual life history or event is not new to cinema or theater, nor does it mean that the film is a lesser work. However, I think (taking Erik's point into account), if the WP is to reflect sources, it makes sense to say that the film is called both a biopic and is labeled a work of fiction not only by those who knew Jobs but by the screenwriter himself. I'm not entirely certain how to best go about it - but perhaps other editors can offer feedback on how to create the most accurate article in this respect. -Classicfilms (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So it looks like a number of refs are coming out on this very topic. I'll start a list here and at some point maybe we can figure out how to build a section from them:

A number of articles focus on the film as a work of fiction:

Perhaps as more articles on this topic come out, the structure of this section of the article will become clear. -Classicfilms (talk) 05:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erik - Journalist and computer historian Steven Levy - who has written extensively on both Jobs and Apple over the past few decades - published his response to the film as well as an interview with Sorkin. And Sorkin takes great pains to differentiate this film from the term "biopic" - describing it more as an "artistic portrait." I would like to suggest that we figure out another way to describe the film that fits into Sorkin's qualification (something close to "artistic portrait") - or we simply say that it is a 2015 drama film and then dedicate a paragraph to discussing all of these references - but in particluar the one below:
Aaron Sorkin’s History Distortion Field: The “Steve Jobs” screenwriter schools a reporter on the difference between biopic and artistic portrait.
Levy: "I had a difficult time watching the movie Steve Jobs. It could not have been otherwise. The Jobs story is not an abstraction to me. It’s a big part of my professional life, with some threads extending to friendships in my personal life. Most of all, I knew Jobs. Yes, the movie oozes with craft and talent. But, as with some others, I couldn’t connect Michael Fassbender’s portrayal with the person I knew."
Sorkin: "So before I knew what I wanted to do, I knew what I didn’t want to do and that was write a biopic."
Sorkin: "Another fact that’s not mentioned? Pixar. Pixar is never mentioned but it’s a very big deal. It changed the movie business. It was a huge success for him. It just doesn’t have anything to do with the story that we’re telling. Just like there were many things in Queen Elizabeth’s life that are important facts that didn’t have anything to do with the story that was being told in The Queen. Or just like there were many things going on in the life of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein that don’t have anything to do with what was going on in All The President’s Men. These and this are not biopics."
Sorkin:"This isn’t The Steve Jobs Story. And it was never intended to give you all the facts about Steve’s life. And your first clue to that — because I want to make sure that the audience wasn’t mistaking it for anything else — is that we made no attempt to have the actor in any way do a physical impersonation of Steve Jobs. He doesn’t look like Steve Jobs, we didn’t ask him to speak like Steve Jobs. There is a joke about “insanely great” but I didn’t write in any of the Jobs-isms. It’s just not that movie. That’s in addition to every interview I’ve done in the last month, telling anyone who stands still long enough to listen to me that it’s not a biopic, that it’s something else."
-Classicfilms (talk) 17:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is a good source to include in the article, but I don't think that it overrules the high-level labeling of this film by multiple sources. I still find the label appropriate but believe that we could have a section in the article body talking about how this film fits or does not fit with other biographical films. A quick Google turns up this by Los Angeles Times that could also be used. Maybe a section like "Biographical film classification" that can refer to the LAT and the other sources? With such a section established, we could mention the debate in the lead section. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Erik - I do understand your overall point that there are sources out there that are labeling this film as a biopic - but when virtually everyone who knew Jobs states that the film is fiction, including the screenwriter who states that this film is not a biopic, then I feel the WP would be overstepping its bounds in labeling the film a biographical one. I'm a bit perplexed as to the need to keep one word which as we can see from sources is contested - in other words, while there are sources who decided to label the film biopic, there are many who say it is not. It seems better to take the word out altogether, and then using the LA times article you cite and the numerous ones I cite above - create a full section on the topic. In addition to sources calling the film a biopic (to which I am saying there are many that contest the word) - what need is there to have the word biography in the lead - is it opens the Wikipedia up to criticism truthfully for defining what appears to be a difficult to define film? We are probably in the realm of Narrative journalism which is neither journalism nor fiction -- but I cannot think of a cinematic term to define Sorkin's film. Please feel free to open this up to an RFC if that will help - but I really feel we need to take biographical out of the lead. -Classicfilms (talk) 19:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hate to see us at a stalemate! That's what happens when the focus is on only a word or two in the article. :) I do not mean to say the "biographical film" label is authentic. It is just the commonly-used label for the film and a starting point to be contested by the commentary we've linked to. I'm not sure if a historical film or a biographical film, no matter how inaccurate it is, loses that standard label. I still think a stand-alone section about how this film is perceived (as a biopic or not) would be the best approach, especially for readers. We can solicit for others' input about this, though. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While there may be a significant number of sources that contest the "biopic" classification, it appears that an overwhelming majority of sources cited in the article refer to it as such. I only skimmed through the first 20 references, and out of the ones that listed the genre, more than 3/4 referred to the film as a biopic while the remaining handful usually classified it as only a drama. Obviously, that was a quick, incomplete analysis. The rest of the sources should be looked at as well. In situations like these, however, it would be best to take the approach suggested by Erik to create a section that covers the controversy using the sources above. Then I wouldn't see a reason why we couldn't make light of that controversy in the lead. Keep in mind that what makes a biopic a biopic is the fact that it is based on a non-fictional person, as this film clearly is. Whether or not the events portrayed in the film are historically inaccurate really has no bearing on the classification; biographies can contain fictional people and events. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Eric - I feel the same :-) You are a great editor to work with and this is not personal, just an ideological debate which is part of being a Wikipedian...- this really is about how the WP reflects genre and definition. @GoneIn60 - thanks for your input! I respect the skim - however, the input of a few journalists should not be weighted against the screenwriter who definatively says the film is not a biopic. I also did not see the term biopic on the official website. So I'm wondering how we can assign the term just because some journalists use it? To state it is biographical in the lead when there is a controversy on the topic is to take a side - my solution, to list it simply as a drama film would resolve the issue because it does not take a particular position. If either of you would like to start an RFC that would be great or I can do so on Sunday or Monday as I have to check out for today. Cheers! -Classicfilms (talk) 21:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I always enjoy a good, healthy debate, as I think both sides can always learn from each other! One additional point I'd like to mention is Wikipedia's stance in WP:PRIMARY. Secondary sources (journalists, film critics) hold greater weight than primary sources (official websites, director), so when these two types clash, it is common to side with claims of secondary sources. Now here, obviously we have some secondary sources as well questioning the accuracy of the film, but are they directly challenging the biopic classification? I didn't look into the sources you provided in depth, but from what I gathered on the surface, they're just questioning the film's accuracy which doesn't necessarily jeopardize its classification as a biopic. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be on tonight, but a possible compromise occurred to me. The Martian (film) has a "nb 1" tag for the "American" label that links to a note at the end. Maybe we could do something for "biographical film" that could link to a genre classification section? That way, readers see that there is some kind of indication about the film genre and can follow it? Not sure how the tagging code can be changed to link to just the heading of whatever section we could put together. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That would certainly be an option. The markup could be similar to:
{{refn|group=note|See the [[#Biographical film classification|Biographical film classification]] section for more information}}.
The link would appear in superscript as [note 1], and the link that it displays would work as expected. Of course, the text we put in there can elaborate more; this was just a quick example. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey guys - I was going to check in to say that I will probably be off wiki for a few days - but it looks like Erik has found the perfect solution! Way to go Erik! And GoneIn60 - wiki mark up looks good. If you two can get started on formatting and creating the note, I can take a look in a few days. The wording of the note can follow the one on The Martian article - text and the perhaps one or two quotes to qualify the situation. At a later time, we can then work out a subection though we'll also have to decide if it belongs in historical accuracy - I'm thinking that this is either a subsection of that section or its own section because the issue at hand is one of genre. Anyway - I'll check back later next week. Cheers and good work! -Classicfilms (talk) 04:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a biopic. The screenwriter Aaron Sorkin has said it is not. It covers only three days in the subject's life. There are always some people who write about films but are not careful in how they label them. The fact some of these writers use the term "biopic" does not make it accurate. Did they even know Sorkin denied that label? Were they specifically refuting him? Or just throwing out the first genre label that came to their mind? The best encyclopedic term for this is drama film. - Gothicfilm (talk) 06:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Sorkin's comments, see the previous point mentioned about WP:PRIMARY. A secondary source "contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources" which is "at least one step removed from an event". If it were only a handful labeling it biopic, you'd have a very a good point. Unfortunately, it is an overwhelming majority which makes it nearly impossible to ignore this interpretation in secondary sources. We may have opinions as to why it doesn't make sense, but that doesn't override what reliable sources have stated. The LA Times article probably addresses that best by directly discussing the film's biopic classification. It suggests that it's not a biopic in the classical sense, but concedes that the genre has taken a new form that the article coins as "impressionistic biopic". It goes on to list other biopic examples to show how the genre is evolving, and states:

But even though those movies featured plenty of imagined dialogue, most presented themselves as straightforward, if glossy, accounts of their subjects' lives. The new brand of biopic tries for something more creative.

In a postmodern storytelling universe that has long left literalism behind — and in a Web climate that jumps on the slightest inaccuracy — these movies sidestep the issue of whether an event really happened. Accuracy is defined not as literal fact but spiritual truth; if a movie conveys the essence of a person, that is enough.

So on top of the fact that there are an absurd number of sources calling it a biopic, here's one that goes to great lengths to explain why the term biopic still applies to this film. Regardless of where you stand on the issue, it seems like Erik's suggested compromise is a good one that will notify visitors of the brewing controversy. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A biography covers the subject's life. Not three separate days, as this film does. An encyclopedia should retain the proper meaning of words, not jump on new terms like "impressionistic biopic". If this is "not a biopic in the classical sense", that is what is relevant for our purposes. - Gothicfilm (talk) 08:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I completely understand where you're coming from, and it all really depends on where you're placing the focus. If it's on the length of coverage in the subject's lifetime, then this film certainly doesn't seem to meet the genre's expectations. However, if the focus is on how well a film conveys "the essence of its subject" (brilliantly illustrated in this article) then Steve Jobs effectively accomplishes that, which is a primary goal of a biographical film. Unlike literature, the term doesn't require the same spanning coverage in film for obvious reasons: there's just not enough time. Nevertheless, we have no choice here but to allow the sources' view. Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth stresses that Wikipedia aims to be a reflection of published material, and while accuracy is valued, verifiability matters more. That's because readers aren't expected to blindly trust what they read on Wikipedia; they're encouraged to check the sources and decide for themselves. Editors shouldn't add unsourced information just because they believe it to be true, just as they shouldn't removed sourced views because they disagree with them. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many disagree that this is a biopic, but all can agree it is a drama film. That would be the uncontentious (and accurate) way to classify it. - Gothicfilm (talk) 09:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And one more thing... Why haven't you addressed the proposed compromise? This doesn't have to merely be a black & white decision. Creating a section that addresses the controversy, and inserting a footnote next to "biographical" to draw attention to the controversy seems very reasonable to me. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was addressing the opening sentence of the lead. I have no problem with having a small section on this controversy in the article body. A note in the lead is unnecessary, but if it's used the lead should say "drama film" while the note would have the disputed biopic label. - Gothicfilm (talk) 09:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is biographical film contested? Reliable sources call it a biographical film. Of course it is one. Of course it is fiction, it's not a documentary. It doesn't matter how truthful it is, how many liberties it may take, how it presents a narrative, or whether its director considers it to be a traditional one; it's a film "that dramatizes the life of a non-fictional or historically-based person or people", ergo a biographical film. It's about Steve Jobs; its title is Steve Jobs. And again, Reliable sources call it a biographical film (regardless of how they may characterize it adherence to traditional narratives). I invite editors here to see or recall one of the most unconventional, artistic films about a non-fictionial person ever released: I'm Not There - still, by definition, a biopic. Lapadite (talk) 10:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a film "that dramatizes the life of a non-fictional or historically-based person or people", ergo a biographical film, which is precisely the point. It dramatizes three events Jobs led on three separate days. That is hardly his life, ergo it's not a biographical film. - Gothicfilm (talk) 11:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That article says at the end of its first paragraph, though, "they attempt to comprehensively tell a person’s life story or at least the most historically important years of their lives." I don't think anyone disputes that this is a different way to approach a person's biography, narrowing the focus on historically important events rather than years. It is the same with historical films; Gladiator and similar films don't match history but still have the purely generic label as a means of common identification. I think we need a "Genre classification" section here regardless that readers can access, it is just the very narrow problem of which label to use at the very beginning. I want readers to access the commentary about the label, hence the tagging suggestion. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gladiator is not a historical film, it's historical fiction. To the main point: This film does far more than narrow its focus to historically important events - it narrows its focus to just three separate days. That is not a biography. You're the one who has been saying at WT:FILM the genre in the lead should be simple. The simplest and most accurate here is drama film. As I said, the lead should say "drama film", while any note (if we must have one) would have the disputed biopic label, and a "Genre classification" section on this controversy can be established. And the Development section should certainly include the fact Sorkin does not consider this a biopic. - Gothicfilm (talk) 14:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean "historical film" strictly but that such films have a "historical" label to them. Whatever the best introduction for Gladiator would be, it would include "historical" despite the lack of fidelity. As for simplifying the lead section, I've argued against mashing up genres. It does not mean that a film cannot have a complex relationship with the most commonly identified genre. Films can strain against genre definitions, as this does here. We're weighing "biographical" against "drama" here, and I prefer the former as a starting point for which we introduce the caveat. The commentary that we've sourced here is pushing back against the common identification. I don't think Wikipedia should apply that commentary and fully negate that label. It should include that commentary and make it clear that it is a pushback against the common approach of identifying this film as a biopic. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Still thinking about this... looking at the current opening sentence, it is pretty insufficient beyond the labeling issue (especially saying to be "based on the life of"). Maybe we can find a way to revise it to touch on both dramatic and biographical aspects? Here's a stab: "Steve Jobs is a drama film about the Apple Inc. co-founder Steve Jobs, loosely based on the biography named after him by Walter Isaacson." I use "loosely based" because sources seem to accept that that is the case. This would allow an indication of the biographical element, and we don't have to worry about tagging anymore, but still do a "Genre classification" section anyway. GoneIn60, Lapadite77, any chance this tradeoff would work? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erik, that sentence is unsourced and appears to be original research; the entire article needs work, but that's beside the point. Biopics with loose or unconventional narratives are nonetheless considered biopics, like the experimental I'm Not There: "This is not a conventional biopic", "this is a creative and potentially interesting approach to a biopic", "approach is as far away from the tired terrain of the traditional biopic as it is possible to go", "is no ordinary biopic", "share an aversion to the usual checklist of biopic signifiers", "crafted as an answer to biopics that present a simplified compilation of a life's highlights and lowlights...consciously varies from the biopic formula", "not playing by the standard rules of the biopic", "strives for far more than biopic...offering tidbits of biography with little explanation", "this is not, strictly speaking, a biopic, as linear as Ray or Walk The Line". The biopic has taken on various forms over the years. A film clearly doesn't need to adhere to a traditional form in order for it to be deemed a biopic (i.e., a film focusing on the life or events in or aspects of a non-fictional person). Reliable sources call this a biopic, reliable sources call the avant-garde I'm Not There, why would this film's article not reflect what RSs say? We defer to what reliable sources say. It appears the editor here disputing the biopic label is doing so per his personal opinion. Erik, I'm fine with adding commentary on the biopic label in the article, or adding a note, but if excising the label from the lead is being considered I think an RfC is best for a wider consensus. I suspect editors will continue to add "biographical film" to the lead if removed, with good reason. Lapadite (talk) 03:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable sources you show above indicate this is not a biopic in the proper sense, and that is what an encyclopedia lead should go by. The last actually says "this is not, strictly speaking, a biopic". It takes more than showing three days in a life to call a film a biopic. This has nothing to do with I'm Not There. I fully support Erik's version: "Steve Jobs is a drama film about the Apple Inc. co-founder Steve Jobs, loosely based on the biography named after him by Walter Isaacson." It correctly calls the Isaacson book a biography, while not denying or confirming that the film is a biopic. So no one can call it inaccurate. It is uncontroversial, except to those who are obsessed with labelling this drama film a biopic even though it only dramatizes three days. - Gothicfilm (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I can certainly understand the position against labeling it a biopic. Three days does not cover much; I get it. The only thing stopping me from siding with that viewpoint on Wikipedia, is that it's not up to us. I repeat, the sources overwhelmingly label it a biopic, and a few even go to great lengths to point out why they are still calling it a biopic. At best, there is a very small handful of sources that are completely against the label. If we go against WP:DUE and side with the extreme minority of sources, then I agree with Lapadite that it's only a matter of time before other editors stumbling across the article will change it back. They'll have every reason to. I think the point about WP:VNT is getting lost as well. Nevertheless, there are more important things to fuss over, so on that note, I think I'll bow out of the discussion. I strongly suggest an RfC at this point, or at the very least, wait until more editors weigh in from the WikiProject to get a strong consensus on the matter. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sources indicate it is not a biopic, unless you stretch the definition: "this is not, strictly speaking, a biopic". An encyclopedia article should not be stretching definitions in its lead. There is nothing wrong or contentious about Erik's suggested version, and we do not include contested information just for fear someone else may add it later. - Gothicfilm (talk) 14:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources indicate it is not a biopic...

You're kidding right? I invite you to take a closer look at the references cited in the article. I think it won't take you long to realize that "the sources" indicate otherwise, which is why we're having this discussion. The ones that don't are in the minority, and when you come across one, you have to take extra care in your assessment. While a source may initially seem to be questioning the biopic label, they usually end up supporting it in the end. Most don't question it at all. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you give the full quote? The sources indicate it is not a biopic, unless you stretch the definition: "this is not, strictly speaking, a biopic". And as said above by Classicfilms, "A number of articles focus on the film as a work of fiction". The ones that don't question it at all are just lazily throwing the term bio out there. They're not making an official declaration that this film is a biopic. They're most likely not even aware the screenwriter himself says he deliberately set out to not do a biopic. It's a drama. Biopic is contested; it does not belong in the lead. - Gothicfilm (talk) 15:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Making those assumptions is nothing more than original research. Reliable, secondary sources must provide the claims that debunk other reliable, secondary sources. We cannot be the ones doing that. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should read some of the links Classicfilms gave near the top. And it was reliable secondary sources that reported Sorkin said this was not a biopic. - Gothicfilm (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One of those articles – LA Times – was actually mentioned in our discussion above if you were paying attention. Also, a source that reports the occurrence of an event is actually a primary source, so in this case, that would apply to the interview with Sorkin. Actual analysis of that interview would be considered secondary. I don't dispute that there are secondary sources that question the validity of the label. I've already acknowledged that. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, these assumptions you've made are not supported in the links above:
– "The ones that don't question it at all are just lazily throwing the term bio out there."
– "They're most likely not even aware the screenwriter himself says he deliberately set out to not do a biopic."
You are definitely entitled to these opinions, and they may very well be true, but they cannot stand in the way of content inclusion without proper, non-synthesized backing from sources. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you spending all this time trying to force a misnomer into the lead? You just want to blindly follow what some sources say, while ignoring others giving lines like "this is not, strictly speaking, a biopic". You dispute the Sorkin interviews, but most of those ones that don't question it at all are providing no analysis of the biopic label either. So they should not be included in your supposed majority of sources calling this film a biopic. Most sources do not go into analysis of the biopic label. You also ignore the point that the lead should be uncontentious - as Erik's suggested version is. - Gothicfilm (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The so-called misnomer was already there. All I did was join the discussion. I do not blindly follow, see WP:VNT. I do not dispute the Sorkin interview, but I maintain that the primary source holds less weight than secondary sources, see WP:PRIMARY. The lead section can certainly contain controversial elements, see WP:LEAD, but that is not the point. Here, "biopic" is clearly the most prominent classification used in reliable sources. It appears we've reached a stalemate. I'm fine with Erik's first suggestion and haven't yet decided about the second, though I'm still open to it. Let's concede the floor to other interested parties at this point. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello All - seems quite a bit has happened since I last popped in. Great debate all, I think that many useful ideas are being tossed about. It seems to me that in some respects we are all expressing the same concern - accurately reflecting sources WP:RS and not falling into WP:OR - which in some respects both sides of the argument are suggesting. I would also like to encourage you all to review WP:PRIMARY - primary sources are not prohibited from the WP in a totalizing fashion. In this case, it is important to note in the lead that the screenwriter, Aaron Sorkin, has said that this film is not a biopic. However, I do agree that many secondary sources refer to the film as a biography. Therefore, I would like to suggest that we return to Erik's original suggestion of a footnote as in The Martian film (please see above). I think that will satisfy all of the arguments. I have to sign off again for a few days but I'll check back in to see where we are on the issue. Erik, can you also weigh in on my suggested resolution? -Classicfilms (talk) 04:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All I'm seeing is more I don't like it, original research, and "the director said, the screenwriter said" from the editor wanting to remove the genre. WP:V - "Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors". WP:SECONDARY - "All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." As others have noted, the majority of reliable sources call this a biopic - like they call I'm Not There, a far more unorthodox film, a biopic. For myself at least, no point in continuing this back and forth. If Gothicfilm wishes to remove the label, open a RfC and get consensus. I'm fine with Erik's suggestion of a footnote. Lapadite (talk) 04:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We can go ahead with the footnote, then. We do need a "Genre classification" section anyway, so one of us should put that together to have something to link to. Unless we come up with a way to link to the section directly, we'll have to use the roundabout way. Edge of Tomorrow (film) with its footnote does this with the weird tagline/title approach. Not sure if I will have time to do such a section today. And even if we think of a different approach, such a section is useful on its own anyway. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the most telling comment was by Lapadite77 above who states: It doesn't matter how truthful it is, how many liberties it may take, how it presents a narrative, or whether its director considers it to be a traditional one; it's a film "that dramatizes the life of a non-fictional or historically-based person or people", ergo a biographical film. The fact that there is a debate about its accuracy implicitly accepts that it is a biographical film; the debate simply wouldn't exist around a completely fictional subject, like Indiana Jones. I haven't seen the film, but I don't thing dramatizing just a segment of his life prohibits it from being regarded as a biographical film. Where would that leave Lawrence of Arabia which focuses on just World War I? What about Danny Boyles 127 Hours which dramatizes just one week in a man's life? The American Film Institute provide a list of biographical films and it includes films such as 127 Hours and even the highly fictionalized Ed Wood (Steve Jobs hasn't been added to the catalog yet though, but judging by the criteria the AFI applies I would be very surprised if it were not added to the list). I think the ongoing debate in the media about its accuracy is being mistaken for a debate about its genre and they are two separate concepts in my view. Betty Logan (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Let's go ahead with the footnote then - perhaps you can draft an idea here and I can check in at the end of the week. A few points - part of the reason we are engaged in a debate lies in the fact that Sorkin has yet to define a genre for the film. From TechInsider: http://www.techinsider.io/aaron-sorkin-steve-jobs-isnt-a-biopic-2015-10

Aaron Sorkin, the Oscar-winning screenwriter behind the new "Steve Jobs" movie, doesn't know exactly what genre the film about the Apple co-founder falls into. But he knows it's not a traditional biopic. During a Q&A Monday evening, the writer ("The West Wing," "The Social Network") said he didn't set out to write a biopic of the late Apple co-founder for two reasons: the audience is too familiar with the structure, and he didn't think he'd be able to do it well. "I didn’t want to do the cradle to grave story where we land on the greatest hits along the way," Sorkin said following a press screening in Manhattan on Monday evening. "I didn’t think I’d be able to do that well. I think it’s a structure that’s familiar to audiences. I think that all of you would have come into the theater assuming you were going to see — the first scene will be a little boy and his father and they’re looking through the window of an electronics store. And Steve’s going to meet Woz and they’re going to start inventing." Sorkin joked that audiences already know how a traditional biopic unfolds. "You know the structure of it. Somewhere toward the end of the second act they get a drug or alcohol addiction, and in the third act they make their greatest album ever. I knew that I didn’t want to do that," he joked. "I wanted to do something else."

With regard to Genre, how about "Experimental Biopic? It clearly is not a traditional biopic and thus this statement would not be WP:OR (to call it a traditional biopic would be OR because the film is not one- anyone who has seen the film can attest to this fact). I am thinking of Epstein and Friedman's Howl (2010 film). Here is how the first sentence for that article reads:

"Howl is a 2010 American experimental film which explores both the Six Gallery debut and the 1957 obscenity trial of 20th-century American poet Allen Ginsberg's noted poem Howl."

Technically, the film Howl is also a biopic. Every line of the film is taken either from court transcripts or interviews with Ginsberg. It also follows the trajectory of Ginsberg's life (though in a non-linear fashion). The film also takes a few liberties (such as including the entire poem when in fact only part of it had been written by the Six Gallery Reading) and yet it is clearly a biopic, if an Experimental one. I think it might be a good sample to work with (if you haven't seen the film, I do recommend it):

Movie Review: James Franco in 'Howl'

-Classicfilms (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Classicfilms, your input and willingness to compromise is appreciated, but I think the problem here is that we still don't have a clear consensus for a solution. Sorkin is the author of the work, and his opinion is not one step removed from the event, therefore it is a primary source. There are just too many secondary sources calling it a biopic, so Sorkin's comments cannot overrule them. Betty's comments above further illustrate why the biopic label is appropriate. Determining the type of biopic – impressionalistic, traditional, experimental, etc. – isn't necessary, because the simpler form is just "biographical film" that's in the article now. That is less contentious than trying to classify a classification!
The way I understand it, we have two decent options at this point. 1) We create a "Genre classification" section or sub-section within the body of the article that addresses the controversy mentioned in a few sources, and per WP:NPOV and WP:DUE, we list arguments for and against the biopic label. 2) We add the note next to "biographical film" in the opening sentence, that briefly describes the controversy, and add a "See the [[Genre classification]] section for more detail". While either option may be enough to stand on its own as a solution, I'm recommending we do both. If one has to go, then I would do away with #2 and keep #1. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
GoneIn60 - I just checked in for a moment, I won't be back until after the weekend. Here are my thoughts. I am open to a RFC if you like, and am certainly not trying to stop debate. However, I must disagree with the idea that an author has no right to define his/her own work. And if you look at my solution, it is not discarding the label of biography entirely. However, for the Wikipedia to simply call the film a normal biography when it is not would be misleading. I am perplexed by this idea that all sources list the work as an ordinary biography. I have listed numerous ones above that clearly do not. This film is clearly a non-traditional or experimental film - to qualify the type of biography that it is is a reflection not just of what the film is but also of what sources are saying. Your contributions to the discussion have been valuable, I am not trying to imply otherwise, I just cannot agree with your reading of Primary/Secondary sources. We are basically in agreement on many areas so I'd like to find a way to compromise on the lead sentence with you and anyone else who wants to work on it. Anyway, I'll be back in a few days. -Classicfilms (talk) 04:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your feedback. I don't believe we are that far apart, but I do want to clarify a few items that have been misinterpreted on several occasions (and not just by you). I'm not advocating that we ignore the author's thoughts on the matter. They are relevant per WP:PRIMARY and can be included in the article. My position is that according to the same guideline, primary sources are less relevant than secondary. It is true that all across Wikipedia, secondary sources are preferred over primary, especially when they conflict. Part of the proposed compromise here was to include the author's thoughts in a relevant section within the article. I believe you and I agree on that part of the compromise. Where we seem to be in disagreement is evident in your recent statement (my emphasis), "I am perplexed by this idea that all sources list the work as an ordinary biography." I have never claimed that all sources state that. My exact words in my very first post above stated, "While there may be a significant number of sources that contest the "biopic" classification, it appears that an overwhelming majority of sources cited in the article refer to it as such" I repeated similar statements a few more times, but in a long-winded discussion, I can understand that things like this can get lost in the clutter.
So that brings us to the sources you provided above. On the surface, it looks like a significant amount. But I'm going to break them down here, because this is long past due:
  1. Wired – This is the interview with Sorkin in which he adamantly opposes the biopic label, but doesn't know how to classify it. No opinion from the interviewer is given.
  2. LA Times – I touched on this one earlier, but here the article is labeling the film an impressionistic biopic and gives Don Cheadle's response to that new classification. Cheadle believes it's a "false" claim to say there's a difference between impressionistic biopic and a literal biopic.
  3. recode.net – All this article does is poke fun at Sorkin's comments by saying if his claim it's not a biopic is true, then "why bother" seeing it. The article's author does not give an opinion about the genre.
  4. NY Times – The entire article describes how fictitious the film is, then at the very end, pokes fun at Sorkin's comments: "Sorkin insisted that 'Steve Jobs' was 'not a biopic.' He added, 'I’m not quite sure what to call it.' That’s easy. Fiction." Was that a joke or actual professional analysis? Doesn't sound like the latter to me.
  5. CNET – Written by techies and not professional film critics, but it does directly oppose the label biopic by saying biopics and fiction don't mix.
  6. AppleInsider – Written by another techie. Calls it fiction. Does not challenge the biopic label.
  7. Computerworld – Another techie. Calls it fiction. Does not challenge the biopic label.
  8. Sci- Tech – Written by a film expert who acknowledges Sorkin's interview and lists comments from all perspectives. Does not challenge the biopic label. Interestingly, one comment features Rick Tetzeli, co-author of "Becoming Steve Jobs". He says it's not surprising that Apple insiders bashed the film and called it inaccurate; they have a motive to protect his legacy. His beef with the film was that the portrait painted was incomplete, not necessarily inaccurate.
Well there you go. Out of the 8 sources you provided, only one directly challenges the biopic label – the one from CNET that was written by non-film critics. Even if we count shaky #4, that's two sources total. I'm not going to make a similar list from the Steve Jobs article, but there are dozens of sources that refer to it as a "biopic" only and do not challenge the label. So per WP:DUE, we should give the competing viewpoint a small presence in the article accordingly. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All those you listed as "Does not challenge the biopic label" should not be counted as being a reason to keep the biopic label, particularly when their main point was the film is a work of fiction. Sources cannot be expected to prove a negative or campaign against something like a genre if that was not their point. The article needs to include the fact Sorkin set out to not write a traditional biopic, including in the lead section. A section discussing the genre issue in the article body should be maintained as well. - Gothicfilm (talk) 11:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those are fair points and we agree about the inclusion of Sorkin's viewpoint into the article. I am not pretending to be a subject matter expert here. Does the inclusion of fictional material automatically negate the biopic classification? It would seem settling that part of the debate once and for all might help us finally reach some sort of conclusion here. Betty pointed out above that 127 Hours focuses on a single week in a man's life and Ed Wood is highly fictionalized, yet both are classified by the highly-regarded American Film Institute as biographical films. Lapadite77 reminded us that Steve Jobs is a dramatization of "the life of a non-fictional or historically-based person or people", as defined at biographical film. I was approaching the evaluation of those sources with the same mindset, that fictional elements do not automatically detach the film from the biopic label, but I'm willing to reconsider if there's a good argument why we should. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again - just checking in - looks like you both are pushing the article in the right direction which is of course to avoid WP:OR via WP:RS. Interestingly enough, it looks like everyone has this in mind and yet we all are interpreting it in different ways. Just a few points of clarification on my part - a biopic by its very nature is not a documentary. No one is stating that. It is narrative film that is a construction and will inevitably conflate or rearrange elements of a life. Often dialogue is invented. It is impossible to point out a biopic that does not have some fictional elements and I think everyone here would agree to this point. However, this film is deliberately constructed as an experimental work of fiction which places it in a special category. I don't agree that the references I give above are not useable but I won't waste a lot of time arguing that point-particularly since I haven't seen reviews yet that just refer to the film as a biopic without stating that it has a unique narrative. Here are two articles - one a review, the other an interview - which explicitly label the film as an "Experimental Biopic":
I should point out by the way that my concern reflects WP:BLP not with regard to the subject (Steve Jobs) but the screenwriter and the director. It is not the job of the Wikipedia to determine or define - its job is to reflect the truth. I agree with Gothicfilm that the lead must reflect Sorkin's intent along with what critics are saying. I have no problems with the footnote - we all seem to be in agreement. If the majority do not want to use experimental fiction, I am fine with that. But I did want to make my objections clear so that there is no misunderstanding of intent. To simply state that it is biographical without adding Sorkin's goals is not a misuse of WP:Primary - it is an accurate depiction of what the film is. Rather than go back and forth, perhaps one of you should start an RFC. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. Just a slight correction that it is not the primary purpose of Wikipedia to "reflect the truth". Doing so would also turn Wikipedia into an interpreter. Per WP:VNT, we let the sources speak for themselves. When they are not in unanimous agreement, then we follow the approach outlined in WP:DUE, which gives proportional weight to each opposing viewpoint.
As for an RfC, I have no issues with that option, but I don't have any plans to initiate one. The editors who wish to change the wording in the article would probably be in a better position to do so if they feel this discussion has reached a stalemate and will not produce an adequate consensus. I would strongly suggest inserting the sources that support your position into the article first, so that the content is there. No one so far disputes that the content deserves to be in the article in at least some form within its body. I wouldn't change anything in the lead, however, until a consensus is reached here or in an RfC. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick clarification... The reason I suggest inserting the content into the article's body prior to starting an RfC is that you will most certainly hear a lot of opposition citing WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. No one can really support changing the lead if the content you are inserting doesn't first exist within the body. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The clearly stated intention of the screenwriter is uncontroversial and belongs in the lead section, as well as the article body. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal[edit]

Proposal: I would like to propose the following for the lead sentence - it is just a template so we would need to fully format the reference and the footnote with the correct wiki markup. I would just like to move this conversation forward with what I think is a compromise that should satisfy everyone:

Steve Jobs is a 2015 American Experimental Biopic[1] starring Michael Fassbender as Apple Inc. co-founder Steve Jobs.[2]
  1. ^ Footnote will be placed here
  2. ^ Movie Review: ‘Steve Jobs’

I'll check in next week. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Made it a subsection. As long as experimental is supported by RSs, I'm fine with it. Lapadite (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, thanks. If consensus goes with this sentence, then we need to draft a footnote. I could do so in a week or so but I'm wondering if someone else wants to come up with a draft here, drawing on the discussion above? -Classicfilms (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an experimental film, as defined in that article. It's a mainstream drama film with a somewhat unusual structure, but not so unusual as to put it in with Jonas Mekas. There's no link for experimental biographical film, and merging one out of two other links goes against WP:EGG. You're either going to have to call it what it is - a drama film - or call it a biographical film but then contradict that with the fact that the screenwriter set out to not write a biopic. Perhaps it could be called an experimental biographical film, but then someone would probably make a link out of "experimental", or perhaps we could use experimental biographical film, especially if someone adds info on experimental biographies to that article. But no link to experimental film should be in the lead. And on another note, the director should be in the opening sentence as well. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with Gothicfilm that the experimental moniker doesn't quite work and reading the above discussion seems a bit too close to original research. My humble suggestion is omitting the genre entirely from the opening sentence, including information about the structure and authorial intent briefly in the lead, and expounding on the biopic/not biopic elements in production or the historical accuracy section there. There's no mandate you need to mention genre there, and the first sentence of the lead is not a place to put contested information that we can't easily expound upon in that area (as well as derailing reading flow from the get-go.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issues with either of the approaches above - though I don't quite agree with the idea that describing a film which even the screenwriter states is not a biopic as "experimental" falls into WP:OR. Describing this film in the first sentence as simply a Biographical film is problematic simply because that isn't an accurate description of the film. Calling it a drama film works, adding a footnote works if we have to use biographical, or removing genre altogether works. I was responding to the discussion above that called for keeping "biographical film" in the lead which is how it currently reads. So either we take it out altogether, describe the work as a drama film, or if we have to keep biography in the lead, we need to qualify that the use of the term is contentious. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Might I suggest something like "fictionalized biography" or "heavily-fictionalized biography". While most people realize that film biographies usually involve some deviation from pure fact, to emphasize the fictionalizing would convey that this is happening here much more so than is typical. artwest — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artwest57 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fictional modern period piece set in the early computer development period loosely based on Steve Jobs. 98.164.64.98 (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was a framing story loosely using the public figure of Steve Jobs with his widely publicized flaws to illustrate the classic theme of "what could have been" had it not been for the main character's flaws, and their interaction with other character's flaws. Note that of the flaws revealed in the discussions among the characters are, when disputed, eventually accepted as true. After disputing that he has a chip on his shoulder he humorously says, after a vehement reveal of the chip on his shoulder, that it didn't show too much. In the dispute of Jobs' "reality distortion field" "Jobs" honestly believes it doesn't distort his reality until he's shown an example of a time cover he took as an offence for many years but accepts when shown he was wrong. The "Jobs" character evolves through the movie to be understanding, and move to correct his flaws. But had he made that move sooner the movie asks "what could have been". 98.164.86.98 (talk) 05:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shark?[edit]

Does the lawsuit over the shark photograph really deserve its own one-line section in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4CB:4B40:9AFC:11FF:FECD:BFAC (talk) 09:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not since it has a 'Notice of Voluntary Dismissal by Plaintiff' recorded a year ago. Can somebody get a shark to eat this useless factoid from the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.232.250 (talk) 13:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 August 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved — JFG talk 03:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Steve Jobs (2015 film) → Steve Jobs (film) – This is the only film titled Steve Jobs. The other articles we have on films about Steve Jobs are partial title matches. Steve Jobs (film) is currently pointing to an odd list article containing (some) movies about Jobs. The arrangement is not currently set up to serve readers. Cúchullain t/c 13:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with * '''Support''' or * '''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
You're saying you can read the subtitle at File:Steve Jobs The man in the Machine.jpg? I don't see how anyone could read that. Yes, it's readable in that other picture. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably only slightly less legible than the "Bold. Brilliant. Brutal." tagline at the top. I think the low-quality fair use requirement is making the red kind of bleed; if you look at a higher quality image, you can see they definitely did not intend for the subtitle to be hidden away/unable to be read. Nohomersryan (talk) 03:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, at a higher resolution, it is readable – but certainly greatly de-prioritized relative to the all-caps "STEVE JOBS" that is using roughly three times the font size and isn't in that hard-to-read red-on-black color. Presumably, it was rendered that way on purpose. Human vision is much less sensitive to the difference between red and black than the difference between white and black, and the people who made that poster knew that. At the resolution of the picture on Wikipedia, I can read the white-font line at the top (with some difficulty), but not the red subtitle. The "STEVE JOBS", of course, is really big and bright, and it jumps right out at the reader, as intended. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with Nohomersryan's comment. For the documentary, it seems that when sources shorten the name from the full version, they tend to call it "The Man in the Machine", etc., rather than "Steve Jobs", as is done here.--Cúchullain t/c 20:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this move. The other film isn't titled "Steve Jobs", and all the sources in its article identify it as such and use its subtitle prominently. Nohomersryan (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with hatnote, as above.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Calidum ¤ 02:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Steve Jobs (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs) 11:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grabbing this for review, soon. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've got some points below that I think need to be sorted out before we move on. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

  • The lead as it stands doesn't really cover the film's production, which it should to give a broad overview of the article. I suggest a third paragraph, between the two existing ones, with at least a sentence each for development, filming, post-production, and music. You should especially talk about the three different filming styles for the three acts, and the three different music styles for the three acts, and you should probably note that Sorkin created most of the dialogue himself.  Done
I've added details about the Jobs casting process, the extensive film editing and music to the lead. Rusted AutoParts 18:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I really think this paragraph should note that the dialogue is almost all fictional, and the cinematography for the three acts. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Production[edit]

  • The first line of development should be combined with the next paragraph.  Done
  • The development section should introduce Jobs and Isaacson's book, assuming that some readers will skip to the production section.  Done
  • Sorkin, Jobs, and Fassbender shouldn't be linked again in the filming section.  Done

Music[edit]

  • The second paragraph needs a copy edit, as it currently doesn't make complete sense.  Done
You can add an additional comment below if you feel the paragraph still needs work. Rusted AutoParts 17:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuit[edit]

  • This section should be a subsection of the reception section, as it is in response to the film, and really should be expanded. Is there no other information available?  Done

See https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/9708399/Roessler_v_Universal_City_Studios,_LLC_et_al (NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Plaintiff Carl Roessler. (Aldrich, John) Date January 8th 2016). Can we have the legal case citation removed as (largely) irrelevant? 61.68.232.250 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Accuracy[edit]

  • This should also be a subsection of the reception section.  Done

Other[edit]

  • There are a couple citation needed tags that I'm sure you will be able to replace with references. Done
  • All the web references in the article need to be archived. This is pretty important. Done
Ill aim to begin addressing these concerns tomorrow. I hope to have this completed by next week. Rusted AutoParts 04:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm frankly not the greatest in way of archiving sources. I'll message a few editors to see if someone could aid me with that. 17:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)Rusted AutoParts
I'm needing a bit more time in way of learning to archive (a method I was informed about involves my email, which im hesistant on using for security reason, could be misguided worry, but still). Is there a deadline you'd like to set for this GA to be wrapped up? Rusted AutoParts 18:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Usually they should be done in a week, but I'm happy to give you more time since I can see that you are actively trying to get this passed. As long as it is within reason, really. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Rusted AutoParts and Adamstom.97: Working on the archive-urls. If the case is that we just need to check they are archived, pls let me know; adding |archive-url= |archive-date= |dead-url= is slightly monotonous. — Sam Sailor 18:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know it can be a bit of a pain, but it is important to have archive links in case any of these sources go off-line. Hopefully it is a habit that more and more editors are getting into. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
20 more sources to archive. Can't finish them tonight but hopefully they'll be done for tomorrow. Rusted AutoParts 20:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All done with the archiving. Rusted AutoParts 17:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well done. I know it was a lot of tedious work, but I think it is worth it. I'll go ahead and promote this now. Passed - adamstom97 (talk) 07:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Adam. Rusted AutoParts 14:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steve_Jobs_(film)&oldid=1210286628"