Steve Jobs was aEngineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet thegood article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can berenominated. Editors may also seek areassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited tojoin the project andcontribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to thedocumentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofveganism andvegetarianism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Veganism and VegetarianismWikipedia:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismTemplate:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismVeganism and Vegetarianism
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofcomputers,computing, andinformation technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofApple,Mac,iOS and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Apple Inc.Wikipedia:WikiProject Apple Inc.Template:WikiProject Apple Inc.Apple Inc.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of theU.S. state ofCalifornia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofSyria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of theInternet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofbusiness articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide toanimation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you canedit the article attached to this page, help out with theopen tasks, or contribute to thediscussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation
Where it states:"In mid-1975, after returning to Atari, Jobs was assigned to create [this should be "modify" I believe] a circuit board for the arcade video game Breakout.[65] According to Bushnell, Atari offered $100 (equivalent to about $500 in 2021) for each TTL chip that was eliminated in the machine. Jobs had little specialized knowledge of circuit board design and made a deal with Wozniak to split the fee evenly between them if Wozniak could minimize the number of chips. Much to the amazement of Atari engineers, Wozniak reduced the TTL count to 46, a design so tight that it was impossible to reproduce on an assembly line.[66] According to Wozniak, Jobs told him that Atari paid them only $700 (instead of the actual $5,000), and that Wozniak's share was thus $350.[67] Wozniak did not learn about the actual bonus until ten years later, but said that if Jobs had told him about it and explained that he needed the money, Wozniak would have given it to him.[68]"
You can't "eliminate" chips from a design you haven't "created" yet. It's either that or they wanted him to minimize the amount of TTL IC's to be used in a design.
But from what I've read, Atari had a board, it cost too much to make and was too large, so therefor they wanted it to be reduced in size and complexity .
But irregardless, he wasn't able to do it - Wozniak did it.
Great question; I looked it up. That's indeed in bothIsaacson 2011 ("design") andSchlender & Tetzeli 2015 ("create"). Both books can be borrowed for free from the links I give. Also Isaacson:There would be a bonus, Bushnell told him, for every chip fewer than fifty that he used. If you can find a source that contradicts, please post it here.
I'm still not happy with the section though. Most is sourced to a blog. And Isaacson saysWozniak used only forty-five chips. Recollections differ, but by most accounts Jobs simply gave Wozniak half of the base fee and not the bonus Bushnell paid for saving five chips, which contradicts what we have now. However, while Linzmayer 2004 ("Apple Confidential 2.0", a solid book) agrees on "4 days", it quotes Woz as saying:“Nolan Bushnell wanted a game with as few chips as possible. Steve said if there were less than 50 chips, we got paid $700 and split it in half. Less than 40 chips, $1,000. After four nights, it was 42 chips. I wasn’t about to spend another second trying to reduce it by two more chips; I’ll settle for $700.” (notice: one says 42 chips, one says 45).
There's also something we omit in our article: according to Isaacson (page 53),Bushnell knew that Jobs was not a great engineer, but he assumed, correctly, that he would recruit Wozniak, who was always hanging around. “I looked at it as a two-for-one thing,” Bushnell recalled. “Woz was a better engineer.” (btw, "always hanging around" is supported by Malone 1999, too). I'll try to rework this later if I have time, but would rather wait until we figure out whether it was 46, 45 or 42 chips. We need a source that resolves the discrepancy.DFlhb (talk)18:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, found it. In 2009, Woz said 45 chips[1]. Andin 2013, he said "I got it down to 42, but it went back to 45 before it ran well". So every source is now congruent, with only the current blogspam source saying "46".DFlhb (talk)18:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't like this section. It should explain his role in these products, his decision-making, etc., not just plainly describe the products. And I think the description of his role would best fit within the general chronology of the biography, rather than as a separate "Products" section.DFlhb (talk)23:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Flyedit32: why do you persist in reverting despite policy? In articles, when unsourced content is reverted, it stays out until affirmative consensus is reached (WP:BURDEN).
The first sentence is for occupations. Making one investment in Pixar doesn't make Jobs an investor. You've removed entrepreneur, which is verifiable andWP:BLUESKY, and reinstated "magnate", which is neither. I'd have added "innovator" (along with proper sources) but inventor is fine too.DFlhb (talk)21:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ina more recent edit, you've hinted that your disputed changes are covered byMOS:LEAD. That is false, since neither labels ("magnate" and "investor") are cited in the body. I'veexplained on your talk page that the first lead sentence is for definitional labels; to call him an investor, we need a multitude of sources that call him that, not just sources that show he made one investment at one point in his life. You've edit warred to keep your preferred unsourced wording in the lead, and then refused to discuss, perhaps in the hopes that it gets to stay in. This is neither productive nor collaborative. Again, please self-revert.DFlhb (talk)22:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Obscure and incorrectly written acronym or initialism “woo”
Section “Health problems”, second paragraph, last word in the following excerpt:
However, cancer researcher and alternative medicine critic David Gorski wrote that "it's impossible to know whether and by how much he might have decreased his chances of surviving his cancer through his flirtation with woo.
Both of the references for the above excerpt contain “woo”. I note that “WOO” or “WoO” stands for “Window of Opportunity” per the following:
https://ascopubs.org/doi/abs/10.1200/JCO.2020.38.29_suppl.181#:~:text=Background%3A%20In%20%E2%80%9Cwindow%20of%20opportunity,and%20definitive%20anti%2Dcancer%20treatment.In “window of opportunity” (WOO) clinical trials, people with newly diagnosed early-stage cancer are exposed to an experimental drug during the period of time between diagnosis and definitive anti-cancer treatment. These trials allow investigators to study drug efficacy in untreated disease, which can expedite drug development. However, for trial participants, the WOO approach requires them to decide about an altruistic clinical trial during an intense time immediately after cancer diagnosis. This qualitative study aimed to understand patient perspectives on WOO clinical trials.
Should a reference to the meaning of “woo” (I don’t know whether it’s an acronym or an initialism) and the fact that it should have been written as “WOO” or “WoO” (if both are considered to be correct) in the excerpt’s references be included? I suppose the easiest thing would be to replace “woo” with “[WOO]” (if that’s considered acceptable) and make it a link to the ascopubs.org page above which defines it.Dbsx (talk)13:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This entire section has GOT to be aPOE, right? This comment proceeds from a false assumption that woo is an initialization or acronym;it isn't.
The termwoo generally refers to pseudoscientific pursuits — particularly pseudoscientific modalities in medicine. We all have blind spots, but to have failed to perform a simple Google search for: "woo medicine" is a hell of an oversight.
So perhaps today was the day you and other readers learned that woo is a term used extensively by science communicators. It's even usedright here on Wikipedia
I strongly concur withUser:Dbsx. I specialized in the history of science as an undergraduate in one of the highest-ranked history departments in the world and I've never heard of that term.
I just ran some Google searches against skepticalinquirer.org. It looks like the term "woo" was very rare before 2018. Even if the term is becoming more commonly used in pseudoscience circles, it is still unheard of in the mainstream media. For example, searching Google News returns a lot of recent results forBryan Woo, and one mention of the longer related term "woo-woo" from theNew York Post.
This looks like a straightforward application ofWP:NOT. WP is not a soapbox or means of promotion or an indiscriminate collection of information. This article is not the place to go about promoting such an obscure term. --Coolcaesar (talk)07:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's just how Gorski speaks, and he's not soapboxing to promote the word. I checked and it's in the Oxford dictionary (both long-form and short-form). There's nothing to see here, he's an expert, why would we literally argue over semantics?DFlhb (talk)08:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's tempting to dive into a treatise on the timeline of the use of the term woo-woo (now frequently shortened to woo) and how James Randi may have coined the term (and that he began holdingThe Amazing Meeting conference in2003. Or that David Gorski is an editor ofScience-Based Medicine. Or Jerry Coyne, University of Chicago evolutionary biology professor and author ofWhy Evolution is True wrote in 2011 thatWoo may have killed Steve Jobs.
There's extensive support for the premise that Jobs belief and adherence to pseudoscientific treatments delayed his receiving appropriate treatment. As a compromise may I suggest using the term woo within the body of related text but not as the basis of a section heading?Jeffnathan (talk)18:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should we create a series template for Jobs like there is forMusk orGates? It wouldn't have to be too long or anything, but I do feel like there is plenty to use for it, and it could help with reader navigation, too. Thanks. ~Flyedit32 (talk)15:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not specific enough. Hello, and thank you for your edit request. So that I can implement those changes, I'd like you to provide me with those 2 things:
The text you wish to add; and
Where exactly (between which sentences) the given text should be added.
This waspreviously discussed, where the conclusion was that GulfNews was the only outlet saying this, and wasn't independently confirmed, so the sourcing isn't good enough to include. And given Jobs's fame, and the large number of books written about him, anything that didn't make the cut in those books would likely be undue anyway.DFlhb (talk)00:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, slightWP:OR: per Isaacson's biography, his 'birth' mother planned (not fully by choice, mind you) to put him for adoption before he was born, and he was placed in a family immediately upon birth. Intuitively that would mean that his "real" birth name is what his adoptive parents picked.DFlhb (talk)00:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
Hi Wikipedia,I have a lot of knowledge I have read from books and would like to share with everyone, I am an enthusiastic person, and trustworthy, I would like to share my prior and current knowledge with everyone using Wikipedia
Steven Paul Jobs (February 24, 1955 – October 5, 2011) was an American business magnate, inventor, and investor best known as the co-founder [...]
The lead sentence has been repeatedly changed this past year, with slow-motion edit warring instead of talk page discussions. I disputed "business magnate" and "investor" above as againstMOS:ROLEBIO, and the user who reinstated them didn't discuss on talk.Mechanical Keyboarder disputedFlyedit32's bold addition of "inventor", and I've come to agree since it's redundant with the end of the first paragraph, but this was reinstated several times without discussion.
Can we get a better infobox photo? Why do we have the infobox photo of him near the end of his life? The 1984 portrait of him is better for the infobox photo in my humble opinion.Ccole2006 (talk)03:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, some parts of early life section is a bit confusing to me. Paul, Jobs, Paul Jobs, Clara, Clara Hagopian. Arggh, sometimes I saw no clear distinction of what refers to what.Natsuikomin (talk)13:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
According to Wozniak, Jobs told him that Atari paid them only $750 (instead of the actual $5,000), and that Wozniak's share was thus $375.
Change the wording to be the same as Steve Wozniak's page, where it is much clearer that Steve Jobs scammed his best friend. It is ambiguous enough here to where I didn't realize what had happened. It sounds like he was only paid $750.
Corrected version (Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Wozniak) :Jobs had little knowledge of circuit board design and made a deal with Wozniak to split the fee evenly between them if Wozniak could minimize the number of chips. Wozniak reduced the number of chips by 50, by using RAM for the brick representation. The fact that this prototype had no scoring or coin mechanisms meant Woz's prototype could not be used. Jobs was paid the full bonus regardless. Jobs told Wozniak that Atari gave them only $700 and that Wozniak's share was thus $350 (equivalent to $2,400 in 2023).[33][5]: 147–148, 180 Wozniak did not learn about the actual $5,000 bonus (equivalent to $34,300 in 2023) until ten years later. While dismayed, he said that if Jobs had told him about it and had said he needed the money, Wozniak would have given it to him.[34]: 104–107 Quantumcon (talk)09:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's......why it's aleady there. You reposted that same image for no reason which is already in the article, and you already posted this topic on this very page with the same meaningless rationale. This is a "good" status and very stable article so please stop the broken record of nitpicking. —Smuckola(talk)01:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone mind if I remove the reference to Steve Wozniak from the first paragraph?, he was not of the calibre of the great Steve Jobs who gifted a lifetime of achievements to the world.
He was a pioneer of the personal computer revolution of the 1970s and 1980s, along with his early business partner and fellow Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak.
to:
He was a pioneer of the personal computer revolution of the 1970s and 1980s.
The second paragraph also mentions Wozniak and will be updated to be a link.
I have to disagree very strongly with the rationale thathe was not of the calibre of the great Steve Jobs. The sentence currently in the lede is an accurate summary of the text of the article (WP:LEDE) and appropriately emphasizes how important Wozniak and his work was to Steve Jobs's role in that time period. -Aoidh (talk)16:20, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Look at Steve Jobs’ life of achievements. The first paragraph should summarise Jobs’ life not the initial Apple time period. He and Wozniak were not a duo.GeneThomas (talk)00:33, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If they were a duo for the entire fame earning part of his life then referring to Wozniak in the lede would be appropriate but they were not.GeneThomas (talk)00:43, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That sentence is aboutthe personal computer revolution of the 1970s and 1980s specifically, it isn't theWP:LEDESENTENCE and is not meant to be a representative of Jobs's entire life. The sentence is not aboutthe entire fame earning part of his life but rather that specific time period which Wozniak was integral to in terms of Jobs's life. It currently reflects the article (as it should) and is well-supported by reliable sources. There is no reason to remove Wozniak's name from that sentence, as doing so would cause the lede to no longer properly reflect the article's content. -Aoidh (talk)01:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personal opinions are not relevant to article content. What is relevant is what can be shown, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The relevance of this content can be shown. I've said all I'm currently going to say, so I'll wait for someone else to chime in if they feel it's necessary to see if there's aconsensus for this change, but I do not see any sufficient reason provided to remove this content from the lede of the article. -Aoidh (talk)01:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are not informed.
Wozniak will remain in the lead section but not the first paragraph as he was not instrumental in the entire famous period of Steve Jobs’ life. He is not famous because of his association with Wozniak but in his own right.GeneThomas (talk)02:29, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aoidh has dubiously failed to state his position does anyone honest object to the change?
We are somewhat disrespecting Steve Jobs and belittling his life of achievements by mentioning another person in the first paragraph.
@GeneThomas, come talk to me aboutthis partial reversion. I see thatWP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and despite editors usually saying that's a bad reason for anything, I think it's not always bad. But: Why have the exact dates in the article in three different places? It's useful to know when a person lived in a general way, but the exact date seems unimportant.WhatamIdoing (talk)03:16, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. Articles on persons always have the dates after the names, see greats such as Alan Turing, Douglas Engelbart, John von Neumann, ...; and in the info box. The third you mention is the date of the funeral.
2. The time of death is relevant
3.the details of which, out of respect for Jobs's family, were not made public is also relevant
Articles on people shouldn't repeat the same minor detailthree times.
What exactly is the time of death relevant for? Was there, for example, a provision in his will that said "if I die during this hour of the day, then..."? Did the time of day affect inheritance taxes?
Again, relevant for what? So that people who didn't get invited to the funeral 14 years ago would know that they were excluded "out of respect"? So that fan boys will know that any stories they read online about the funeral are probably fictional?
1. The dates are shown in the first sentence in seemingly all articles on persons to absolutely uniquely identify them. They are also shown in the info-box for quick reference. Your third mention was the date of the funeral which can be omitted.
Relevance only exists in relationship to some other thing. For example, if a police officer pulls over a driver, what the driver drank recently is relevant to the question of whether the driver is drunk, but what the driver ate, or which clothes they wore, or whether they got a haircut last week, is not typically relevant. So: You have asserted that the time of day when he died is "relevant". I ask: What's it relevantto? For example, hypothetically, anastrologer might say "The time of day when he died is relevant to people trying to calculate his spiritual fate". What do you say it's relevant to?
I'm glad we have agreed on this point.
Why would I have any opinion about Steve Jobs, one way or another, at all? I never met him. I don't even know if I've met anyone who ever met him. I have no opinion on him as a person at all. I'm generally a fan of Apple's products, but I don't attribute them to any individual. How about you?WhatamIdoing (talk)02:56, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. That is normal; the dates of his birth and death are particularly of interest as they reveal facts about his family.
2. ItIS relevant to understanding his death — 3pm, work it out.
>Why would I have any opinion about Steve Jobs, one way or another, at all?
ByREADING the article andTHINKING about the great man!
> I don't attribute them to any individual.
He has 450 patents so can take credit.
>How about you?
I know that Steve Jobs contributed greatly to the human race. Re. Apple products: He, initially alone, promulgated the touch screen mobile phone and is the reason everyone carries one these days; like Henry Ford and the automobile.GeneThomas (talk)06:27, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't work out why it's important that he died around 3:00 p.m. Does it have mystical significance? Is it the same time of day that he was born, so it affects the number of full days he lived? Is there some symbolism, like 3:00 p.m. is when he always took a nap during his workday, or when he announced an important business event?WhatamIdoing (talk)21:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only sense in which Jobs chose to die was rejecting treatment for his cancer. I don't think it's particularly important to include his time of death forWP:PROFRINGE reasons.Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ10:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deathday at beginning and in the info-box and possibly again at the bottom of the article if discussing his death. Nix the time of death I've never heard of anything like that before and is just trivial to include.Sgerbic (talk)05:22, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dates of birth and death (if found insecondary sources – do not useprimary sources for birth dates of living persons or other private details about them). If specific day–month–year dates for birth/death are given elsewhere in the article, then a simple year–year range may be sufficient to provide context
The specific day–month–year dates for birth/death are given elsewhere in the article (in the infobox plus in the body of the article), so I believe a simple year–year range is sufficient for the first sentence.WhatamIdoing (talk)06:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Including the time can make sense when it's significant for some reason as discussed in sufficient reliable secondary sources. This will most likely be in the case of unnatural deaths when it sonehow relates to some legal dispute. But sometimes natural ones it nay also come up e.g. for monarchs it reflects the time the next monarch took over in many jurisdictions so would likely be in some articles. And a death very late at night or in the early hours of the morning of someone special to a specific country would often mean most people only find out upon waking up so we might at least mention this if not the specific time. There's definitely not even one RS presented so far which demonstrates significance to the time here and it's unlikely anything which claims he chose to die at the time would be an RS. I'll refrain from saying how laughable the idea is although BDP no longer applies, but yeah.Nil Einne (talk)07:20, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look through a number of works about Jobs' death, including those used as sources in this article. I can't find anything which suggests that the time of death was important. I can certainly not find anything to suggest that he somehow 'chose' to die at a specific time, or that his time of death had any bearing on whether or not...his life was more than just work.
I would also note thatHe, initially alone, promulgated the touch screen mobile phone and is the reason everyone carries one these days... represents a rather blatant and obvious factual inaccuracy. TheSimon Personal Communicator is broadly recognized as the first smartphone, and it was the Japanese telecomNTT DoCoMo who introduced data transmission and internet connectivity in 1999, not to mention the pioneering role of theT-Mobile Sidekick andBlackberry device line. Indeed, the truth is that -very much in keeping with Apple's reputation among the tech-literate- Apple (and by extension, Jobs) merely appropriated technologies that already existed into a consumer-grade product and then heavily marketed it to the general public.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.13:56, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add to the consensus supporting @WhatamIdoing's position that such detail is inappropriate. @GeneThomas, if you find it difficult to separate your feelings from a subject and your editing of the page on that subject, it might be a good idea to contribute somewhere else on Wikipedia.OsFish (talk)06:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How dare you! I have feeling in general but have not expressed them.
1. Which of my posts specifically are you alleging are inappropriate in relation to feelings?
2. What is your opinion on Steve Jobs? @WhatamIdoing indicates that he does not have an opinion “at all”, that is actually dubious!
Also @MjolnirPants (nice nick!) regarding Steve Jobs and the smartphone: The points stands, I said promulgated, not invented the smartphone; without him smartphones would almost certainly still be novelties.GeneThomas (talk)07:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have (a) clearly expressed your intense admiration for Steve Jobs and (b) accused other editors of editing in bad faith because of some supposed hostility to Jobs when all they are doing is adhering to Wikipedia style in biographical articles.WP:Civility is a cornerstone of how we operate. So I think it is fair to suggest you might be better off editing on another topic.OsFish (talk)07:50, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have not accused other editors of editing in bad faith I have merely sought their opinion on the subject.
With respect to the question you are asking two other editors now, the answer as it pertains to editing here is as follows:
It doesn't matter.
Anyone is permitted to edit, regardless of their feelings on the topic, and that editing is conditionedonly upon their ability to keep their feelings out of the article itself. This is an ability that both of the other editors have demonstrated here, and which you, so far, have not. Your insistence upon asking others about their feelings is a textbook example ofassuming bad faith, and a violation of our policies for which you can be sanctioned by the admins.
Also, your continued argumentation about Jobs' contributions to smartphones is rather ignorant of the actual history of smartphones and the nature of howApple Inc, and businesses in general, operate. If you will take some advice from someone who has been editing this project for somewhere north of a decade now, then please understand that factual accuracy isvery important here, and a dedication to it, rather than the hyperbole in the statement I initially responded to, is a hallmark of a good editor.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.13:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Look, you are trying to remove dates and the time of death from this particular article where they are especially important as I have explained! 3pm is not a coincidence and the dates should be shown at least as frequently as other articles.
You have explained whyyou consider the time of death to be especially important. You have expressed your (quite strange) belief that "3 PM is not a coincidence". Those are your personal feelings and beliefs, and you are entitled to have them, but none of them are good reasons to keep that information on the article.
What everyone else is suggesting is thatdates should be shown [] as frequently as other articles, because there is no good reason do anything other than that.VdSV9•♫14:16, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be great interest in presenting Jobs' alleged actual birthname. The problem I see is that we have precisely one, single source, and a self-published claim by a cousin of his. Biography.com states that Jobs was unnamed at the time of his adoption[2]. I can find no other reliable sources that support the claim. Since the claim is unverifiable via secondary sources, I suggest it should be removed, since we have no evidence other than his cousin's claim. cheers.anastrophe,an editor he is.21:09, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure - by 'great interest' I meant 'a lot of recent edits on this one specific claim'. Either way, hopefully others will chime in; even ifI thinks it's an uncontroversial removal, I don't want to remove it on just my perception of the matter (which isn't to say that your agreement isn't helpful!). cheers.anastrophe,an editor he is.20:27, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia editors aren't investigative reporters; any evidence revealed from such contact would amount tooriginal research which is forbidden. Unless an existing reliable source details evidence stronger than merely Ms. Jandaly's words, the claims don't belong here.
To be clear, this is not to explicitly cast doubt on her claims; they may be true, but they're part of a familial narrative, not something tangibly recorded by Job's birth parents or an adoption agency. Jandaly may be a Senior Reporter at a news agency, but her family reminiscences aren't adequate to make a definitive claim that Jobs had a prior name at the time of adoption. If there are adoption records, they might reveal the truth; I would presume those records are long lost by now. cheers.anastrophe,an editor he is.18:24, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It occurs to me that an alternative 'approach' to this would be to include in the 'family' portion of the article the details of her personal reminiscence, clearly identified as a personal narrative, so that the intrigueing possibility is available to readers; it simply can't be presented as it currently is, as being his true and correct pre-adoption name. cheers.anastrophe,an editor he is.18:29, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The name "Abdul Lateef Jandali" appears to have been added unilaterally in the first sentence of the article on 9 August based on a single Gulf News source. However, the past consensus based on numerous past Talk page discussions, eg. the 2023 discussion titled "birth name" and inprevious discussions from many years ago, it was agreed that the single Gulf News source for this name was not reliable, and using it in the first sentence of the article is giving it undue weight.
This change should not have been made against the prevailing consensus unilaterally using a singular source previously deemed to not be reliable, and it should be removed until a discussion about adding it takes place.2A02:8428:80ED:401:34E0:40D1:EAD4:F484 (talk)10:30, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the changes that@Datawikiperson: made. I strongly encourage the user to review the previous discussions above. The source isnot reliable. The claim would need independent verification from someone who is not claiming to be a relative, with proof beyond "because I say so". Being a reporter, and publishing a personal claim on a news site, isn't adequate forextraordinary claims cheers.anastrophe,an editor he is.17:46, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sarcasm is considered uncivil; please stick to the topic. The Gulf Newsmay be reliable; it hasn't been assessed by the community -Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. That's irrelevant though. The sole author of the sole claim is the reporter herself. She offers no evidence other than family anecdote. We don't use family anecdotes alone in the encyclopedia; independent proof is required. You're welcome to search the net for actual proof of the claim from a reliable, independent source. cheers.anastrophe,an editor he is.19:50, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There would have to be a source that calls into question the claim for us to say that in wikivoice. Since it's characterized as a claim, rather than a fact, that should be adequate. cheers.anastrophe,an editor he is.21:26, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is ratedB-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.
Not specific enough. Hello, and thank you for your edit request. So that I can implement those changes, I'd like you to provide me with those 2 things:
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 areliable source if appropriate.—Paper9oll(🔔 •📝)06:33, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not done for now: please establish aconsensus for this alterationbefore using the
.svg)
The redirectSteve Apple has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 3 § Steve Apple until a consensus is reached.User:Someone-123-321 (Icontribute,Talk page so SineBot will shut up)08:46, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]