Talk:Steve Jobs

Steve Jobs infobox photo: 2010 or 1986?

Currently, the photo shown for Steve Jobs is one of him in 2010. I understand it's more recognizable, though I thought about replacing it with this instead --> Steve Jobs, a photo of him in 1984 with the Macintosh. This is mostly a stylistic rather than conventional/accessible/practical choice, but my arguments are:

1. The picture I want to use is a featured picture, which means it would add significantly to its accompanying article. 2. I believe he's just as recognizable young as he is old. 3. It's rectangular instead of square, which makes it stand out more. 4. [STRONG OPINION] The photo used for him portrays him in bad shape, balding, and near the end of his life, which I feel strays away from the "innovator" archetype he embodied. 5. Most importantly, the Macintosh was an achievement in his life that could rival and even out-do the invention of the iPhone, because it inspired Windows computers and laid the foundations for the idea of the iPhone (there would be no iPhone without the Mac). UltraCobson (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I much prefer the 2010 portrait. MOS:LEADIMAGE favours images of people that portray them at their most recognisable. A cursory Google Images search of Steve Jobs displays a mountain of photos from his later life (around the reveal of the iPhone) and not many from his earlier career. Personally, iPhone-era Jobs is instantly recognisable, while I'd be hard pressed to even identify the man based on a younger photo of him.

I have reverted the image to the 2010 one until further consensus. Loytra^✨ 16:16, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. While Jobs appears somewhat gaunt in the photo, characterizing him as appearing to be "in bad shape" is rather a youth-oriented bias. Few people escape the ravages of aging, to different degrees, regardless of illness. I think a photo from maybe a few years prior, before he became ill (perhaps from the original iPhone reveal as mentioned), would be better, but going back to the 1980's was a bit too far the other way. As it stands, the current photo is adequate.

Please don't change it back to the 1980's photo - or any other photo - without acquiring consensus first. Photo edit-warring can be awfully tedious, as it tends to be polarizingly subjective. We need to find a balance of opinions among multiple editors before changing it. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:16, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

@Anastrophe Nice that works with me too UltraCobson (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

*thinking to self* what if it was this? lol.

— epicazowski (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

"Inventor"

"Steven Paul Jobs (February 24, 1955 – October 5, 2011) was an American businessman, inventor, and investor."

"Inventor" is sourced to the "National Inventors Hall of Fame", which lists him because he holds a patent to an iPod UI. This is patent-ly absurd, and surely not enough justification for a lead sentence. It's transparent cherrypicking and does not reflect how e.g. historians and biographers would primarily refer to him; and indeed it's smuggling in a frequently disputed pop claim.

I've checked the archives and it appears that the parties that favor "inventor" simply won what was called a "slow-motion edit war" over the years, without any actual discussion, consensus, or stated justification.

It's not a good framing for the lead sentence. The fact that he coordinated UI designs and under American law that entitles him to patents is not one of the most important descriptors about him, and it's not straightforward enough to just be a single word.

Who was Steve Jobs? An American tech entrepreneur and executive. Putting "inventor" in there would be like putting "Buddhist", "calligrapher", "hippie" -- things that have some relationship to reality but certainly not as straightforward fact. ~2026-32199-46 (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Good argument. I've removed the word "inventor" for now. UltraCobson (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Edit request 18 September 2026

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

−

In 1971, after Wozniak began attending University of California, Berkeley (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California,_Berkeley), Jobs would visit him there a few times a week. This experience led him to study in nearby Stanford University (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_University)'s student union. Instead of joining the electronics club, Jobs put on light shows with a friend for Homestead's avant-garde (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avant-garde) jazz (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jazz) program. He was described by a Homestead classmate as "kind of brain and kind of hippie ... but he never fit into either group. He was smart enough to be a nerd, but wasn't nerdy. And he was too intellectual for the hippies, who just wanted to get wasted all the time. He was kind of an outsider. In high school everything revolved around what group you were in, and if you weren't in a carefully defined group, you weren't anybody. He was an individual, in a world where individuality was suspect."

+

In 1971, after Wozniak began attending University of California, Berkeley (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California,_Berkeley), Jobs would visit him there a few times a week. This experience led him to study in nearby Stanford University (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_University)'s student union. Instead of joining the electronics club, Jobs put on light shows with a friend for Homestead's avant-garde (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avant-garde) jazz (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jazz) program. He was described by a Homestead classmate, the school newspaper editor at the time turned NBC TV news anchor Terri Anzur as "kind of brain and kind of hippie ... but he never fit into either group. He was smart enough to be a nerd, but wasn't nerdy. And he was too intellectual for the hippies, who just wanted to get wasted all the time. He was kind of an outsider. In high school everything revolved around what group you were in, and if you weren't in a carefully defined group, you weren't anybody. He was an individual, in a world where individuality was suspect."[322]

• Why it should be changed:

It lacks an appropriate reference for the majority of the paragraph's text, only citing a relevant reference for the final distinct sentence. Besides that, the explicit mention of the classmate's name and subsequent affiliation may be considered as it was information said Book thought relevant.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

~2026-50469-84 (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Partly done: Added the citation. I don't think the classmate's identity is significant enough to mention. Day Creature (talk) 17:38, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

I think the quote could benefit from some trimming, it's rather long, and just someone's personal impressions of where they felt he fit in; it's rather repetitive. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:37, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

References