Talk:Steve Jobs

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 in previous 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)

I have reverted the changes that @Datawikiperson: made. I strongly encourage the user to review the previous discussions above. The source is not 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 for extraordinary claims cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 17:46, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, like the gulf news is unreliable. Datawikiperson (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Sarcasm is considered uncivil; please stick to the topic. The Gulf News may 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)

The name still appears in his Early life section. It should be removed or qualified with something like "but his cousin's claim has not been verified" or something noting the unreliability of the attached source. 2A02:8428:80ED:401:F54E:2949:6C81:7411 (talk) 21:16, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

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)

This cousin was born in 1977!! Jobs was famous for the MacIntosh PC by the time she was 10. Her spurious claims amount to no more than rumor and gossip by someone who could not have ANY first hand knowledge of her claims. It should be removed. Also, it is notable (IMHO) that his biological parents soon married and had a daughter in 1957. Seems obvious to me that that should be included. (They divorced in 1962.)~2025-31506-44 (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@anastrophe I also think the reference to his cousin's claim should be removed. There is no credible evidence to back up this claim and I have read the referenced article by his supposed cousin.

Even his biological father has not come forward with this claim. Wikipedia should only have unbiased facts listed. If articles start to included claims from anyone, this would compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. By allowing this claim, it gives weight to the false claim.

His birth name is the name on his birth certificate. ~2025-31509-21 (talk) 22:19, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I added an editorial note reminding others not to change the name without discussing on the talk page. This should stop many new editors from doing so. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 11:10, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

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)

The redirect Steve Mobbs has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 4 § Steve Mobbs until a consensus is reached. Thepharoah17 (talk) 01:39, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

This quote here under, cited in the HOMESTEAD HIGH SCHOOL section of the article, although it is super appealing and nice and probably right in its essence, does not exist. Look it up, please, I cannot find it neither in the Isaacson reference nor in the Brennan reference. I just spent an hour searching for it, and I can't find it in those two books being cited as references for it. Who added it to the article? Can you find the exact source? If so, great! If not, I suggest to anyone among those taking usually care of this article to take it out or do something else with it, without quotation marks.

The quote:

"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." CertainlyCarl (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2026 (UTC)