Talk:Steve Irwin

Please note that this Talk page is for discussion of changes to the Steve Irwin article. Off-topic discussions, including tributes are not appropriate for Wikipedia and will be REMOVED. If you are looking for a place to put tributes, try the SMH's or The Australian's tribute page or RIPsteve.com. Thank You For Your Cooperation!

Archives
1 - discussions prior to death confirmation 2 - 09:49 (UTC) to 16:00 (UTC) 4th September 3 - 16:00 (UTC) to 23:59 (UTC) 4th September 4 - 00:00 (UTC) to 07:30 (UTC) 5th September 5 - 04:00 (UTC) to 14:00 (UTC) 5th September 6 - 14:00 (UTC) 5.Sep to 09:30 (UTC) 6th Sept

RIPsteve.com

It Makes me sick that wikipedia wont put a link to over 3000 Condolences and messages. Please fix it, www.ripsteve.com

• I also would like to see the link reinstated. Jacki from the Situation Room on CNN contacted Rich Powell, webmaster of www.ripsteve.com and they mentioned how Rich, being a teenager, has taken the time to make the site and how many hits it got in a matter of hours. This is something that should be listed. Its not just a fan site. Its a memorial site. Its not spam, its respectful. [[Sirengarg 22:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)]]

Most of the mods at wiki are shafts, what do you expect.

I expect if they'd be human and sensible enough to know the difference between SPAM and a memorial site. Don't worry, I will be sure to alert as many fans of the site as possible that Wikipedia refuses to list a legit site that only wants to reach out to fans, so fans can reach out to Steve's family. [[Sirengarg 01:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)]]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Its aim is to be an encyclopedia. Bring your link to fan sitesActually, scratch that. Wikipedia's aim is to be an encyclopedia (or as close to it as possible). Soon the site will become obsolete as Irwin's death fades into history. Wikipedia is not a source for current events (although it is very good for that). BCube|_c|t 01:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

regardless, RIP steve N0 m3RcY 01:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Is that so? So the fact that people like John Lennon and Princess Diana having memorial and tribute sites listed in their external links means they are excused from this "rule"? I don't see that their tribute sites have become obsolete. They died years ago, and yet, they're tribute sites are still going strong because of their dedicated fanbase. So please tell me again, why is Steve Irwin's Memorial site not allowed? Try a new excuse. [[Sirengarg 03:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)]]

• I just looked up another famous deceased celebrity, John Ritter. He has a tribute site listed in his external links too. I guess people on Wikipedia just hate Steve Irwin or are too ignorant to see they are hypocrites of their own device.

Current Event tag

I was thinking it may be time to remove the current event tag. Only details of the funeral and the coronial inquest will change now, and the latter won't happen for weeks at least. I'm looking for a concensus. Robert Brockway 14:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It's still on the wikipedia front page as "in the news" so I don't think the tag should come off yet. --SiobhanHansa 14:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I think it is still a current event. It was still the number one lead headline news feature on tonight's news in Australia. And 3 (out of 3) of the news outlets I just checked still have it in number two or three spot of their front page. Also, there is still new related news changes, such as the information about Steve's website being "hijacked" and donation money stolen. The public reaction in Australia, which is like nothing I've ever seen before in this country, is keeping it as a current event for now. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't only the section on his death be mark as a current event? Seano1 00:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Germaine Greer comment, remove?

DON'T REMOVE. Unlike many of your correspondents, I have read Germaine Greer's article in the Guardian, and unlike many of your correspondents, I spent years skindiving on the Great Barrier Reef. So I can say that, like her or dislike her, Ms Greer is right. I and my friends at the time always stayed well away from rays. --Turlinjah 06:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

She is right in saying that all wild animals should be given a wide berth, especially dangerous animals. Steve Irwin, for some unfathomable reason, didn't seem to know that, and pushed his luck once too often. Ms Greer's well-reasoned article has reopened the old debate as just how much space and respect we should give wild animals, and should remain in Wikipedia as an illustration of a good argument of (a) in favour of lots of space, and (b) Steve Irwin broke that unwritten rule.

"Amid the outpouring of public grief, Germaine Greer launched an attack on her compatriot, declaring 'the animal world has finally taken its revenge'. She wrote in her column in the Guardian newspaper that the wildlife warrior displayed the 'sort of self-delusion it takes to be a real Aussie larrikin'."

I don't think that this should be included in the section about his death and the reaction to it. It seems a little disrespectful to me to include it there. I would like to see it either moved to a section dedicated to people outspoken against Steve Irwin or removed from his page altogether, preferably the latter. I see no connection between Steve Irwin and Germaine Greer that really warrants this comment at all. On the wikipedia page for her, it makes no mention of anything that would make her Steve's "compatriot."

Wikipedia is not here to tell a compassionate or respectful account of events, it is here to report the facts. If that is a fact then it shouldn't be removed.--▫Bad▫harlick♠ 18:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree with that, if it wasn't meant to give a respectful description for events, then why are articles closed off to new comments due to vandalism? I realize that the articles are supposed to be neutral, but I don't see any reason to include this section in the article. Germaine Greer has no connection to Steve Irwin that I can see. What makes her and her comments more pertinent than something that my neighbor might say? Crashdacoot 18:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism is the removal of facts, or the addition of pointless material or expletives/obscene material that has nothing to do with the article. And what makes it more pertinent is the fact that your neighbour did not write his or her views down in a newspaper as notable as the Gaurdian. --▫Bad▫harlick♠ 18:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"Compatriot" means that Steve Irwin and Germaine Greer are from the same country -- as noted on her page right at the top, she is also an Australian. --158.152.22.26 19:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

REMOVE. I think germaine greers attack on steve is massively disrespectful and should be removed from his page. greers attack is her opinion and has no real value except to show what a vicious and twisted mind she has. The term compatriot is also not appropriate. It sounds like they knew each other, when in fact greer had never met steve. They are both australian, that is there only connection, however compatriot is the wrong word to use. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Magnoliapaint (talk • contribs) 21:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC).

The question is, is Greer's comment important enough - not whether it is 'disrespectful'. The whole tone of this is rampant POV. And by the way, 'compatriot' only means fellow Australian.--Jack Upland 23:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If Greer's comment is kept, then, in my eyes, other comments by other people would have to be added to keep balance. This comment is no more important than another reporter's comment. I say remove it. Hello2112 00:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that what Greer said was only disrespectful and has no reason to be in a factual document such as this. It's as if she's saying, "Haha, the animals finally got him!" She offers no statements of whether or not Steve actually provoked animals or whether or not it was an accident. She makes it seem like, in the case of Irwin's death, he was provoking the ray which caused it to sting him, which, based on first-person accounts, was clearly not the case.Crashdacoot 04:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Irwin had plenty of critics. I don't see where this one merits any special attention. Throw it on the barbie, mate. Wahkeenah 00:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, he did - that's why we need to provide a specific sampling that fairly characterises them. Slac speak up! 00:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    • What evidence do you have that this "fairly characterizes" Irwin's critics, as opposed to her agenda being simply to put her own name in the paper again? Wahkeenah 09:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't see why her motives are important. What's important is her comments, and the reaction to them, has been a notable news event in Australia. If we made decisions to include or exclude information based on personal motives, we'd end up with an encyclopedia which did not offer well-rounded information and coverage of events. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 15:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Needs to be removed. Not because its disrespectful (we must maitain an NPOV policy), but seriously, I'm not opposed at all to mentioning critics, but please, this woman is hardly on the same level as the PM, Beazley, and the QLD Premier. I can honestly say I had never really heard of Greer before this happened, and I dont know what her motive was, perhaps it was just that, to be controversial to gain fame. Anyway, she is not notable. We mention Howard, Beazley and Beattie as those who praised him, its only fair to maintain that level of notability through and through, and thus, Greer has no place in this article. Perhaps if the Premier of XXX state said it, then yeah, that would deserve a mention. Not Greer though. Unless someone has a very convincing argument as to why it is important, I'm going to remove it. And saying her comment gathered controversey in the media is not a reason. Think rationally, anyone who says anything bad about him right now would get the same response. Cheers. Cvene64 07:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree Greer isn't in the same category as the PM, but she IS very notable. If you haven't heard of her, you're probably too young. She is a most well-known and notable Australian feminist and academic. Possibly even THE most notable Australian feminist, probably most known for her book The Female Eunuch. Her contributions are quite strange and provocative, but there is no questioning her notability. She has also written a lot of controversial articles which have been published in the UK and Australian media, one which comes to mind was about Australians being on stolen land. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 07:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Read her article if you havent heard of her Germaine Greer. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 07:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Believe it or not, now that Irwin is dead, I believe Greer would be one of the most internationally well-known Australians. Slac speak up! 07:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Dame Edna? -- Longhair 07:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd leave her comments in, if only to remind the world how venomous she can be at times. The article on Schappelle_Corby has a similar section on comments from public figures after her downfall and nobody has complained there. -- Longhair 07:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I think GG's comments should be moved to the page on GG. They say more about her than they do about Irwin. Ordinary Person 07:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Ordinary Person. The fact that she has been roundly condemned means no one takes her seriously. Belongs on the GG page only. Rocksong 07:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Greer's comments have been widely reported, made the front page of the papers here in Australia (eg the Sydney Morning Herald). Wikipedia is not a memorial and they should be included even if some editors find them distasteful. That they are being discussed here indicates their significance and/or notability. Not everybody disagrees with Greer - for some the comments strike a chord. The comments and reaction are mentioned in her article too.--Golden Wattle (formerly known as Arktos) ^talk 08:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I have further changed "countryman" to "Irwin". Countryman seems a POV term in this case, probably used against Greer (so as to emphazize her "cruelty"). Anyway, I see no need to specifically call her a "countryman" (there's a lot of Australians out there), especially when they don't really know each other. "Irwin" is much more neutral. Aran|heru|nar 08:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think it should be removed. It's a point of view and we are supposed to include all points of view. At any rate it says more about Germaine Greer than it says about Steve. --WikiCats 08:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's A point of view of A well-known Australian. How about if we print every well-known Aussie's point of view here, to keep things fair? What has "Crocodile Dundee" Paul Hogan had to say, for example? Wahkeenah 09:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Remove - Just as with the other edits in the same section, it adds no weight to the article. The article is about a person and should not contain a long section on what other people do or say about this person after his death. A year from now no one will seek info on wikipedia on what others said about him after his death, only what he did during his life. The "Germaine comment" is a weak encyclopedic addition.--I already forgot 08:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Remove - Greer may be knowledgable and notable on womens issues but she isnt any more knowledgable/notable on enviromental/conservation issues than Chopper Reid or Rove McManus. She is one of two columnists working for that paper from Australia the other being Coleman who also wrote about Steve Irwin. Gnangarra 09:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether Greer's opinion is worth anything or not, her comments have attracted widespread coverage, and for that reason alone, they warrant mention.--cj | talk 09:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

A lot of nonsense have attracted widespread coverage for being nonsense. Greer's opinion was one of them, and it certainly doesn't deserve to be put into the "Reaction" section because she's probably the only one who thought that way (which is why it attracted widespread coverage after all), nor is notable enough to take a large space alongside other important people. How about putting it into "Controversy"? It doesn't really explain the factual reaction (which is a lot of grieving); rather it is a criticism actually based on the "Controversy" section. E.g. we do that in George W. Bush - he received "widespread" criticism in just about every action he made, including eating a pretzel, but they're all summed up in one section. Aran|heru|nar 09:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That's the inelegant way to do it; it's better not to have to decide "hmm, is this reaction or comment positive or negative? Which box should I put it in (and then be obliged to create exclusively "negative" or "positive" sections)?" but just to report things as they happen, letting readers make their own judgements. Slac speak up! 09:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not a vote. Sorry, but it's not negotiable until you can find a valid reason. Just voting "remove" isn't going to make it happen. "Because I find it offensive and/or disrespectful" is not a valid reason to remove content - if wikipedia worked like that, there would be no articles about Hitler, the Nazis, concentration camps, or anything about any war at all. The argument "You might as well add the opinion of every notable Australian" is moot and pointless - we obviously can't add all of them and we can't ignore the critics completely, so one has to be chosen. If you don't like the fact that Germaine Greer was chosen simply because you have some personal gripe about Germaine Greer, then sorry, but that's not a valid reason to remove her criticism either. If you've got a better example of criticism (for instance someone more notable or famous) then suggest that. At the moment all I see is lots of suggestions to remove content but no suggestions about what we should replace it with. For the record, NPOV is not about being respectful, it's about being neutral, two completely different things.--▫Bad▫harlick♠ 09:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a vote. My opinion is that adding a "he got what he deserved" type statement (instead of a well written section about the critics opinion on irwin) should not allowed. Adding insult to the article, I have yet to hear of this lady in my country so it really brings down the international value of the article. If a global vote of editors think the addition is of little to no value it should be removed or modified.--I already forgot 10:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not a vote, it's a discussion. Wikipedia doesn't work on votes. And it isn't a democracy Sarah Ewart (Talk) 15:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Germaine Greer appeared on A Current Affair tonight repeating her remarks, so its out there. I don't know that we can really ignore it. --WikiCats 09:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Greer is a relentless egotist and publicity hound. Is this article about Irwin, or about Greer? Her comment merits maybe a one-sentence reference to the fact that she was highly critical, and point to her own page which would be the place to cover her comments in detail. Wahkeenah 10:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• That User:I already forgot has not heard of Greer, shows his or her age and/or that he or she is not an Australian. It made the front page of the Australian papers and Irwin is an Australian + was forst printed in the UK. Greer is good at getting publicity. Why would you exclude her comments and leave in affirmations by everybody from Discovery Channel onwards. I note that the article currently states the Australian media reacted with disgust. I think that is disingenous - they gave her plenty of airplay - reprinting her comments even in quite substantial detail. The comments are about Irwin and hence I disagree with User:Wahkeenah - the place to cover them is on this article.--Golden Wattle ^talk 10:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The Germaine Greer quote is highly appropriate because it gives a balance to the dead-hero-worship that has fallen upon Irwin. The only problem with it is that is states this is a "solitary" attack on the man. This is not true at all and should be removed. Many have begun to attack this man. New York's Steppin' Out magazine, for instance, referred to him as the "Deceased Asshole of the Week". See http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Rudd-tells-Germaine-Greer-to-shut-up/2006/09/06/1157222168676.html for more on that one. - Lewis Ranja

Popular figures are often criticized by those who are jealous of their popularity. I recall vitriolic comments about such popular icons as Carl Sagan and Christopher Reeve, for example. You want my opinion? Irwin courted danger constantly, and it finally caught up to him. He knew crocs, but maybe didn't know stingrays very well. And, frankly, he let his family down, by putting his own interests ahead of the responsibility of a father to "be there" for his kids. But you have to balance that with the attention he brought to wildlife, the positive influence he had on the public. Greer is basically horning in on the publicity. I doubt you'll find so much public angst when she buys the farm. If you want to cut back on the flood of gushy tributes, fine. But making a big deal over her comments (and falling in lockstep with the hypocritical controversy-loving press) hardly enhances the "encyclopedic" quality of this article. Wahkeenah 11:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Whether she is "horning in on the publicity" is an entirely different matter as whether her comment is notable. Personally I agree that, well, the comment was pathetic, but it's Wikipedia to report notable things, and in this case her comment did receive quite a lot of attention. This said, her comment should definitely be presented. The matter is how to present it. Aran|heru|nar 12:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Just because someone famous says something about someone else who's famous doesn't automatically make their comments "notable" or worthy of merit or consideration. The two or three sentences about it in the article are about one or two sentences too many. Wahkeenah 12:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It would also be worth pointing out that while she is right about it being an "occupational hazard", she is dead wrong about "nature taking revenge". I recall Irwin once saying "I love crocodiles, but they don't know that." Similarly, on the flip side, he was not intending to threaten the stingray, but the stingray didn't know that. Animals do what they do, instinctively, as part of their survival "genetic programming". Nature does not take revenge. Revenge is a human trait. Other human traits include egocentrism and jealousy... and trying to ascribe human traits to animals. Wahkeenah 12:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The comment appeared on multiple medias, and that makes it notable (you can see from discussion above that one of our editors didn't even know who she is before he saw this). You're absolutely right her comment is non-sense, and so is a lot of other things that were widely reported, but it is Wikipedia's policy to include every notable or famous thing, even if they're wrong. You can probably re-write the paragraph a bit if you find it "a bit too much", e.g. write two lines about her comment and write two lines about negative responses to her comment. Aran|heru|nar 13:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"It is Wikipedia's policy to include every notable or famous thing"? Where does it say that? Wahkeenah 14:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia article, not a news summary. As such, we need to ask whether Greer's (or anyone else's) comments will be relevant to a Steve Irwin biography in 1 month's, 6 months' or 1 year's time. To me, the answer is clearly no. Rocksong 13:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That may true for deciding whether or not an article should exist, but it's not true for deciding the content. Wikipedia is a very dynamic, active process. Something can be considered relevant today but not next year. There's a lot of information in a lot of articles which wouldn't meet that test. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 15:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep comments in for pretty much the same reasons as CJ and Golden Wattle. The comments, however distateful to many people, have been a very notable news story in Australia. To exclude them and include positive, more agreeable comments smacks of POV and memorialising. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 15:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia requests reliable sources for cites in that a magazine about motorbikes could not be considered a reliable source for a critique of a Kodak Z7590 camera. Greer has no qualifications for Veterinary, Enviromental issues and her comments are no different to those of the vandalism this article has been recieving since his death was reported. If the comment had come from David Attenborough, Malcolm Douglas or like then it would be have value. Gnangarra 15:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Gnangarra, I don't think what you are saying is correct. Unless I misunderstand you? You seem to be asserting that we can only cite sources if they are by experts. This is not correct. The test for reliable sources is that the publication is considered a reliable source. We can most certainly cite an article in, for example, The Age or The Australian. I would not be in favour of citing Greer's article itself since that was an op-ed and essentially a primary source. We can, however, cite a reputable publication which reports on Greer's article and comments and the subsequent controversy. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 18:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

There isn't anything wrong with using the article itself (in terms of it being an appropriate source. Whether the content is appropriate for this page is - as we can see - debateable). While wikipedi encourages using good secondary sources, primary sources are acceptable if they have been published by a reliable publisher (See Reliable Sources, Some definitions). This is is to do with the fact checking role of a publisher, helping to estiblish that something is what it claims to be. Since the Greer article is an opinion piece, what needs fact checking is whether or not it is Greer's opinion. It is not unreasonable to rely on the Guardian for that role. In this case, a secondary source will not add any reliability to the information. Having said that, comments on the op-ed by other news organizations is probably one of the strongest reasons for mentioning it in the article. --SiobhanHansa 18:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

User Sarah_Ewart is onto something. This is a volatile, emotional situation, and because it's current, it's hard to decide what's really relevant or not, in the long run. The editorial comments are liable to be a bit overblown now, but that situation should remedy itself with time and perspective, and the junk (like Greer's comments) should get weeded out. I maintain that Greer is nothing more than a public figure taking advantage of that fact to put herself in the papers, and that story is about her, not about Irwin. In the long run, it merits maybe 1 line here, and the rest should be in the Greer article. I was thinking it compares a bit with the Tom Cruise - Brooke Shields story, in which Cruise shot off his mouth about something he knows nothing about, post-partum depression. The difference is that Shields answered him, and it became a dialogue of sorts. Steve Irwin has no such option in this case, and anyone else's self-serving editorial comments about him (whether pro or con) should ultimately be kept to a minimum in an article that claims to be "encyclopedic". Wahkeenah 17:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that it deserves to stay in for now, if only because she seems to be the only notable figure pointing out what quite a lot have people have thought- that many Australians cringed at some of Irwin's actions, and the fact that some people (mainly American and Japanese tourists, in my experience) thought that most Australians were like Irwin. An updated version of aussies wearing dangly cork hats and riding kangaroos, if you will. Once the article calms down a bit then maybe some of the ideas her comments contain could be moved to a suitable critisims section, but for know I think she does neatly encapsulate the 'other side'. I doubt anybody could say that everybody loves Irwin and are hugely upset by his death, but personal conversations and message boards count as original research, and recent blogs attacking Irwin are hardly worthy linking material. Greer is a well documented, easily referenced source. And I think other media may possibly be exaggerating her comments. Morgrim 18:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Taking verbal shots at somebody who's dead is dirty pool. I wonder if someone could find a quote about what Irwin thought about non-Germaine Greer. My guess is he wouldn't stoop to her level. Wahkeenah 01:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I say keep it up. Let the world see what a heartless, cold, attention-leeching troll she is. Obviously, she wants to get her name in the headlines. [[Sirengarg 22:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)]]

• I think the term is "Attention Whore". Wahkeenah 01:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Umh...wow, this is controversial. And Sirengarg, if we leave it up, then we're basically giving her the attention she wants. ~Somedude 00:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• This is an article about Steve Irwin. If Germaine Greer's comments reveal information about Steve Irwin that is not available from other sources already cited, then they should be kept. Otherwise, they serve no purpose. L3p3r 01:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Labor Politician Kevin Rudd has said "I think Germaine Greer should just put a sock in it." This is getting quite a reaction. --WikiCats 03:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Archive 5

Added fifth archive. Apologies if I've removed anyone's active discussions, please feel free to move them back if you still want to discuss them.--▫Bad▫harlick♠ 18:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

UGH! Rampant vandalism!

I'm in favor of totally protecting this page so that it can be free of vandalism which is happening at least once every second, even though it is SPROTECT. There doesn't seem to be too much new information in the present and I don't think it would do more damage being opened to edits than to close it for a short time. --Zimbabweed 18:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

A huge chuck of information was deleted at this edit please somehow merge or revert. --Zimbabweed 18:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - please, authorized users, do a quick scan of the page and remove all offensive, and inaccurate material. At present, the section pertaining to his death is a mess and is truly disrespectful to the man. (the word "flying dick" is there - need I say more?) (elon.rutberg 9/5/06)

Get a life people. You cannot convey your anger towards that ray by vandalising. On the 4th of Sept I even saw a picture of a pen!s. Keep Wikipedia sacred! This is not your private property to be abused! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahul.acm (talk • contribs)

18:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Rahul.acm

Gee,I saw that the log was infested with 10,20 vandal edits. I wish they leave the poor guy alone. If this continues,I HIGHLY suggest an F-protect. --The jazz musician 03:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Y'kno what's funny? It takes a man's death for his page to be expanded. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{blah • RIP Crocodile Hunter • WP:NYCS}} 21:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Footage to be shown?

Just wondering if this could be added to the article. Apparently it is possible that the video taken when Steve died may be shown since his family believes that is what he would have wanted. [1] vDub 18:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not the Irwin family truly desires the death footage to be seen is yet to be determined. I'm positive that's the last thing on Terri Irwin's mind right now. But I'm certain, either based or against her wishes, the footage will be leaked in some fashion. I have to admitt, I'd watch it, and I'm sure a billion other people would too. Doesn't make it right though. Reynoldsrapture 19:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Even if the footage leaks I won't watch it. It would feel like exploiting a good man's tragic demise. Durova 20:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I differ again. Steve Irwin has said in the past that the thing that would bother him most about dying in action would be 'if nobody caught it on film'. I beleive we even used to have that quote in this article somewhere, until the wave of recent edits apparently buried it. Does anyone have the source so we can restore it to somewhere appropriate? I think it's a very interesting position for a person to take, and tells us something unique about Steve. Dissembly 00:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Irwin's attitude would be, "roll it". He might say it would serve as a cautionary tale to not take wild animals too lightly... which, arguably, he did. He knew crocs, but maybe he didn't know stingrays all that well. It might be gut-wrenching for the family, though. Wahkeenah 00:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's a link to an article which mentions the quote and interview Dissembly mentioned above: http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/World/2006/09/06/1806812-sun.html Lux 22:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Now people are even vandalising the talk page. Justanotherguy 19:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You should have been here yesterday. It was crazy. dposse 19:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The radio show said some things about him too. Its a fact they said them and they are on the radio, Why is that not here? Or the countless good comments from newspapers and TV??? It should not be posted what some fringe feminist nut said about his death....

huh? dposse 19:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Apparently it's on CNN.com right now. Wahkeenah 21:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

There's no video of his death on CNN.com. It's just a video of the events that took place. If Irwin's death video ever does come out, I'm positive it won't be on CNN or anyother mainstream news site. Reynoldsrapture 21:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Apparently I was misled. Sorry. Wahkeenah 23:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

According to Dutch News-site Nu.nl John Stainton has said on Larry King Live (CNN), that he does not want the footage to run. Kluner.net 08:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll pay $100 bucks to see it. They can donate the profits to animals or something. 72.29.211.18 13:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Make it a pay-per-view event with funds going to charity, I say... Coolgamer 22:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It WILL NOT be released, so long as there are no insensitive cops that will leak it from evidence. His closest colleagues, especially his manager, have said that they really, really, really want the tape destroyed. The decision also ultimately rests with the family I believe. I mean the Timothy Treadwell audiotaped death wasn't released and was never leaked, what's to stop this one from not being leaked. The great kawa 00:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Steve would have wanted the animals to profit from his death. The video could be used to setup a sting ray conservation fund. 70.112.181.8 03:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I think there are plenty of ways to have Steve's legacy benefit from his untimely passing, like his Worldlife Warriors foundation, without having to confront people with a, according to his manager, very shocking piece of footage. I think it will serve his legacy much better if the footage is destroyed, like John Stainton pleads for. Kluner.net 04:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Could Irwin have survived?

I'm a nursing student, and based on medical knowledge and commentary about the sting ray's barb, it might have been possible that Steve could have survived if he didn't pull the barb out. First person accounts have him conscious up until the moment he yanked the barb out, and then within seconds passing out and dieing. I've seen footage of emergency room patients arriving with daggers pulsating in their hearts, and the only reason they survive is because the surgeons wait until the last possible moment to remove them. The dagger ironically acts as a barrier against catastrophic blood loss, which may well have been what ultimately killed Irwin. I'm sure it was such an instinctive reaction that he probably didn't realize what he was doing. This is just an opinion, and he might have died either way due to toxin injection, or based on the damage to his left ventricle, which is the chamber of the heart responsible for delivering blood to the body. Reynoldsrapture 19:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The barb pierced his heart. If the poison didn't get him, the hole in his heart would have. dposse 19:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Is that your medical opinion, or just a guess? No offense, but it is possible to survive a number of heart injuries if the victim is cared for in time. This may or may not have been the case with Irwin. We'll have to wait for the full coronor's report. Reynoldsrapture 19:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The barb pierced his heart. No one can survive that. And i agree, the coronors report will be very helpful. dposse 19:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Where are you getting your information Dposse? I'm willing to bet you're right, that a person probably couldn't survive a barb to the heart. But back up you're statement with some factual evidence. This is Wikipedia, and facts matter here more than opinion. Reynoldsrapture 19:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting my infomation from the article. Besides the fact that "the serrated barb on its tail up to a maximum of 25 cm (10 in) of length", "According to Dr. Ed O'Loughlin, who treated Irwin, "it became clear fairly soon that he had non-survivable injuries." "He had a penetrating injury to the left front of his chest. He had lost his pulse and wasn't breathing."" dposse 19:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The "non-survivable injuries" may have been in part to Steve pulling the barb out- my whole point. But enough arguing... I digress. The sad truth is Steve is gone, and the world has lost an icon and hero to many people. Reynoldsrapture 20:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Very true. dposse 20:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I've looked into this question, and I believe his Aorta was pierced very, very badly. I'm no medical expert in any sense, but I think that finishes most people off. Mikeblackburn 22:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

One other point he wasnt within 5 minute of a hospital with surgical teams. Gnangarra 01:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

What is the point of asking whether or not he would have survived, he is dead. Wikipedia is not a speculation blog, there are plenty of those, so please refrain from it. If you want to add it to the article then I guess it would be fine to discuss, but at this point we do not know if he even pulled the barb out. My opinion on the matter is he would not have survived no matter what he did. The barb is coated with a venom that supposedly can cause arrythmia and affect the heart and it also is serrated. By ripping it out those serrated edges did massive damage to his body. However, because the barb was in his heart, leaving it in may only have prolonged his life by minutes and would have caused extreme pain from the venom and the wound. A stingray expert on CNN said leaving the stinger in causes more damage than taking it out (the venom is not as weak as many have stated). The great kawa 02:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

What is the point, you ask? This is an encyclopedia. That's the point. This is yet another terribly childish occurrence of Wikipedians biting experts on the subject matter. Do not do that. Reynoldsrapture was making a valid claim; there is evidence that people with severe injuries to the chest may survive if the lethal object, such as a knife, is left inside until the surgeons get their hands on it. Steve pulled out the barb; this might have caused further injury. That isn't original research, it's putting things into context. And even if it is original research, then at least it's something to look out for when reading sources for the development of this article! It's ridiculous that you're wiping Reynoldsrapture's arguments off of the table with uneducated assumptions. He (or she) may or may not be right. He's definitely not wrong until proven wrong. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 21:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

He used to do a TV ad, maybe for Federal Express, in which the joke is that he gets bitten by a deadly poisonous reptile, and the antidote fails to get there in time because he used the "wrong" express service. That joke turned out to be a little too close to home. Wahkeenah 12:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Whether he could have survived or not is not clear fact, and obviously then can not be added to the article because it will be taken as POV. However, since this is the talk page, i think that we could get a medical professional to give us their opinion. If anyone here is a heart surgeon, please answer.

This is a trolling discussion its an irrelevant question Steve Irwin died and that further discussion can only be original research and as such not something that could be added to the article. Gnangarra 15:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, actually no; if someone finds an article citing a medical expert (doctor/surgeon/whatever) saying this, then "further discussion" may not be original research. But really, people must have forgotten the fact that the tail is not a loose object, it's attached to the stingray. If Irwin didn't pull out the barb, the stingray would. — LazyEditor (talk|contribs) 16:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

User Gnangarra is being a "nanny". However, this section is all speculation, because (as far as I know) the autopsy report has not been issued, so we don't know precisely what killed him, and thus can't possibly know whether prompt action would have saved him. Wahkeenah 17:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Please be civil and do not lash out at other members msikma. I did not lash out at Reynoldsrapture, but was simply stating that speculation on Wikipedia is unnceccesary if it is not to be put into the article, however, calling me and my comments uneducated and childish is very uncivil and quite frankly I am offended. You have a right to disagree with my opinion, but stating it in such a way can be seen as mean. I have no intention of arguing with a serious member of Wikipedia, so please respect other people on Wikipedia here, including me, as I have respect for other members of Wikipedia. The great kawa 01:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

English

There was a dispute on the main article (with notes) over which type of english to use (honor or honours). I saw the new changes from honor and while to honour and whilst so I changed it back to the old version. What is the proper usage (british, austrialian, american, etc.) for this article?--I already forgot 19:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

you shouldn't have.was it so har for you to discuss this before making any changes. doesn't matter anyway since the words were changed backThe 89 guy 19:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No is was not hard at all, just as its not hard to RV the change. :)--I already forgot 19:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

From what i saw yesterday, everyone pretty much came to an agreement that Australian spelling is best since this is an Australian person. dposse 19:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

There have been many inappropriate changes with false information since yesterday so I started going through the article and making changes to the last decent edits. I don’t care if it’s Australian or not, long as it fits with the rest of the article.--I already forgot 19:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

What "inappropriate changes with false information" are you talking about? dposse 20:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"Irwin moved with his parents as a child to Queensland in 1962" was the first one I noticed. I then saw the number of broadcasting stations changed from 120 to 130. I was going to continue and go through the sources and look for others when the English edit discussion started so I have since stopped as it looks like a few editors have been watching it closely so I will watch for vandals instead. --I already forgot 20:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

What's the standard for other languages? Does the French Wiki have to write articles about famous Creoles in that variant? Does the German Wiki have to use Austrian German for articles about Adolf Hitler? 128.62.100.220 20:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This is about the differences in the english language, not the other languages. dposse 20:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

And - as a fact - there are differences in swiss-related articles. since swiss folks don't use the eszett-umlaut ("ß") but double-s ("ss") instead. and there are some more differnces with austrian-related articles. --Addicted 21:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

In general, since this is an article about an Australian person, the proper usage is Australian English (see Wikipedia's Manual of Style, Disputes over style issues.[2]) However, when quoting another written source, it is appropriate to stick to the spelling used in that source. But it really should be emphasized that edit/revert warring, or otherwise causing strife over this issue, is less helpful to the encyclopedia than getting on with writing a useful, factual and readable article. --SiobhanHansa 20:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep. That's what we agreed on yesterday. dposse 20:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I scanned the talk pages and did not see that discussion. --I already forgot 21:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Aussie English is pretty fine. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Now that we have that covered...I originally changed whilst back to while to fit in with the three other uses of while...they are still there. I'm stepping back from editing the article (unless vandalize), so the other uses of while should be changed to fit the austrialian use.--I already forgot 21:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. Switched the remaining whiles to whilst. --GVOLTT 23:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

What? While and whilst are slightly different, Australia uses both in slightly different contexts, don't just change them all. Sad mouse 05:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Turtles

Apparently, an internet campaign has begun to get users of MSN messenger to put turtles in their display names in memory of Steve Irwin. Almost everyone I know has done it, so perhaps it's worth a mention?--Agent Aquamarine 21:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope; this was brought up a few times before and since it was just some internet campaign, it is not a good idea to include it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not particularly notable; something similar happened in response to Cecilia Zhang's death. --Madchester 02:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is a good indication of the worldwide reaction to his death. I'm about 50/50 on whether or not to include it. It isn't so much of a campaign, just some way that people can show their admiration and respect for this great man. On the other hand, it could seem a bit inappropriate.--Shaliron 09:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

If you can find a secondary source for it. Fine, include it. Otherwise it has no place on wikipedia. Viridae^Talk 14:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm personally neutral on it. If someone wants to find the proper source material, be my guest, but I'm just reporting it.--Agent Aquamarine 00:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Stainton.

"Some reports have claimed that after the incident, Irwin was shown on tape pulling the barb out, before losing consciousness, but this was both confirmed and denied by his colleague John Stainton in different sources."

huh? How can that both be true? I understand that we don't have the full story yet, that the shock is still setting in, but still....How can we have such contradictory infomation in this article? I don't want it to be removed, just clearified.dposse 21:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• I saw a clip of Mr. Stainton on Fox News tonight. The quote about seeing the video, and that it was shocking, is accurate. The fatal footage itself has not been made available to the public, as of that show which was about an hour ago. Wahkeenah 00:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

John Stainton first said Steve had pulled the barb out, then in a later interview he said he was in shock when he made the first comments and he wasn't sure if he'd actually pulled it out or not. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Right after that interview clip, the Fox news reporter said that Stainton went on to say that Irwin had pulled the barb out. As you suggest, it is possible that clip was from the first interview, where he later said he was in shock at the time, although he didn't come across as being traumatized. Wahkeenah 12:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

(Response to above) I think the confusion here is based on a misunderstanding of what Mr. Stainton said. The exact quote was, "It shows that Steve came over the top of the ray and the tail came up, and spiked him here (in the chest), and he pulled it out and the next minute he's gone.” But look very carefully at what Mr. Stainton said, and remember that he was upset and rambling. While it looks like he is saying that Steve pulled the barb out and then died, I think what Mr. Stainton really might have meant was that the stingray pulled the barb out after stinging Steve and then swam away quickly. That is consistent with another eyewitness statement (sorry, I forget where I saw this second one) who said he didn't realize Steve was hurt until he saw him bleeding. If Steve had just been stung and then was motionless (i.e., did NOT pull anything out), the sight of blood would have indeed been the first clue. Considering how fast someone would probably go into shock after being stabbed quickly in the heart, that makes the most sense to me.

Yeah, I suggested that earlier. This is what Peter Weist said after viewing the video, which may be what you're thinking of: "The footage shows him swimming in the water, the ray stopped and turned and that was it. There was no blood in the water, it was not that obvoius, something happened with this animal that made it rear and he was at the wrong postion at the wrong time and if it hit him anywhere else we would not be talking about a fatality." [3]. Zagalejo 22:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Naturalist?

Was Irwin a naturalist as described in the first line? This implies a scientist, which he wasn't. "Wildlife expert" already captures what we are trying to say. There should be a term here to describe his hands-on activities. "Animal-handler"?--Jack Upland 23:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

According to the American Heritage Dictionary, a naturalist is s "One versed in natural history, especially in zoology or botany" which I believe he qualifies as. Their is no requirement he be a scientist in any official sense to be a naturalist. --Cab88 23:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Naturalist is quite appropriate (historically, there have been many uncredentialed naturalists). I removed the wording that he was a "wildlife expert" because someone else felt the need to qualify that as "despite no degree" or something like that. If he wasn't qualified, calling him an expert is out of place (what body vetted him? you see). --Dhartung | Talk 05:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Scientist is still true in the abstract sense of the word I think, since Steve was an expert on quite a few subjects, and even discovered a new species of turtle, I think the term easily applies to him. The term scientist does not merely fall to those of us with an university degree in something. Though I might be slightly biased in that opinion. Kluner.net 04:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Need urgent need of link cleanup...

I'm sure many people here whose primary language is English know what a television program is, am I correct? There are just way too many links on here... only uncommon words should be linked (Great Barrier Reef, Stingray, etc), and only a few times in the article. We don't need to see Stingray linked many times when they're in very close proximity to eachother. Abby724 02:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I prefer liberal linking, but multiple links to the same item are unneeded. I don't count this as an urgent problem, though. They just come back, as so many people are editing, many of them inexperienced. When the article stabilizes a thorough cleanup will be warranted. --Dhartung | Talk 05:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

To-do list links reverted?

I just added <rm site link> and RIPSteve.com links to the External Links section of the article, but they were reverted. I don't want to be a stubborn jerk about including them, so if someone else thinks they need to be included, could you add them? --Krapitino 02:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

They are spam links, do not include them again. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I visited them before I added them, and they look legit(?) --Krapitino 02:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they are spam links, but the question is whether they are warranted in the encyclopedia article. The donation one, for example, I don't think should be there, and the memorial one doesn't really have any new information. —Centrx→talk • 04:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The donation site is just a mirror of a page from the Australia Zoo site which is already linked to [4] in the article. Link guidelines can be found at WP:EL. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the exact site address from your comment because it is being reported in Australia that people have set up hoax donation collection sites to rip-off Steve's fans. I have no idea if the site you've suggested is one of those sites or not, but I don't think we should have links to donation sites on the talk page or in the article. If people want to donate money, they can do so at the ANZ bank or directly to Australia Zoo or through another collection point they find on their own and are comfortable dealing with. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 17:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Crocodile Hunter.com

Here's a tip, although it says the site is hard to reach at times, try using firefox, and opening up to 20 tabs. Eventually you will get in. 64.121.39.12 03:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That's brilliant. You're hitting the server 20 times to get it once. This could be why it's overwhelmed. --Dhartung | Talk 05:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"See also"

As far as I can see, there is no "See also" list in this article. What about a list of other people that does something similar for a living, for instance Rob Bredl, the Barefoot Bushman? 193.217.192.178 05:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, suggest some more people/things and I'll create the section. Maybe some organisations he was part of have an article? --▫Bad▫harlick♠ 09:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Channel Nine tribute show.

The Nine Network is airing a tribute show about Steve Irwin as I am writing this. WHY HAS IT BEEN REMOVED TWICE WITH A REFERENCE TO THE TV GUIDE? Hohohob 09:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay firstly, please don't shout. Secondly, you say it's been removed twice - did you revert the change or was that someone else? Could you please quote the section that was removed?--▫Bad▫harlick♠ 10:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I won't shout. Someone else reverted it claiming it was "Non-encyclopedic" material. They removed, "The Nine Network is airing a tribute on Wednesday night." I referenced it to the TV guide.

If I was supposed to put it in after the airing, then thats fine. I didn't know that. Hohohob 10:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes unfortunately you've got to add that sort of thing after it's happened, since wikipedia isn't a TV guide. ▫Bad▫harlick♠ 10:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia details future events all the time. This is just moronic, like you people have no concept of the precedents already set. There's already a stupid discussion as to whether to use American english in an article about an Australian in an encyclopaedia that's set a standard to cater to all dialects, especially by writing articles in the dialect peculiar to the subject being written about. Now there's a debate that Wikipedia can't feature planned future events? We have to wait until it happens just because it's a television show? Bull. That's no metric to gauge noteworthiness by (especially since this is television we're talking about), but there's been a long precedent of changing information as it occurs. You guys better scurry over to the 2010 Winter Olympics page and delete everything there since it hasn't happened yet. Double time because it might soon be updated with the broadcast carriers once all the contracts are hammered out, and we'd hate for Wikipedia to both report on something that hasn't happened yet and be a TV guide. Professor Ninja 10:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Please be more civil, calling people or discussions moronic is not helpful. Please see: Wikipedia is not a directory. --▫Bad▫harlick♠ 11:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read more carefully. I was referring to neither the discussion nor a person moronic. And from the "not a directory spiel: Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guides, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station generally shouldn't list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, schedules etc. (although mention of major events or promotions may be acceptable). Really. Please read more carefully. Oh, and look, from just a few paragraphs down: Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Hmm. So including something we know is going to happen and which is notable because of the context (you may notice a rather large section under the heading "death" called "reaction") is apparently what wikipedia "is not". And people wonder why I just get more and more sarcastic. Professor Ninja 18:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Species of stingray

It appears that the species has not yet been identified. It is highly unlikely that it was short-tail stingray (Dasyatis brevicaudata) as they are not found north of Maroochydore. It has been referred to as a "bull ray" but there are many species referred to informally as "bull rays". I'm removing references and links to specific species until more info emerges. Nurg 11:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I had thought of changing the links that read "Bull Ray" to "Short-Tail Stingray" for clarity. Please don't completely remove all references and links though, they do cite their sources. I'm reverting your changes for now. --▫Bad▫harlick♠ 11:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The first ref does not cite a source (if it does, kindly repeat it here). The ref to "bull ray" is cited but could refer to any number of species. If there is a citation to a specific species of bull ray, pls repeat it here, because I don't see it. thanks. Nurg 12:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, I was convinced it did. The main problem is, in a situation like this, there are lots of very lengthy news articles, and sometimes someone will see something then add it to the article, but forget to cite, leaving everyone else to trawl the news for citations. It is my experience that it is best to ask for citations rather than to remove it completely, because the person who added it may come forward and provide those citations. While that's going on, you should attempt to discuss it on the talk page. If you reach a consensus that it's not stated anywhere or not reliably stated, then I think it's safe to remove it.--▫Bad▫harlick♠ 12:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Archive 6

Page was getting a little large again so I've archived most of it - it's still a bit large so more may need to be moved over to archive 6, which I think may be a bit small at the moment. If I've accidentally removed any active conversations, I apologise, please feel free to move yours back.--▫Bad▫harlick♠ 11:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Busted by the media !

Read this!. Storm05 13:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

WHAT ABSOLUTE BULL DUNG! [5] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.152.239.63 (talk • contribs) .

Yes, and look who wrote that article. 8-| Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

But the news source mentions some user vandalizing the Steve Irwin article which almost got wikipedia in trouble IMO. Storm05 13:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

<after 3 edit conflicts> There were lots of people vandalising that night, not just one person, and it was Really, Really Bad, but I think you need to give a little credit to a group of fantastic, dedicated editors and administrators who were removing it in seconds. There's also this [6] News Limited article which states we responded to the vandalism "quickly". Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

here here

Um... it must be a slow news day for stories about the amout of vandalism we have to remove to be published as something important. I ought to send these people a list of all the vandalism I've had to delete just for a Televison show on Nickelodeon! H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 16:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Want more vandalism examples? Look at George Bush and the semi/fully protected articles.--The jazz musician 21:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

There was tons of people vandalising, and other articles reporting on it have been discussed on this topic page ad nauseum. By the way, I don't think anybody with a shred of literacy or dialectic skills will buy this load of crap.

Problem 1. Logic. Every article reporting the vandalism has decided that wikipedia is innacurate or otherwise semi-dangerous. Why was the journalist looking at Steve Irwin's wikipedia entry so soon after Steve Irwin's death? To see if it was vandalised? Doubtful. More than likely to use it to do the very original research they caution against using Wikipedia for. This one's a little harder to grasp for the average man, since it's not as obvious as...

Problem 2. Reading is hard. From the article: "Recently, the science journal Nature put Wikipedia head to head with Britannica for accuracy. Wikipedia lost, but not by much. Experts examined 42 entries in each.. And found the average entry in Britannica contained about four errors - Wikipedia, Three." For those playing at home, out of 42 articles each, Britannica averaged approximately four errors per article. Wikipedia averaged three. Therefore, wikipedia lost. Good job, journalism. If anything this is an argument against wikipedia citing media outlets as realiable sources, and not vice versa. Professor Ninja 18:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Surge in support

Not sure if anyone else has seen this, but four Irwin-related titles are currently in the Top 50 selling DVDs on Amazon.com, which is pretty amazing imo.

• The Crocodile Hunter (Steve's Story/Most Dangerous Adventures/Greatest Crocodile Captures) #20
• The Crocodile Hunter - Collision Course #23
• The Crocodile Hunter - Wildest Home Videos/Big Croc Diaries #28
• Crocodile Hunter's Croc Files (Volume 1) - #41

May not be notable enough to add to the article, but maybe this is: around 55 donations are being made every 10 minuets (to Wildlife Warrior) [7] ..Thesauce 17:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

State funeral

Could somebody please explain why Bob said no to the State Funeral, as it is, it doesnt really say much. Please use the quote where he explains why: 'Steve is an ordinay bloke..etc. I think it is important. Thanks in advance :). Thesauce 17:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This is the exact one I was talking about The state funeral would be refused because he is an ordinary guy, he is just an ordinary bloke and he wants to be remembered as an ordinary bloke. Thesauce 17:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

likely because he was a common man, who, in his father's opinion, would have wanted a common funeral. There will be no state funeral. There will however, be a state memorial service (as ok'd by the Irwin family.) The only difference will be, the body will not be present at the state service. 4.229.156.150 23:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

All I know so far, from CNN, is that Steve's father did indeed say no state funeral because he was a "common bloke." But yes, that quote will be useful in the article. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Refs

There are about 50 refs for this article which makes me wonder if it is in the correct format. The amount of detail reads like a news article and that many refs just sort of boggles my mind, on my particular pcs resolution it takes up more than a screen. Is this method of reporting sustainable, is there TOO much info? JayKeaton 17:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

There may be too much info, but I think the tidying should be reserved for in a couple of weeks time. There is so much editing going on rigt now, so much to add, with a lot of people having different ideas about what should be in/out. I guess any rationale editing will have to take place at least once things are calm enough to take the lock off. Thesauce 17:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

www.SteveIrwin.com

Also curious is that steveirwin.com doesn't seem to acknowledge his death yet JayKeaton 17:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe he was the only one with authority to update it? Wahkeenah 18:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, yes, it does and has done so for at least a couple fo days. Click on the large box, in the middle of the page, that says something like "Click here to view a tribute to Steve Irwin" and you will get a separate tribute page written by the Australia Zoo staff. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 18:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see, that box is meant to work hand in hand with the months old text content on the main page of steveirwin.com JayKeaton 18:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Template?

I think someone should make a cool looking template for Steve/Terri Irwin related articles. Could include links to both people, tv shows, docos, film and Australia Zoo. Thesauce 17:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Go ahead. Wahkeenah 18:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"after his death"...

"He was described after his death by the CEO of RSPCA Queensland as a "modern-day Noah", and British naturalist David Bellamy lauded his skills as a natural historian and media performer.[16]"

Shouldn't that be down in the Reaction subsection? dposse 19:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Larry King transcript.

[8] This was the Larry King interview that he did with Steve after his "Baby and the Croc" incident. It has some very nice quotes and infomation in it. Can we try to work it into the article? dposse 20:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit count?

Does anyone know the latest edit counts? How much has it gone up from his death? I bet alot.--Richard 21:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I've counted over 3,000 edits since his death... And much of it was anons and vandalism lol. But you guys did a great job on improving the article and stuff, eh?--Richard 21:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

someone should fix the article there is a lot of vandalizm happening ~ hnst.abe

Who Unprotected the Page?

I went to the Steve Irwin page (which was redlinked) and saw "JIMBO WALES USED MIND RAYS TO KILL STEVE IRWIN!!! F*** YOU, WIKIPEDIA!!!" Who unprotected the page? It was pretty obvious that somebody would vandalize the page. Just wanted to know. Cheers! The RSJ - ^SPEAK 21:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It automatically unprotects when deleted. It was deleted to remove vandalism in edit summaries, but the vandalsim and everyone trying to revert it was causing such a jam I couldn't properly fix the page. So the fuck yous are going to be in the edit sumamries for a while. sorry. pschemp | talk 21:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No need to apoligize, I just wanted to know. Good job trying to unvandalize the article! Cheers! 206.81.151.68 01:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to sign in... Well, cheers! The RSJ - ^SPEAK 01:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Keep this page locked. Earlier I had to remove two pictures of a penis from the "Animal Planet" section, just to find the JUMBO WALES crap inserted by several different usernames moments later.

duh. see above. pschemp | talk 21:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• I also have removed some curse words from the site. [[Sirengarg]]

Germaine Greer

I removed the statement re: 'A Current Affair.' What do you mean Greer again stated his death was due to occupational hazards. When did she put it exactly like that first. Are you speaking euphemistically or of an excuse or 'explanation' Greer made for her attack. If so then please change your edit to report on exactly what Greer said or an accurate paraphrasing of same. AntonioBu 22:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree for its removal on principle that her opinion should not be given undue weight, as per NPOV policy. Ansell 22:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The tape

Fox News reported just now that the tape, after examination by the police, will be destroyed. I'm sure. Wahkeenah 23:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. We'll be seeing links from ogrish.com in a day or two, mark my words. --Guinnog 23:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah....Let's wait until other news sources pick that up. dposse 23:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

News reports I have read indicate that friends of Steve want the tape destroyed after the police are through with it. There have also been reports that Steve had expressed to his work colleges, and perhaps his wife, that if he were to be killed by an animal while being filmed, that the footage should be shown on TV. Finally, I have read that the actual decision of what will happen with the tape will be left to his wife Terri. Sysrpl 00:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Entertainment Tonight is showing the tape, i find that sick!!! user:Zacksfansite 6 September 2006

uhhh...no. [9] --GVOLTT 00:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Lame. How else are we going to promote sting ray awareness? 70.112.181.8 03:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Article deletion

At some point earlier today this article appeared as a new article which I tagged for speedy deletion. I just assumed my eysight was bad and it was a variant spelling. It was then deleted by someone and had to be re-created. How could this happen? From the new article log: 2006-09-06T17:35:27 ‎Steve Irwin (hist) ‎[47,946 bytes] ‎Winblee (Talk | contribs)

--ArmadilloFromHell 01:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It was deleted to fix vandalsim in the edit summaries. This isn't a big deal except that people unfamilar with that panicked. If people could have held off the valiant vandal fighting for one minute, I might have been able to restore it properly. as is it, the fuck yous will just have to wait. pschemp | talk 01:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The edit summary is what the edit summary is. It's better to preserve the history of edits than to try to throw out the entire history to deal with some vandalism. If it were really that bad, there's probably an administrative tool to deal with it. Otherwise, yes, it's unsavory and impolite, but unfortunately, there are people out there who are that way. —C.Fred (talk) 02:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Uh yeah, the administrative tool is selective restoration, and in worse cases, oversight. Its done all the time. How do you think we deal with people who post personal info in edit summaries? It doesn't throw out the whole history by any means. But honestly, that debate is not the subject of this article talk page. pschemp | talk 02:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

In future I would caution against speedy tagging things you are not totally sure about. Ansell 02:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

More on the barb-pulling business

A question about this section:

Some reports have claimed that immediately after being stabbed, Irwin pulled the barb out before losing consciousness a short time later. Irwin's colleague John Stainton originally confirmed this account,[39][40] but he later denied it in an interview on CNN.[41]

My understanding is that Stainton started this rumor (perhaps unintentionally) after describing the video to the media. ("It shows that Steve came over the top of the ray and the tail came up, and spiked him here (in the chest), and he pulled it out and the next minute he's gone.”) I'm not aware of any earlier stories saying that Irwin pulled out the barb; were there any? If not, then you can't say Stainton confirmed the account, because that suggests the story was already floating around. Zagalejo 02:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It is actually a very large contradiction by the guy, but he is the only one who seems to have spoken on the event. It is actually really strange that he was adamant that he didn't want to talk to CNN, although the story originated with his comments to media early on. Particularly worrying is the fact that he told CNN that he had not watched the video and did not want to. He was lying to someone because he made the CNN after the initial interviews with the rest of the media. Ansell 02:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Website Address

crocodilehunter.com is no longer in service. The working link is now crocodilehunter.com.au

So, if possible, can someone change it on the main Steve_Irwin page?

64.121.39.12 03:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Steve Irwin / Stainton

I think for that when you lose a good friend and a colleague for whom you care for, your mind is only naturally bound to some shock and to think and to speak mistakes when being intimidated with lots of questions www.geocities.com/berniethomas68 03:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I would say his whole contribution is way past immediate shock. Why would you be so adamant that you had never seen the tape to CNN if you were able to describe it in detail earlier to every other news agency. Shock doesn't account for that. Ansell 03:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)