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. Thank You For Your Cooperation!

Archives
Archive 1 - discussions prior to death confirmation Archive 2 - 09:49 (UTC) to 16:00 (UTC) 4th September Archive 3 - 16:00 (UTC) to 23:59 (UTC) 4th September Archive 4 Archive 5

Why was memorial site taken down?

The memorial site www.RIPSteve.com was taken down. It is an appropriate site and not spam. CNN contacted the webmaster Rich Powell for permission to talk and show the site on their program. It is not a joke or a spam site. It's not a "Best Fan Site EVER!!!!111!!!". It is legit and respectful and should be included. Sirengarg 11:09PM EST, 5 Sepetember 2006 (UTC)

My guess is that immature people were making rude and disrespectful comments. Hopefully the webmaster will institute some sort of filtering system whereby only respectful and decent comments are shown on the site, while the vandalistic ones are removed.Crashdacoot 04:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No, the link was taken down well before the invasion of poor taste. A good 3+ hours before the invasion on the RIPSteve.com forum started. And all the horrid posts and members were deleted and banned and he has more mods to control it all. There was simply no good reason to take it down, other then maybe one person's personal opinion on not allowing it. Sirengarg 12:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Why was this sentence recently removed?

"Steve Irwin is active in politics and is a supporter of the conservative Liberal Party of Australia. In particular, he strongly supports the incumbent Prime Minister John Howard."

Is this needed?

From the section on his rescue of the man in Mexico is the line

  "Jones reported not recognising his celebrity rescuer as he had never seen Irwin on television."

In anyway needed? It doesn't seem to fit into the article Vohod 01:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed something similar before in my rewrite of that section and it seems to have crept its way back in. It's a tough call, but it may be okay as a throwaway line since it does relate to a media celebrity's recognizability. Professor Ninja 03:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this link suitable?

Should we include this link on the page? (link below). It had been posted on this talk page before, but was not clear. It is a video on YouTube, relating to Steve Irwin's death. [1]

Nope. It's some kind of joke that has no real relevance to this article. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 15:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Whilst

This is just silly. Please change it to while. No one uses the word whilst. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.95.240.214 (talk • contribs)

It's fine. It's a real word. Expand your vocabulary rather than making stupid comments like this on a talk page. 87.80.70.88 14:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. - 85.210.1.14 14:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The anonymous criticism seems to be arising from Cleveland, Ohio (according to IP address). This person may not be aware of broader variants of English. --Ds13 15:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's kind of unfair. From an American perspective, anyway, whilst does sound a bit old-fashioned and flowery. See Paul Brian's Common Errors in English. Zagalejo 16:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[personal attack removed] Where the person's IP address supposedly originates has nothing to do with the person's comments. 69.175.141.106

I don't mind whilst, I just don't know what the difference is between whilst and while. Is there one? Otherwise, I'd just stick to while, since both the Americans and English use 'while' but only the English typically use "whilst."—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mvpujols777 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 5 September 2006.

The question is, surely, what do Australians use? This article is written in Australian English, isn't it? Skittle 17:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I use whilst all the time (I'm Australian) Sad mouse 04:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It depends on whether you mean written or spoken Australian English. However, does it matter? The point has been made in numerous other discussion pages that this is supposed to be a geography- and dialect-neutral web site. I have no problem with "whilst," but I do think the general argument among the, for lack of a better description, pro-whilst section seems to be, well, you're stupid and provincial so shut up. Nice. --Raulpascal 17:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC) Follow-up to the last: Ds13, I looked at your personal page, and one of your five personal editing standards is "NPOV is non-negotiable." That standard specifically mentions geographical bias. Please do not display such.--Raulpascal 17:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think Ds13 is displaying geographical bias here. When someone protests the use of whilst on the basis that No one uses the word whilst that's either trolling or ignorance, since many people do use the word. Noting that a user who says such a thing is from a US state (and so may be expected to know primarily American English) is not POV, it's attempting to put context around an untrue claim.

In any case since this is a written piece, the standard would be Australian written English. And Australians use both whilst and while, much as the British do, when writing, especially formally. People who protest the use of whilst in an Australian article should be doing so because it is not the original word used (e.g. people shouldn't be going round wholesale replacing while with whilst just because it's an Australian article) or because while would fit better into the flow of words (for instance, sometimes, where wilst is used in close proximity). Those who protest the editing out of the word should be doing so on the grounds that it is an unecessary change to a perfectly good word, that systematic removal is imposing an American POV on the use of English in the article, and in some cases that the use of whilst rather than while makes the sentance flow better and adds a lyrical quality to the prose that is to be admired and strived for. --SiobhanHansa 18:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm American and I support the use of "whilst." -- Malber (talk • contribs) 17:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. Irwin was Australian, so the article (excepting exact quotes) should be written in Australian English. —David Levy 18:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

America FTW! Down with whilist. 128.62.100.220 18:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if people didn't mistakenly attempt to correct perfectly valid words and phrases from forms of English with which they're unfamiliar. It would be even nicer if other people didn't respond by insulting and degrading these well-meaning but misguided contributors. —David Levy 18:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the Queen Mum herself died on the cross. Australian English isn't the Lingua franca of the world. The article should use real English, AMERICAN ENGLISH. 128.62.100.220 18:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Last time I checked ENGLISH ENGLISH was the Lingue franca of the world. So if one was apply that rule, we'd have to fix all the horrible spellings on the American pages - fortunately, those aren't the rules! Personally I use whilst all the time, and I've never stepped foot in Australia; though that might explain why the Yanks always look at me a bit funny ... Nfitz 19:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• As an Australian, either is fine by me in Australian English. This isn't the sort of thing we fuss over.--Golden Wattle (formerly known as Arktos) ^talk 22:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been to Cleveland. Nobody there says "whilst". They do play jokes, though. Getting folks to talk about "whilst" could be one of them. Wahkeenah 23:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't instead of having different sorts of English for different pages we just have some kind of consistency. Let's stick with ENGLISH ENGLISH. Its the original and its what most of the world uses. They use whilst. Lets just use whilst (I'm Australian by the way). Apterygial 05:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Who's pulling out the barb?

When Stainton said, "he pulled it out and the next minute he's gone," could the he actually refer to the stingray, and not Irwin? As far as I know, Stainton never clarified what he meant; the sources saying that Irwin pulled out the barb are just interpretations of Stainton's statement. Zagalejo 14:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps (although that would be a peculiar use of "he"). Imagine how the stingray would have reacted if Irwin had really pulled onout its tail. — LazyEditor (talk|contribs) 16:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Detailed location?

Does anyone know if detailed information, such as coordinates, were released regarding the location where Irwin's fatal injury occured? Coolgamer 14:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thats all i've stubled upon so far: theage.com.au map --Addicted 15:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This shot was taken at the exact spot the arrow points to: http://www.mianos.com/locations/port_douglas/low_isles/lowIsles.jpg.html If it is accurate I can free the copyright 203.217.63.240 08:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC) mianos

Injury resembling lobotomy?

In the Trivia section, there's a suspect anecdote about an injury resembling a frontal lobotomy, which sounds like a joke. The only reference is to the IMDB. Can anyone verify that Steve Irwin actually said this, and not as a joke? Even if said in seriousness, it's probably medically inaccurate, and contradicts numerous occasions where Steve admitted and displayed normal fear reactions. Djcastel 15:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed it, the reference provided had no mention of him saying that, and I could't find anything with a quick Google search. --Richmeister 16:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Reaction: Singapore

The Crocodile Hunter have been regularly broadcast in Singapore on the Kids Channel tv station. People from young children to teenagers enjoy the episodes and admire Steve Irwin for his bravery and his committment in educating the young on wildlife issues. His death has brought grief to all and net users have started various movements in commemoration for his death. Msn messenger users have even started to put a tortise in front of their nicknames in respect for Steve. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Silentcelle21 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 5 September 2006 (utc).

State Funeral

So is Steve irwin going to get a state funeral? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.50.79.110 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 5 September 2006 (utc).

"Steve Irwin will get a state funeral if that's what his family wants, Queensland Premier Peter Beattie says." [2] --Addicted 16:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! So did they accept the idea of doing a state funeral, because I want to watch it! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.50.79.110 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 5 September 2006.

please go and check the newspaper-pages yourself. and "to watch it" instead of "attending it" - that says at least enough for me. --Addicted 17:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• There won't be a state funeral [3]--Golden Wattle (formerly known as Arktos) ^talk 09:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Feature Article

This article has a long list of references and seems well written. It doesn't seem too far off of being a featured article. I think in Steve's memory, we should work to that end.--Daysleeper47 16:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think a lot of people share your thoughts. The article is getting better and better. It would be great to get FA status. Cvene64 07:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed comments

I removed a brief discussion on whether Irwin got what he deserved, that also involved a question about whether he attempted to touch the ray. It says in the article that he did not touch the ray, he accidentally boxed it in by swimming over it. Regardless, please don't post such discussions, as they aren't related to improving the article. If you want to read or discuss whether he got what he deserved, go to one of the millions of other sites covering this that allow that kind of chat.--▫Bad▫harlick♠ 09:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed further unrelated discussion. This is not a discussion forum - "how he should be remembered" has nothing to do with improving the article.--▫Bad▫harlick♠ 09:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

In my clumsyness of a newcomer to Wikipedia's mark up language, I've accidentally linked the name of Bad Harlick to my User_Talk page instead of changing my own. I hope this is fixable. -- Joe Capricorn 22:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Fixed this.--▫Bad▫harlick♠ 09:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

interwiki

hello everyone

please add this interwiki to the hebrew wikipedia: he:סטיב ארווין. thanks, 88.152.202.166 17:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Good article

I've reviewed the nomination (expedited as requested) and awarded good article status. Recommend standardizing web page access dates in the footnotes. Otherwise, good work. I suggest nominating for FA after the media attention subsides and the page stabilizes. Regards, Durova 17:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

(See #Good Article nomination and #Feature Article above.) --Addicted 17:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, beg to differ. Removed based on stability criteria - still getting edited too often. – Chacor 17:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Recommend reconsideration: the stability criterion applies to edit warring rather than to ordinary high traffic. Topics in the news have received the designation before. Here I see no editorial conflict and recent events are adequately presented and referenced. I won't re-add the GA template myself, but would like to restate my support. Durova 17:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact that it's sprotected doesn't help it imo. When it gets unprotected it'd just receive another whole chunk of vandalism and constant edits (I believe figures thrown up include over 20 edits in a minute). Is it really a good idea to designate something protected as a good article? – Chacor 17:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, since you asked ... there are articles recognized as good articles that are locked. For example, elephant. If I had more time, I'd dig around for some more ... but, you get the idea. Just because something is protected doesn't mean it can't be a good article, let alone a candidate. Resident Lune 17:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Elephant becamee a GA way before protection due to Colbert. – Chacor 17:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Jordanhill railway station became a GA shortly after its creation while editing was still frequent. Tiger Woods and United States and many other GAs see frequent editing. The GA God is page protected. I'm a regular contributor at Joan of Arc, an FA that receives vandal attacks almost daily due to high traffic. I think most editors interpret stability in terms of structural integrity and editor harmony rather than vandalism attempts or minor copyedits. Durova 18:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm taking this page off my watchlist... again... for the second time in two days. I'd appreciate a short talk message if anyone promotes to GA while the heavy editing is still ongoing (if it gets promoted in a week when everything's died down, then don't bother with the message). Thanks. – Chacor 18:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Preventing promotion to good article on a highly-edited page is nonsensical. If the article is good, it's good, period. It doesn't matter that part of it happens to be documenting something which is still very much an ongoing incident attracting lots of attention. It's impossible for a subject to be current news and our coverage of it to be good. --Cyde Weys 18:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Technically any Wikipedian who isn't an active contributor to this page could promote it to GA, yet the article is good with or without the label. I'd suggest establishing a consensus by persuading the editor who objected or waiting as that editor recommends. Durova 20:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Among other things the introduction was cut back to one paragraph, which means that the article does not satisfy WP:LEAD. I'm going to restore my text which tried to summarize his career in three sentences, and I would hope that editors would modify what I write (e.g. conforming it with sourced portions of the article) rather than remove it. The introduction should be the equivalent of a short article on the subject, giving a complete (if not thorough) understanding of the topic. It isn't adequate to say he had a TV show and owned a zoo. --Dhartung | Talk 03:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Did Irwin touch the ray?

To improve the article, this point should be discussed. I see that Irwin "boxed' the animal in, but did he touch him(the ray)or try to touch him?--68.228.148.52 17:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No it shouldn't be discussed. The article is perfectly clear on how the incident happened. Steve swam over the top of the ray, meaning the ray thought that Steve, who was floating above it, was going to attack. He didn't touch the ray. From the article: "He came on top of the stingray and the stingray's barb went up and into his chest and put a hole into his heart," said Stainton. the stingray "felt threatened because Steve was alongside and there was the cameraman ahead." In such a case, the stingray responds by automatically flexing the serrated barb on its tail. --▫Bad▫harlick♠ 18:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Germaine Greer comment, remove?

"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)

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 famous and notable Australian feminist and academic. Possibly even THE most notable Australian feminist, probably most known for her book The Female Eunuch. Her recent contributions have been quite strange, 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)

• 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)

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)

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. [4] 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)

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)

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)

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.[5]) 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)

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)

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)

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 auzoo.com 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)

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