Talk:Steve Irwin/Archive 6

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)