Talk:Steve Irwin/Archive 9

Archive 8

Archive 8 has been created Reynoldsrapture 18:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Picture of Steve in article

Is someone able to find a better picture for the infobox at the top? The one that is currently there is very low quality - it is a crop of a low quality digital photo. Anyone who knows where to look, go for it! MyNameIsNotBob 02:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This subject has already been brought up in a previous discussion now archived and apparently due to the copyright laws no one can seem to find anything better.4giron 02:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone familiar to wikipedia should contact Animal Planet, or Discovery.com, and request a picture be released to use in this article. Could this be done? Reynoldsrapture 18:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I contacted the Australia Zoo and got no response. You might have better luck at a US source, but note that you have to get permission to release the picture under the GFDL -- including for commercial reuse. It's hard to convince people of that. -- cmh^TC 03:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not surprised you haven't received a response from Australia Zoo. I tried emailing their media email address on August 22, and their info email address on September 1 (a courtesy email asking about copyright of images I've taken in their zoo), and I'm yet to receive a response. (I decided to upload them as I don't expect to get a reply soon) Maybe phone would be the way to go once things quiet down. Andjam 05:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I reckon they'll be flat out for quite a while now. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible (or legal) to crop an image from say Image:Animal Planet Steve Irwin Memorial Wallpaper.jpg and use it?--Coasttocoast 23:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

At least its not as bad as some pictures we have, like the one on The Clash article. Or the broken one on the Brad Nowell page.

cause of death speculation source deletion

The section was deleted stating original research because no cited sources. The original sources had been deleted so I added the deleted source and rv the deleted edit. I think the section should be removed as its still speculation, but deleting because no source was provided after an editor deletes the source is the wrong way to do it.--I already forgot 18:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I deleted it originally, not because it was original research with no cited sources, but because it is speculation from uninvolved, unofficial sources, regardless of the way in which the cited source presents the information (Said Professor Winder: "For Steve [Irwin] to have died so quickly, it wasn't the toxins.")

The official, specific medical information regarding Irwin's death should be posted whenever the coroner's report becomes available, likely sometime in the next decade. Wiki users have expressed their belief that the inclusion of such speculatory details (and, indeed, even a person's DESIRE to know the exact cause of death) is inappropriate and betrays nothing more than a "morbid curiosity" regarding the details of Mr. Irwin's death. Therefore, it should be removed and considered inappropriate for inclusion until an official release of the information occurs, at which time it would be appropriate to include it. Grammaticus Repairo 19:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

What wiki users? where? At the very least we need to say that the exact cause is yet to be determined, but that it was a stingray barb to the heart is certain. We don't censor wikipedia because people don't like gory details. pschemp | talk 03:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

For the full discussion, please see the "Coroner's Report" section of the last archive (#8). Grammaticus Repairo 07:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Do we have a citation that says that it was certain that it was a stingray barb to the heart? I realize that sensationalistic newspapers seized on that phrase in coverage. We know he was stabbed in the chest, but I have yet to see a reliable and actually informed source that says it was the heart. There has been piles of speculation on this point, but no point in propagating rumour. That he died from a stingray is enough detail, why put in mere speculation before the facts are known? -- cmh^TC 02:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This article [1] has been purported by some wiki users to contain information regarding Irwin's "official cause of death". However, one should note that, of the entire text of the article, only the following two sentences make mention of the cause of death:

A post-mortem examination has confirmed Crocodile Hunter Steve Irwin died after being speared in the chest by a stingray. It has been confirmed Irwin was killed when the poisonous barb on the ray's tail pierced his chest while filming for a television program at a reef off Port Douglas.

One might also note the absence of any information supporting the assertion made in the actual title of the article, which is Autopsy confirms Irwin died instantly. I fully support the addition of OFFICIAL, specific, medical information stating the actual cause of death. This article does not attribute its information to any specific source, official or otherwise. In fact, the one comment from a 'police spokeswoman' is a testament to the vagueness of the information. Apparently, in Queensland, Australia, the summary of a post-mortem medical exam is information that is not available to the public until the coroner's official report is released, a process which I am told normally takes several years to complete. It appears likely that we will not be able to list any official 'cause of death' until some point well into the next decade.

Of course, we could always just take the information presented in the aforementioned article and consider the 'police spokeswoman' an official source, in which case we could add the following to the main article:

An official source has stated the official cause of death to be: "Everyone knows how he died."

This also has the advantage of satisfying those wiki users who are offended by even the suggestion of circulating a more detailed (or gory) official version of Steve's cause of death. After all, Wikipedia is not the place to satisfy one's "morbid curiosity" in the form of official reports. Grammaticus Repairo 07:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Use of "whilst" instead of "while"?

Any thoughts why this article is filled with the old-fashioned "whilst" instead of the plain English "while"? I see that someone just changed one "while" to "whilst", and I guess that this was to maintain consistency across the article. Would anyone object if I changed "whilst" to the simpler "while" over the whole article? I refer to the WP articles While and American and British English differences, in which it is stressed that "whilst" sounds "pretentious" and "archaic" to Americans, in any context. Being an Australian, I can happily state that I too find "whilst" pretentious and archaic. Nothing to do with Steve Irwin, I know, but makes this article much less pleasant to read ;-) Leeborkman 02:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• As another Australian, I too prefer while to whilst but can live with either.--Golden Wattle ^talk 02:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• I'd object to favouring any over the other. I don't consider "whilst" pretentious or archaic; I consider it common Australian English.--cj | talk 02:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi cj. It's no big deal, just my natural inclination to go for the simple wording. I do note that the article you linked on Australian English uses the word "while" exclusively. Thanks heaps. Leeborkman 02:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Which implies nothing more than that the individual preference of the authors there is for "while". Here, others obviously prefer to write "whilst". I say leave it be. There is no contradiction in having both forms present in the article – they are interchangeable and equally common.--cj | talk 09:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Look at it this way. Does anyone think Steve Irwin was a whilst kind of guy? He certainly never used the word in his TV shows. Australian English goes both ways, so WWSD (What Would Steve Do)? pschemp | talk 03:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

okay, I'm just going to change "whilst" to "while" consistently through the article, as all the comments here prefer "while", except for cj, who has no preference for one or the other. The real decider for me is "whilst snorkelling", which is very hard to say ;-) No big deal, as I said, but thanks for the responses. Leeborkman 06:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe "whilst" would be more appropriate. I'd ask you to review WP:MOS. "Whilst" is frequently used in Australian English. And not all the comments here prefer "while".Kamikaze 08:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Kamikaze. Actually, I am a native Australian speaker, and I must admit that I have rarely seen or heard the word used. I read the MOS, but I don't see anything that particularly relates to this question. Yours is so far the only response that prefers "whilst" over "while", but I'd be very happy to hear your reasons for that preference. My understanding of the use of these two words is that "while" is always acceptable, but "whilst" is considered archaic and/or pretentious by some people (to paraphrase the WP article on English and American English). As I am one of the people who find "whilst" archaic, I took a brief sample of opinion here and made this minor change when there were no objections and some support. Anyway, I don't much mind. If you believe that "whilst" is better (perhaps more formal and thus more appropriate in an encyclopedia?), then I will not object, but I'd be very interested to hear your reasons. Thanks very much. Leeborkman 09:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I have a few relatives living in Australia and from them I've learned that the usage of "whilst" (although they use a pronunciation somewhat similar to "while) is one of the Australian language distinctiveness. This may seem subjective though. However, if you look in the archives, you will see there are several debates regarding this issue, all of which ended in favour of preserving the "whilst" form. Kamikaze 09:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

feel free to review this---Kamikaze 09:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Nothing here about whilst, Kamikase.

and this---Kamikaze 09:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I see here a claim that "while" and "whilst" are both used in Australian English, but in slightly different contexts. That may be true, but in my 43 years of speaking and writing Australian, I have not noticed it. Is there some Australia English style guide that we could refer to? It is only a trival matter, but to me it seems clear that when you have the choice between a word that everyone is happy with and one that some significant group dislikes (eg most Americans, plus me), then you would go with the non-controversial one. But if the question is simply about what consitutes normal modern Australian English then I would maintain, from my direct experience as a normal modern Australian, that "whilst" is about as current as "cobber", Cobber ;-) Nevertheless, if anyone honestly thinks that "whilst snorkelling" reads better than "while snorkelling", then I will happily revert my change. Thanks for your thoughts. It's nice to talk about something non-serious around here for a change. Leeborkman 10:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Whoever wrote "whilst" in the article is probably enjoying watching the debate over it. Wahkeenah 10:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• "cobber" isn't the same thing as "blocke"? An Australian English style guide would be indeed requiered but I doubt there is any. anyway, it is my firm belief that "whilst" would be more appropiate and I honestly think "whilst snorkelling" reads better than "while snorkelling" but I guess a consensus must be reached on this matter.... again. Kamikaze 10:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Kamikaze, I said that if anyone says they honestly prefer "whilst snorkelling" to "while snorkelling" then I would revert my changes, so that's what I'm going to do right now. As you say, apparently a concensus had already been reached long before I showed up. And no, cobber is not the same as bloke. ;-) Thanks Leeborkman 11:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

When Steve initially died and this article had a lot of heat on it, I too noticed the aweful combo of "whilst snorkeling". It didn't at all sound right. I even tried to imagine the outback steakhouse spokes bloke saying it, that kind of worked. But unless you use whilst often in your everyday vocab I think that the average kid or college student writing a paper on Steve would think it old fashioned and maybe even a little pretentious of us editors. Anyway, no offense to those who use whilst commomnly.4giron 14:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

As an American I actually didn't even notice the use of the word "whilst," but then I have a lot more interest in the English speaking nations as a whole and the language variants thereof than the average American. I will say, though, "whilst snorkeling" is a pretty clumsy thing to pronounce. Darentig 15:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

"the average kid or college student writing a paper on Steve" In America :-) To me, 'toward' sounds archaic, but that is irrelevant to whether it should be used in American articles. Just a note. Skittle 15:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all your thoughts, everyone. I have now asked this question over on the Talk:Australian English page, to see if we can get some WP-wide recommendation. It would be unfortunate to let the world think Australians actually go around saying "whilst" ;-) Leeborkman 22:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Lee here. Whilst is not the common spelling in Australia anymore. News Limited's Style Guide doesn't have any weight here, I know, but FWIW it specifically forbids use of "whilst". Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

<rant>In a perfect world, News Limited's Style Guide would spontaneously combust. That document deserves credit for nothing more than dumbing down language and entrenching Americanisms amongst mainstream Australia.</rant>--cj | talk 09:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah? I love it. I use it all the time and I find it very handy. It really doesn't promote Americanisms. It has a whole section about avoiding Americanisms. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 15:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I could add my two bobs' worth. Whilst to me is totally acceptable, in a written sense. Although I would probably never use it in a conversation I am happy to see it in writing. Are there any other words similar to this in Australia? Ozdaren 08:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

All for "whilst" as well... Rich Farmbrough, 15:51 8 October 2006 (GMT).

Wildlife Warriors

Wildlife Warriors is a charity set up by Steve Irwin to protect wildlife. An article: Wildlife Warriors has been created. You are invited to contribute to it. --WikiCats 03:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Okp5FTKOB4

Can someone explain why this inside a good link? Anomo 05:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

i think you mean why this "isn't" a good link. First of all because its a copyright violation as much of the stuff on youtube is, and second becuse it just doesn't add anything profound to the article. However, we don't use or advocate copyvio material, so it needs to stay our just for that reason. pschemp | talk 06:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

John Stainton quote

Earlier today someone under the name Baritone made an edit changing John Stanton's quote 11 days after the fact to this, "He came on top of the stingray and the stingray's barb approximately 30 cm went up and into his chest] and put a hole into his heart", said Stainton, who was on board Irwin's boat the Croc One. Baritone added the 30 cm bit. Is this really what Stanton said or is there a vandal in our midst. Just an FYI.4giron 02:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I fixed it. dposse 14:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Memorial Wallpaper

how do i find the copyright status for it? -- AAFL 13:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It is copyrighted by the Discovery Channel. http://animal.discovery.com/fansites/crochunter/steve/wallpaper/wallpaper.html I think it could be used under {{promotional}}. bogdan 13:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. dposse 14:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thats how it was before but somebody took it off. Thanks Everyone -- AAFL 23:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Defenders of Greer

Do we really need an entire paragraph about Dr Clive? I think thats taking "some defended her" for a bit of a ride, in that 99% did not defend her, yet there is this massive paragraph in her defese, yet only one person is noted as having actually some what defended her. It should be summed up, its far too long, and if we really need that much info on Dr Clive, it should be in Greers article. Cvene64 00:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I reckon it would make more sense to roll Greer and Hamilton together in the criticisms section, as they both made essentially identical points. So instead of focussing on the controversy and outrage, let's just note the substance of their joint criticisms, criticisms that cannot be simply dismissed when considered at some distance. Leeborkman 00:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not saying to dismiss thet criticism at all, it does have a place in the article, I just find the section a bif POV, as there is only like a few sentances about the negative reaction to Greer, but a huge rationale about why what she said is understandable, the defense being longer than the section on Steve's early life and so on... Cvene64 01:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the current balance is strange, and I'm suggesting that the balance could be restored by rolling Greer and Hamilton into the criticisms section. At the moment, the whole Steve Irwin article is too much news, and not enough about the things that make Steve notable. After all, almost half the article is now taken up with Steve's death and its aftermath, which is not actually the important, interesting or notable thing about Steve Irwin. I mean, the guy was a professional who got killed in the line of his job, in an unexpected way, no doubt, but there is not that much more to it, unless there is some suggestion of a conspiracy to cover up the truth, or something of the kind. In general, unless a person is only notable for the way they died, it just seems strange to write as many words about their death as about their life. In other words, because Steve's death happened right now, ie during the writing of this article, it is being greatly over-emphasised within the article. Compare this with articles on historical figures... say Charles Darwin, maybe the greatest naturalist of all time... just one sentence about his death. Abraham Lincoln... just one succinct section on his assassination! If we step back and look at the encyclopedia as a whole, we see that modern day figures are treated in a completely different way to historical figures, ie we concentrate on news headlines, instead of distilling what is notable, which is really the point of an encyclopedia. Or have I got it all wrong as usual? ;-) Leeborkman 01:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I most certainly agree with you, spot on. I think once everything has settled down, the article should be re-written, focusing much more on his biography, in particular conservation/career/Australia Zoo. Death/memorials/service/backlash/Greer (in my opion) should be rewritten into something which is at least 1/4 of its current length. I agree that there is too much news in the article, a lot of what is in here would have been better off on wikinews, instead of in his wikipedia page. The article has not even started to touch on his conservation/animal planet side of things. The article could definantly do with a great deal of work.. Cvene64 04:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this section should be cut down dramatically, these people are really nobodies and not that famous. Enlil Ninlil 05:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You might want to reconsider that statement, Enlil. Germaine Greer might have jeopardised much of the esteem that she has earned over the years, but she has been one of the great minds of the last few decades. Clive Hamilton is obviously less well-known, but still a significant Australian intellectual. It might not be a popular thought, but I'm sure that Greer will be remembered and revered for her contributions to feminism (and therefore to the world) for many many years to come. She has always been provocative and lacking in graciousness, which can make it hard to take her views seriously, but don;t be misled into thinking her a "not-that-famous" "nobody". On the other hand, there is no particular reason why these two should feature prominently on the Steve Irwin page, except that they were conspicious among Steve's critics. See ya. Leeborkman 05:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok I'll change it to not that famous and retract my previous statement it was a little insensitive. Also I dont care if she is a femanist, who she hates! good for her im just saying she isnt that well known. Enlil Ninlil 05:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Image

I changed the image in the film section from the poster to a screenshot. The poster was removed by someone before, and I think fair-use is much more acceptable with a screenshot of Irwin, as its in the Irwin article, whereas the poster should probably be described if we want to use it. So I hope thats okay. Cheers. Cvene64 00:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Cousteau

Jean-Michel Cousteau has commented unfavourably or Steve Irwin's approach to wildlife while filming (too hands on). (Sydney Morning Herald) --Golden Wattle ^talk 06:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Educational terminology

He graduated from Caloundra State High School in 1979.

Do people "graduate" from high school in Australia? AdorableRuffian 08:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Certainly not back then. But I don't have a problem with it because it is definitely currently accepted useage and I can't think of a better phrase. -- I@n 08:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Greer and the supposed "idiots" remark - and YouTube

Hi all, it's important to clear this up: Greer did not call Australians mourning Steve Irwin "idiots". In fact, she never said anything about Australians mourning Steve Irwin. Not in her article, not on ACA. She was asked by the ACA interviewer what she thought about being labelled her "un-Australian and out of touch with what everyday Australians are thinking", and she responded "I hope I'm out of touch with what idiots are thinking." Not very sweet of her, but absolutely nothing to do with calling people "idiots" for mourning Steve. The interviewer did a good job - insulted here with the unsourced "un-Australian", and then leaped on here when she responded with heat. Anyway, whether you agree with Greer or not, we can certainly leave out these unsourced POV remarks about her, and certainly leave out references to that defamatory video on YouTube. This is, after all, the Steve Irwin article, so why all this hand-wringing about Germaine Greer. Note what here criticisms are, and note any reputable counter-arguments, but nothing more than that. See ya. Leeborkman 03:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with, I would also cut out if mentioned any info on the material on YouTube, its irrelevant here and in Greers article. I belive some people really dont like here, that is why they write it. Enlil Ninlil 04:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Would you be able to clarify who was she calling idiots? Also, why have you both written "here" when you should have written "her"? Andjam 04:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It's open to interpretation who she might have been calling idiots. It looks like she was referring to the supposed "everyday Australians" who label her "un-Australian" for crticising Steve Irwin. As for "here" instead of "her"... that was obviously my mistake, and Andjam has clearly attempted to be poite nby not correcting it ;-) Whoever Greer intended to call "idiots", it has nothing to do with Steve Irwin, nor those who are grieved over his death. Leeborkman 06:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

This is what she said in the current affair show. The host first said that "people(who mourn steve irwin) are labeling your commments as insensitive. What do you think of that?" She answered with: "I don't care what they call me. I hope I'm out of touch with what idiots are thinking." Frankyboy5 18:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

No, No, No, and again No! You need to watch the interview (you can find it on youtube), or at least read a complete transcript. Those two sentences that you quoted are completely unrelated, separated by minutes, and trying to claim that the second was in answer to the first is misleading and completely defamatory. Here is the exact exchange (I have tried to reproduce the emphasis correctly with italics). ACA:"Germaine, you are being called un-Australian, out of touch with what everyday Australians are thinking. Does that worry you?" GREER: "I don't care what I'm being called. I, listen, I hope I'm out of touch with what idiots are thinking." ACA:"Now you're calling Australians idiots, are you?" GREER:"You're the one who's telling me what Australians are thinking. I don't think Australians are as dim or as easily led as you make it seem." Greer is clearly not calling Australians idiots, in fact she say quite explicitly "I don't think that Australians are as dim or easily led as you make it seem." So let's just give up this misrepresentation of what she said. And let's get it off the Steve Irwin page, where it has no relevance. Leeborkman 23:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, people have gone into her history saying she's a liar that's full of controversy [2] . Look on her page about all the controversy She had no proof about saying millions were embarassed by the phenomenon and her response to Karl Stefanovic about the the sense of loss people are feeling is a bad response, treating him as a normal person [3]. Also, look at this "remixed" video of the interview that highlights many things [4]. Frankyboy5 22:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Instead of engaging in name-calling and personal attacks, why not concentrate on what she actually said about Mr. Irwin: Her criticism (which many others share) was that Steve manhandled the animals without respect for their way of life. He used them (perhaps with good motivation) without enough respect for their own way of life, and the animals finally got their chance to reply. Clearly, her comments and timing might have been insensitive, but her criticism is not completely off the mark. As someone who has a long-time devotion to wildlife, I too frequently felt that he was somewhat reckless (such as the incident with his infant son) and arrogant in his treatment of animals. Compare him to Jeff Corwin, for example. 66.108.105.21 03:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

So, she still has a dirty, contoversial history. Steve Irwin also knew if the animal was stressed or not. Austin Stevens is more controversial than he is. Frankyboy5 03:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I know Greer as one of the most eminent literary critics alive today. I haven't checked the "controversy," so I won't discuss it. Everyone gets involved in inappropriate statements occasionally. The question on this Talk Page is her comments about Steve Irwin, not anything else. I don't agree with everything Greer has written on literature either. But it is clear that Irwin's way of approaching wildlife was frequently somewhat invasive of their life. Don't foeget, love of wildlife does not mean being fearless of wild animals; that is nothing more than foolhardiness. Love of wildlife must come from understanding of wildlife and respect for their way of life. When one goes on safari, or is shooting a documentary on aquatic life, one must understand that we are entering their home, their environment, and we must pay proper respect to their way of life. After all, proper respect for animals entails that we must understand that they operate under the constraints of a much more rigidly stratified mode of behavior than we do. They are programmed by their natural instincts to behave in a certain way, when encountering stimuli. Animals don't have a choice in deciding how to behave when they encounter us and our behavior; they behave in the way they were programmed by their natures for surviving in the face of their environment, and its hostile elements. We have the "advantage" of being more intelligent, but that intelligence itself must convey to us the appropriate way of interacting with wildlife. You write, "Steve Irwin knew whether the animal was stressed or not." I am certain Mr Irwin knows a great deal more about wildlife than I. Nevertheless, one of the things one learns first is how unpredictable an animal is. Consider the incident with his son: He must know that the croc's actions upon encountering his invasion of her territory have a certain degree of unpredictability. Since Irwin has a vast amount of experience with crocs, he must have judged that he knew this particular animal well enough to know how she would behave in his immediate presence, and I am not going to question him on that. But, how could he take an infant in there with him? Did it not occur to him that he might lose his balance, say, and trip, or some other such thing? For him to enter is reasonable; he has a much greater degree of control over his actions, and of the animal's and for the purpose of spreading interest in wildlife, entertaining, informing, and his career and love of animals. But what purpose did bringing his baby serve? It presented a risk to the child, increased the risk to himself, and added almost nothing of value to his work publicizing love of wildlife. A reckless judgment, raising questions about his other judgments? I don't know the answer to this, and I don't have the expertise that I know Steve had with this animal. Nevertheless, his judgement was troubling to me. All I can say is that, having seen Steve's shows a number of times, it frequently occured to me that he was being somewhat overly invasive of the animals in their natural habitat. I may be wrong. But that is how it seemed to me. An animal is not a human. They do not have the capacity to make judgments the way we do. Entering their world must be done appropriately. When I mentioned Jeff Corwin's name, it was to refer to someone who seemed to act somewhat more respectfully of the animals' natures. I don't know. Just my thoughts. I certainly don't mean to sound unsympathetic; he was a captivating and entertaining personality, and he should still be with us. 66.108.105.21 14:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Greer is highly controversial, doing things without permission such as the controversial book featuring a fifteen year-old boy. Frankyboy5 23:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

FrankyBoy, you continue to ignore the point. Greer is indeed controversial, but this is the Steve Irwin article, and Greer herself is not relevant. Her criticisms of Irwin are relevant, as are any reputable responses to her criticisms. Criticisms of Greer herself (see ad hominem) are completely irrelevant in this context, as they have no bearing on Steve Irwin. If you want to critique Germaine Greer (and have reputable references), then there is an article devoted to Greer where such critique may be appropriate, although you should look at the Wikipedia policy on Biographies of living persons, which is very clear regarding writing negative things about living persons. Let it go, FrankBoy! Leeborkman 00:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

They have alot of videos blatantly disrespecting him, made after he died. Mocking his death. Something has to be done. Exterminate All the Brutes. --69.67.229.228 02:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should go on an 'unaustralian' witchhunt? Once we have found anyone that disregards intense nationalistic propaganda, we can then cook them on the barbie over a 'coupla' beers.

If Greer's past is not relevant, then why are we quoting her. It is valid to quote the son of Jacques Cousteau as he is in the field - not Greer. She was calling as "idiots" - "everyday Australians" (the words referred to by her) for calling her "out of touch" in relation to her Steve Irwin comments. And that includes Howard, Beazley, Premier Beattie, Andrew Denton, Larry King, Ray Martin, Barbara Walters, President Bush, actors, friends, family and everyone who left flowers and messages at Australia Zoo and elsewhere (I know I included some non-Australians). The bottom line is that Greer knows and admits that she is out of touch - she actually states "I don't care" and labels this majority as idiots. Why - because she has a different opinion. Her remarks should be removed. You cannot on the one hand tell us that we cannot talk about her past and then say she has a valid contribution to make. Writing a few books and being regarded by a select few is insufficient. Choose comments from people in the field only -- PLEASE!!!

Greer's past has no bearing whatsoever on whether her comments about Steve Irwin are true or not. That is the essence of the ad hominem fallacy. Counter what was said (if it needs to be countered), not who said it. Greer's past is relevant to the Steve Irwin article only when we are determining whether or not she is a sufficiently prominent figure to be quoted here, and I don't think there's any doubt that Germaine Greer is in fact important enough to be quoted. And, once again, she did not call everyday Australians idiots. Read the transcript above (which I myself copied word for word from the interview). She quite explicitly said that ACA were the ones under-estimating the inteligence of the Australian people. Just let it go, mate. Greer said some stuff you didn't like about a guy you did like. Don't invite her to your Christmas dinner. See ya. Leeborkman 08:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

A person's comments should be used in Wikipedia because that person is an authority. Why should Greer's comments be included? According to the words of "Leeborkman" it is because she is "important enough to be quoted". Well, that means that Leeborkman is using her past to justify the inclusion. I have not talked about her past. I am simply saying that only a person with authority in the field should be quoted - not Greer. I have no problem with freedom of speech - I would only like authorities in the field quoted in Wikipedia - otherwise it is left open to all comers. For example - use the son of Jacques Cousteau who is respected in the field. But please do not say Greer's past does not count and then say she is "important" enough. In this field she is not. In relation to the last comments that I may not have liked "stuff" ... you miss the entire point - this is about retaining the integrity of an encyclopaedia - with appropriate authorities. As for "countering" what she has said - the majority have already done that - but she is entitled to her view - I am simply saying that it should not be in Wikipedia.

I agree

Okay, no problem, AnonymousUser, so you are saying that you don't even want Greer's comments mentioned in the Steve Irwin article? Are you really saying that you don't think Greer's comments about Steve Irwin are notable enough to be mentioned? I think that's a very hard position to argue. Greer is not an expert naturalist, but she is certainly an expert sociologist, so her comments on the phenomenal mass reaction to Steve's death at least are relevant. Do you want to write the article like there was no negative comment following Steve's death? Sounds a little dishonest to me. Among all the world reaction, there was this one lone, loud voice that called out "I didn't think Steve was all that wonderful!", and that in itself is surely notable. Let's just give Greer's comments the space that their notability justifies (ie, a very little bit of space), and possibly note that her negative comments were overwhelmingly rejected by the public. Wouldn't that be appropriate? Nice and balanced, nothing sensational, nothing over the top. Thanks heaps. Who am I talking to, by the way? Leeborkman 08:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The last discussion asked five questions. Q1 "Are saying that you don't even want Greer's comments mentioned in the Steve Irwin article?" Yes. This is an encyclopedia that should use authorities in the field (or perhaps elected officials which represent the people). Greer's comments may be news for the general media, but should not be in Wikipedia here. Q2 "Are you really saying that you don't think Greer's comments about Steve Irwin are notable enough to be mentioned?" Yes. For the same reasons. Q3 "Do you want to write the article like there was no negative comment following Steve's death?" Not at all. The point I stated above (in four places) was that an encyclopedia should use authorities. I said "I am simply saying that only a person with authority in the field should be quoted". Indeed there are others who have been quoted, like the son of Jacques Cousteau. Q4 "Among all the world reaction, there was this one lone, loud voice … Let's just give Greer's comments the space that their notability justifies (ie, a very little bit of space), and possibly note that her negative comments were overwhelmingly rejected by the public. Wouldn't that be appropriate?" No it is not. I disagree with your comment that she was "one lone, loud voice". There are others with the same view. Indeed a couple are included in the article – and provided they are in the field they should be there – not Greer. As you say, she is not a naturalist. Q5 "Thanks heaps. Who am I talking to, by the way?" On the point about Greer's past, you again use it to justify her inclusion. But if you argue that Greer's past is not important then neither should mine. Wikipedia accepts Anonymous use. You should be able to counter the arguments of an anonymous person. For this discussion page, tackle the ball, not the person. As for Greer I have not attacked her, she is entailed to her view, but her view should not be in the encyclopedia article. If you think Irwin should be criticised, then find comments by David Suzuki, David Attenborough, or any authority in the naturalist or veterinarian fields.

Hi, Friend. All fair enough. I guess we just disagree that Greer's comments are not notable. The article mentions the reactions of Caneon Diaz, a "professional wrestler", "Spoonman", Kelly Rippa, Rosie O'Donnell, a bunch of politicians, Justin Timberlake and Kevin Costner ;-) None of these are experts in the field. I simply do not accept your basic premise that someone has to be an expert in the field before they can make a notable comment, and as I have mentioned before, Irwin was a multi-field figure - a naturalist, a media personality, a pop-cultural phenomenon, so why restrict notable comment to the small population of naturalists? Anyway, as I have said, I'd be happy to see the who "Reaction to Steve's Death" section removed for reasons I have discussed before, but not without some concensus around here. If you simply remove Greer's comments and leave a hole were there were before, then that will require subsantial re-writing, mainly because so much of the Reaction section is itself a reaction to what Greer said. And as for your anonymity, you are very welcome to it. I haven't criticised you for it, merely asked who I was speaking with out of courtesy. Everyone's anonymous around here - that's why we have "usernames" instead of real names. Thanks heaps. Lee. Leeborkman 07:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Germ said that his death was sad just because he "had small children"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Frankyboy5 00:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well sort of, although I don't know where you get the "just because" part. Here is the relevant transcript... ACA: Do you understand, at all, the sense of loss that people are feeling right now? GREER: Oh, for heaven's sake! You can feel a sense of loss about any death of a 44 year old man with two small children. That is a very sad situation. What is your point? Greer says that it is a very sad situation that this 44 year old man with two small children died, and indeed it is. I'm a 43 year old man with two small children and that is certainly what makes me feel sad about all of this. Anyway, in all of this I agree with Anon that all this claim and counter-claim about Greer is not really worth noting on the Steve Irwin page. The only thing I do not agree with is that Greer's original comments themselves are not worth noting, and that is just a simple editorial judgement/decision on which rational people may certainly have different opinions. If there is consensus here for Greer's comments to be removed from the Steve Irwin article, then I have no problem with that... and we can probably lose Cameron Diaz while we are at it ;-) Leeborkman 02:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

No!! She said: "Oh, for heaven's sake! It's really sad for someone to die and they had small children. I'm not saying that's sad." She's actually saying that nothing is sad about his death. Having small children is not a good enough reason. Steve had done much more amazing things than "having small children". She just doesn't care about his efforts to saving animals. She even said "I'm sick and tired of these shows telling me the world is full of dangerous and scary creatures." That's not what Steve was about. He did indeed tell people about how dangerous these animals are but at the same time tell people about how they still need to be saved. Frankyboy5 19:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, you need (everyone needs) to actually watch the interview again. I have quoted the exact words direct from the interview, and I have no idea where you got those statements of yours from. So perhaps we should end this now. Leeborkman 21:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I got them from the show but I haven't watched the youtube videos in a long time so didn't remember them much. Anyways, having small children is not a good enough reason. Steve had done much more amazing things than "having small children". She just doesn't care about his efforts to saving animals. She even said "I'm sick and tired of these shows telling me the world is full of dangerous and scary creatures." That's not what Steve was about. He did indeed tell people about how dangerous these animals are but at the same time tell people about how they still need to be saved. Even if he did "dominate on their space" he also knew when they were stressed. Take the episode about the making of the movie. He would tell the camera men to stop filming and would let the animal rest for a few minutes. Frankyboy5 00:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

FrankyBoy, you may be right that there are other reasons to be sad, but you do yourself and your cause no favours when you insist that your own distant and mistaken memories of Greer's comments are actually representative of her words or sentiments. Trying to impart your own spin upon Greer's words is one thing (we all do that to some extent), but emphatically misquoting her is quite another and quite unacceptable. As for me, I completely agree with Greer on at least this one point, ie that the saddest thing about Steve's death is that he was a loving man with a young family - whatever else you might think of Steve Irwin, good or bad, nobody can deny the tragedy of a wife and two young children losing their husband and father. That, in itself, is surely not a particularly controversial opinion. Leeborkman 01:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

FedEX?

Wasnt Steve in a FedEx commercial?

--Johnston49er 06:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. And, as with all things video, it's on YouTube. —C.Fred (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Photos of the accident

Apparently the National Enquirer is claiming that it has photos of the stingray attack on Irwin (it's a front page story this week). I think it's rather distasteful and have no intention of picking up the magazine to see it for myself but maybe someone else has. Can anyone confirm that these photos are genuine? Since the article discusses the video, it is probably appropriate to indicate if photos of the incident have been published. 23skidoo 07:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we could claim the photos are fair use and add them to the article if they are ligit. And for those who have a moral stance against these images, such as not being in the article out of respect. read WP:NOT. My only issue is if we can get them for fair use.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 09:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

:-( You can't claim fair use on everything. National Enquirer will likely consider this an exclusive item and make it a selling point; redistributing it here is not fair for them. — LazyEditor (talk|contribs) 17:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The photos are bogus. If you turn to the Irwin article inside the National Enquirer, the caption states that the pictures are an "artist's rendition" of how the accident may have gone down. It's obvious the images of Steve are either cropped from another source or have been manipulated to look as if he's actually swimming with a stingray. Completely ridiculous and distasteful, the cover is meant to trick the reader into believing the photos are genuine, but the article shows otherwise. I suppose the National Enquirer goes just far enough to seem legit, but not far enough to get sued. Sorry everyone, but after watching the Barbara Walters special with Terri Irwin, I'm fairly positive we'll never see any pictures of the accident or the video. Everyone who witnessed Steve's death seem completely intent on destroying the tape. Barbara Walters herself revealed during a taping of "The View" that unrecorded discussions with Terri included the revelation that she prefers the tape destroyed as well. Unless someone inside police headquarters sneeks it out, the whole issue is probably moot at this point. Reynoldsrapture 20:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I was on Google Video the other day and I saw a listing for the Steve Irwin death video. I didn't watch it (nor do I ever want to), but does anyone know if THAT was legit? (I'm guessing not). - BNLfan53 Monday, 2006-10-02 T 02:02 UTC

I highly doubt it. -- Longhair\^talk 02:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I checked both Yahoo! and Google. All links to the so called video release are fake. Like I said earlier, the video will likely be destroyed, if it hasn't been already, due to the overwhelming support for its destruction by friends and family of Steve. You never know though. Reynoldsrapture 23:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The so called "death videos" are fake. One shows a scary face, one is a funny renactment of his death and others are just films of stingrays!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IMO the National Enquirer is not a reliable resource. Frankyboy5 03:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Coroners Report

• If this document is publicly released it should be added to Wikisource and referenced in the article, it would have much information on the death occurrence. MapleTree 14:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

There was a discussion about this some time ago (try the archives), and apparently it can take several years for such report to be released. — LazyEditor (talk|contribs) 16:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

"True Blue" means Australian? Does it really?

Does it? "True blue, dinky-di Aussie" obviously means "real Australian", but I'm not at all sure that "True Blue" means Australian. Could it not just means "genuine", "real", etc? Or is the phrase "true blue dinky-di Aussie" so well-known that the "dinky-di Aussie" part is assumed? Just wondering...Leeborkman 04:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Or possibly True Blue means "the opposite of un-Australian", ie "good". ?? Leeborkman 05:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Steve Irwin's Religion

'Claims that he had joined a church a short time before his death appear to be urban legend.

This was from the other personal information section.I don't know whether he attended church or not,but in Woman's Day,an Australian magazine,Terri Irwin stated that Steve Irwin believed in God.This is an excerpt from the magazine article below.(Directly preceding this was Terri stating her Christian faith)

"He (Steve) had a faith and I know we ran the gauntlet with it when his mother Lyn died.When he lost his mother,he really questioned God.You've got to have a strong belief in God to question him.Steve believed."

What do you think?Should we add something about this? Serenaacw 07:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I think he didn't hold any sort of clearly defined belief or doctrinal system (i.e. not religious; not a defined atheist or agnostic either). Talking about his belief system is sort of an argument ex nihilo. There is certainly no evidence that he was a churchgoer. Slac speak up! 07:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say he was a churchgoer,just that his wife said he believed in God.Serenaacw 07:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible to extract a view on his metaphysical position anywhere. The comment by his wife doesn't seem significant enough on its own to merit inclusion. Slac speak up! 08:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

So,something on Snopes is significant enough,but not his own wife?Serenaacw 08:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• I am inclined to agree with Serenaacw on this issue. If he/she can provide a citation for Terri Irwin's comments then it is certainly acceptable for the article to mention Steve's theism. Though no evidence can be found of a particular religion, the fact that Terri is Christian and that she stated that her husband Steve believes in God assures that he was a theist. At this point the article seems to be biased against religion in terms of what Steve's beliefs were.— OLP 1999 09:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not "biased against religion" any more than Irwin himself was. He wasn't a practicing anything. Given that he always presented himself as a practical, straightforward character, I doubt he engaged in metaphysical speculation much - and he never espoused his own views publicly. Perhaps I'm being harsh when I say this, but a gushy Women's Day puff piece no, is not as good a source as Snopes. Irwin never described his beliefs (although he was extremely candid in other respects), so the article should respect that. Slac speak up! 10:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Steve's profession was wrangling crocodiles and preserving wildlife—not preaching religion. Of course he never spoke about religion while on television, and when he was being interviewed the interviewer didn't care about his beliefs they cared about what he did as a naturalist. The fact is, however, that we have a reliable source from a magazine citing Terri Irwin (his own wife) commenting that Steve was a basic theist in the least, and that his faith in God "survived" through the death of his mother and so on. The citation currently cited in the article that calls Steve's Christian convert a "hoax" does not address whether he believed in God. The Women's Day article does. If anything, short mention of his theism deserves to be in the article somewhere (with citation, given Serenaacw can provide one)—his religion is no more unimportant or trivial than any other of his personal information and should not be biased against. Also, your opinion that Snopes is more of a reliable source than Women's Day is based on absolutely nothing, besides perhaps your personal wish for Steve to have been an agnostic? Just picking at straws here.— OLP 1999 18:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

My faith in Snopes ahead of Women's Day is based on the fact that one of these two spends time researching its subject in depth, and is a non-profit, source-citing, reliable information provision service. The other is not a news magazine, it's not a specialist magazine, it's not written by experts, it's just a commercial enterprise aimed at capitalising on some given popular sentiment among the population. Frankly, even Irwin's wife is not a definitive source on this matter - she of course may have certain views that she wants to put forward after her terrible loss.

My personal wish is that we avoid hagiographically attributing to him some devotion that did not exist - in fact, this reminds me of the story circulating among Evangelicals that Snopes debunks, presenting George W. Bush as "witnessing" to a young man. There is a recurring tendency among segments of the population to assert that any given "good person" had some sort of religious belief - fatuously making believers for example of people such as Diana or even Charles Darwin. This is what I'm quite keen to avoid. Slac speak up! 23:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's "what you're quite keen to avoid", which is why I believe your biases are warping your guidance with this issue. If things were reversed and Snopes had said Steve believed in God would you then question their reliability? I find it out of line to question Steve's own wife, his companion, on her comments just because it was about the beloved naturalist's *gasp* religious beliefs. We're not trying to say he was an every-Sunday church-goer, but if testimony from Terri such as "..Terri Irwin claimed their child was in no more danger than one being taught to swim" is reliable enough for submittal, I hardly see it fair for you to assume she "had certain views (i.e. - lies?) she wanted to put forward" in this case but that she's completely reliable when it comes to other information about him. If it was testimony about Steve's favorite TV show rather than his religious beliefs than it would already be in the article. One thing I dislike is the liberal bias on Wikipedia always winning out and phasing out or strongly questioning anything remotely religious. In this case your personal "feeling" that these sources must be unreliable when it favors you is not reason to dismiss inclusion altogether. I think we need other opinions, here. — OLP 1999 02:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I hope that we wouldn't included Steve' favourite TV show. That is the whole point, as far as I'm concerned, ie Steve's favourite TV show is in no way notable, nor does his religious belief seem to be. If Steve had ever made a public point about his religious beliefs, or if there were some documented connection between his beliefs and his 'notable' actions, then (and only then) would including these things be justified. As a matter of interest, I just checked the Paul McCartney article, and it doesn't mention religion at all. Why not? because it's not notable. JFK, on the other hand, was largely notable for being the first Catholic president. So that's worth including. Don Bradman's behaviour was apprently affected by his beliefs and secular conflict was significant in his relationships with other Australian cricketers of the time, so in that case it is notable and should be included. But what is the significance of Steve Irwin's religious beliefs? Leeborkman 02:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The Paul McCartney article doesn't mention Paul's religion within text, however he is placed in the "Roman Catholics" Wikipedia category. Although religion is not of prime interest to someone researching Steve or Paul's lives, it was/is a part of their lives and identities. It can be an identity as much as a nationality is. Are you saying we should remove all opening statements referring to nationality such as "Bob McGrath was an Australian singer" or "Bob Schneider was a Jewish–American entertainer" because it's insignificant? Many in the Middle East identify themselves by religion, not by nationality, and thus religious status should be merited for inclusion or at least categorization. Every Jew I have read up in the Wiki was in the "Jewish singers" or "Jewish (insert profession here)" categories, so why is this unacceptable? I'm not necessarily requesting we include the information in the article itself, but we could put Steve into a theist category. No harm done, it's part of his identity, much like Paul McCartney.— OLP 1999 02:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Adding a theist category would be okay, I imagine, if you have some documented reason to think that this is in fact true (the evidence, including Terri's rather cryptic remarks, is pretty meagre). Even then, I'm still a bit concerned by the implication that every private aspect of someone's life becomes public property when that person becomes a public figure. Steve apparently did not make public any religious beliefs, and as far as we know nobody has claimed that his notable work was driven by religious belief, so I'm still thinking that it's a bit weird to include it. I really wonder what the point of having a Theists category, if it includes people who were not notably theists, but ony incidentally thesists ;-) Leeborkman 02:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I just can't get past the fact that for some reason it's a big deal and we need about 60 citations just to say Steve was a theist. Nowhere in McCartney's article does it mention he's a Catholic, like you said, but he's still in the category. There isn't a citation claiming his Catholicism, it just must be known from some souce. Our "some source" is Terri's own words. I believe we should trust her over anyone or anything else when it comes to Steve, and how could anyone disagree? And as for there being a "point" to having a Theist category, there probably isn't one, it's just general interest for people to wonder what a celebrity's religion is, much like the whole Scientology affair. I'm not even sure if there's a generic "Theists" category, but if there is one than Steve should be included. Not anything specific like a Christian category, but it is general interest that Steve was a theist.— OLP 1999 02:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, go ahead if you think it is appropriate. If Terri said it (I don't know what she said), and it wasn't just her own conjecture like "you have to have a strong belief in God to question God" (you don't), and you think it's notable, then include it. As a general principle, though, I'd like to see all non-notable personal matters like this removed from the whole of Wikipedia, because it's invasive and tabloid-ish, not because I have anything particular against Theism. Leeborkman 04:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Do we know what Steve's favourite colour was? (I heard that Terri said it was blue). We should include that too! Really, why would we want to include anything about Steve Irwin's religious beliefs? Are these beliefs (or lack of them) in any way notable? Isn't notability the relevant criterion? Leeborkman 01:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Steve's favorite color is hardly important compared to his religious belief. If he was a theist than God was an important part of his life. A quote from the very article here already states that Steve has said that Bindi Sue was "the reason he was put on the Earth.", which implies that someone had to have "put him on Earth". And as for notability of his religious beliefs...there are plenty of non-notable things in the article, such as when Steve and Terri met and other tidbits about Steve's personal life. This is just as, if not more, important information.— OLP 1999 02:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, you would have to make the case that Steve's religious beliefs were more important than his fave colour ;-) But I agree that there is much here that is non-notable and should be removed. This is always the problem with articles about "current" figures - the articles tend to become bogged down in stuff that is trivial (or at least of temporary interest). So let's cull! Leeborkman 02:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well,the purpose of the quote was not to push an agenda or anything like that.But if you are going to mention the snopes article in the personal info section,then Terri's comment should be put in too.No-one is trying to say that he is 'religous ' or a 'church-goer' but in the interests of a balanced article,it should be mentioned.Serenaacw 05:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Quotable Quotes

Don't just delete, please, I truly invite Quotes, I have little idea who this guy is, as I have never seen a special on TV. I am SURE he has some famous and known lines, along the lines of "Never tease an angry crock," or whatever it is he was passionate about. "Pick up your litter, or the babies suffer." Thanks, I am not a newbie, I hope hyou leave Quotes in this time! Wendy Wendy 02:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

No, i'm going to delete the section again. It's in the realms of WikiQuotes. Steve Irwin does have a entry on WikiQuotes, and a link to his entry on WIkiquote has been added in a very obvious spot at the top of the article. Having a "Quotable Quotes" section on his wikipedia article is redundant.

Unless there're quotes of his that for some particular reason, justify having a section on his wikipedia article, the link to wikiquotes should be sufficient. --Yaksha 02:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Perfect! Thank you, Yaksha Wendy Wendy 02:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Was he drugged?????

On a tabloid newspaper called The Globe, the front page says :was he drugged?? Also they claim that Terry got a "shocking makeover". Is this true? I don't have the newspaper or whatever so I dunno. Frankyboy5 23:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)