Talk:Steve Irwin/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

---

POV?

With all due respect to the dead subject, I am a little uncomfortable with the statement "Irwin's personality and outrageous antics in the series made him an international celebrity". While he certainly was a great guy, that doesn't really sound very neutral to me, sounds more like a point of view/opinion. Thoughts?--Badharlick 10:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, "outrageous antics" doesn't sound very positive to me! pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's neutral - those are the things that made him an international celebrity, which I think everyone will agree he was. - Davokills

He was outrageous, for sure. As I'm sure many people commented while watching him, "What sane person would do that?"

Badharlick may have a point here, about the word if not the sentiment. "Outrageous" actually means immoderate, shocking, grossly cruel, immoral or offensive. Perhaps "eccentric" is more suited? Devious Viper 13:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

But that's not the common usage of the word, which Wikipedia says we should use. Something tells me you'd be in favour of retaining the title "Red Army Faction" over a change to "Red Army Fraction" (which is the proper translation), so at the same time you should expect that the connotations of "outrageous" far outweigh its denotations. Professor Ninja 14:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

September 3 or 4

The article says he died september 4 at 11:00am but right now is september 4 and it's 2:40.Did he died september 3.User:Alfredosolis

It was 11:00am Eastern Standard Time for Australia where he was. VoRn 09:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)VoRn

He died today at around 0100 UTC time, or 11:00am local time. --DavidHOzAu 09:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

He died just after 11.00am (Australian Eastern time) on Monday 4 September. The news broke about 3 hours later after his family had been informed. The first edit was made to the Wikipedia article at about 2.13pm (but reverted shortly afterwards as unverified), so the article was amended very quickly after the event. --Canley 09:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Mate, that comment is one of the all-time pearler's i've ever seen on Wikipedia! Mike2680 12:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I totally have to agree, and secondly, it's the fourth of september not september four or four september. The later two imply that there are 4 different septembers, this is impossible in one year. Learn to speak english. Nick carson 14:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

funny how the wikipedia timestamp says 4 september. stop being so pedantic.

Why does it say he was taken to Cairns Base Hospital, and "where Irwin was pronounced dead on arrival at noon." when the Reference it points to says something completely different "The response unit left in a helicopter for the Batt Reef at 11.18am and arrived shortly after. Mr Irwin was pronounced dead at the scene immediately, the spokeswoman said." Can someone change that? Chard Kingchard 12:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe to be announced dead, a doctor has to sight the body, and check for any signs of life. I know when I last worked in a hospital that was the case. Steve would have been a DOA. 203.36.234.46 13:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Crikey Link

There is a link to his phrase "Crikey!" which goes to an article about the website crikey.com, which I feel holds no relevance to his catch phrase.

I've removed the link. --Canley 09:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

MSN Messenger

Please feel free to revoke me if you want, but given that there will be all sorts of things done by people all over the world in tribute to, and in memory of Steve, I don't feel that the MSN Messenger icon fact is particularly important to an encyclopedia article. I've removed it - I hope that's okay. Ormondroyd 09:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

...aah, I see it's gone already. Ormondroyd 09:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed it, and have asked the editor for a source. Even then, I don't think it's notable enough for inclusion. -- Longhair 09:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Just wait for now- its taken a fairly strong grip on MSN right now. Maybe in a day or two if there is a news article on it then include the MSN reference. Ronan.evans 11:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I just re-removed it. It's certainly WP:OR right now. — ceejayoz ^talk 12:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

What are pps doing for MSN? everyone I know is using the turtle infront of their username (tu).--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 12:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello, can I get an answer

A bunch of people adding turtles in their msn name is hardly encyclopedia worthy. If some news agency reports it, then it might be. Now, it's just a "he, all my classmates have a turtle.. so millions of other users must be doing it too!" thing. -- Mystman666 ^(Talk) 13:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I was just payed out by a wikipedian. Thats the lowest of lows.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 14:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

May I ask if the turtle has anything to do with Steve Irwin? I read that Harriet was a pet of Steve? Is that correct? Somewhere else I saw a pic of a turtle stung by stingray included in the middle of Steve's death report. Is there anything to do with turtles in Steve's personal or professional life? --ADTC 16:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Turtle - see Elseya irwini which I unfortunately tagged as a hoax --ArmadilloFromHell 16:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

On the news...

news.com.au has a story about the vandalism of the page. Iorek85 10:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

"Irwin's Wikipedia page defaced". Let us add: "and reverted in record time". pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the media always misses that, don't they? --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

And at least here we keep a public record of changes. Remember the article on Wikipedia vandalism that itself carried the title "CORRECTED:"? — ceejayoz ^talk 12:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Slow news day or what? They have to write about articles on wikipedia?

"INTERNET encyclopedia Wikipedia was forced to remove an offensive message posted on its entry for Steve Irwin within minutes of the Crocodile Hunter's death earlier today. Within minutes of the news of Irwin's death breaking this afternoon, someone had written: "Steve Irwin's dead! LOLOLOLOLOL!" on the biography of the Australian icon. The entry was quickly spotted and removed from the page." In the future, you guys may want to read beyond the headline before getting your knee all jerked up. The prompt revision was mentioned once in the opening paragraph, as the lead sentence, and once more as the entire third paragraph following directly on the elaboration. Professor Ninja 14:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone support me in creating an article explaining the way certain media do things like that? Nick carson 14:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Pathetic! "Internet encyclopedia Wikipedia was forced to remove an offensive message" Seems they can't quite grasp the concept. L3p3r 15:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Birth place

According to Upper Ferntree Gully he was born in William Angliss Hospital, but according to this page, Steve Irwin, he was born in Essendon. Which page is right? (at least before the page was just vandalised :-()

• In the BBC News' obituary http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5311982.stm they say Essendon. --Beeurd 13:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Essendon is a suburb of Melbourne, and the William Angliss Hospital is a hospital in Melbourne, so he was either born in william angliss or he was born at home in essendon, thats the question you should be asking. Nick carson 14:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

What was the name of his Antarctica doco?

--Greasysteve13 10:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The documentary is called Ice Breaker [1] [2]--TBCTaLk?!? 10:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

thanks--Greasysteve13 10:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

This article talk page has recieved over 100 edits in the last 3 hours. It is going to need frequent archiving. Exercise caution and ensure that important discussions arent lost. Gnangarra 10:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Please be more careful when doing this in future, you removed one of my recent questions before anyone could respond to it. I've put it back, but I'd rather not have to keep doing this. --Badharlick 11:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I thought archiving was for old discussions (from weeks/months ago), not for current discussions that people might still want to respond to. 217.34.39.123 11:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The intention was to archive earlier discussions including speculations about the current news and tributes that where aprt of 100+ edits to this page inside 3 hrs at that stage. The volume of edits was causing conflicts in achieving this so I quickly cut then pasted and was in the process of linking the archive back when Badharlick highlighted his question. I hadnt had the opportunity to check all the removed for any discussions that needed to be returned. Gnangarra 14:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Order of Australia

According to Terri Irwin's wiki entry (and backed up by the Croc Hunter website), she has an AM for services to tourism however it appears Steve does not. Is that true? --bacco007 10:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think so..I mean Steve did once get the Australian of the Year award..not too sure though =/ EmeZxX 12:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Steve Irwin did get Australian of the year award, that was Steve Waugh, a cricket player. Nick carson 14:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Sprotected...again

Had to do it. We were literally having 3-4 edits a minute. It was so many that it was impossible to patrol. We'll give it a little bit of time. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Half-staffing?

Ok, since I am from the US, I could not register with the Aussie Commonwealth Flag Network, which updates about flag half-staffing. Can anyone confirm if the Aussie flags are going to be half-staffed for Irwin, and if so, for how long? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

As much as Steve was loved and respected, I wouldn't imagine that flags will be flown half mast tomorrow. Nickuss

That's alright, I wouldn't probably expect anything until Monday or Tuesday (though I know PM Howard gave a statement). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there a precedent for this? I thought this sort of thing, if used at all, would be reserved for the likes of the Royal Family. 217.34.39.123 12:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think 217.34.39.123 is correct. I'm pretty sure that half masts are reserved for royals and key officials within the Commonwealth. I think it's shocked a lot of people (myself included) but at the end of the day he's a naturalist and celebrity rather than an official, albeit a popular one. I'm trying to think if there have been any half-masts for similarly popular people, can't think of any one immediately. Groovycathers 12:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Our own article Half-staff states it is reserved for members of the royal family, the GG, distinguished citizens and foreign heads of state. Local flags may be flown at half mast, but I'd be very surprised if federal flags are lowered, if that's what you mean, Zscout. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• It would be allowable - Flags in any locality can be flown at half-mast on the death of a local citizen or on the day, or part of the day, of their funeral. as per the official Commonwealth flag website http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/symbols/flag.cfm#halfmast Be interesting to know whether Federal flags were lowered for Bradman in 2001--Arktos ^talk 12:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Flags WERE flown for Bradman. I clearly remember it at school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.116.185 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 4 September 2006

Cause of death

I was reading this bit of dicsussion and it disappeared. Anyway, according to the official Australia Zoo website it was "stingray barb to his heart". :( Therefore citation 19 on the article page appears correct. Groovycathers 12:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

People really need to stop de-editing this article. He died instantly and was pronounced dead as soon as they brought him to the surface. I don't know why that's in dispute... some people just like to cause problems. Leave the death section be Luminafire 12:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If he was pronounced dead as soon as they brought him up, how do you explain the several attempts to revive him? Do you think Joe Bloe can pronounce a time of death? Some sources are claiming the venom killed him, others state it was a pierced heart. The post mortem will confirm that obviously. Mike2680 12:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

'pronounced dead as soon as they brought him up'? What, they had a doctor on board?--SilasM 15:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

rest in peace, croc hunter --85.124.140.242 13:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I heard today that it isn't the venom that actually kills you, it causes a reaction that then causes a heart attack, which only occurs if the strike is close enought to the heart. 203.36.234.46 13:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I was just watching CNN and they showed a statement OFFICIALLY from Steve's manager who was with him at the time of the accident. He said and I paraphrase, that Steve Irwin was punctured through the chest by the stingray barb and it "put a hole in his heart." He also added that he likely died instantly. It was not the venom, but the bayonet-like barb puncturing his heart and causing cardiac arrest. I'm not gonna edit the article, but I hope that I am a respected enough Wikipedian that my testimony helps resolve the matter. Since it was on CNN, I do not have a "source" officially and they have not updated their page to reflect the "through heart" testimony. The great kawa 14:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Wait till the results of the autopsy. It was conducted last night, so the official cause of death should be known sometime soon. Rafy 14:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

it's either the second or third recorded stingray attack in Australia...crazy...but anyway back to the topic at hand it would seem to be the actual barb puncturing his heart...almost like a spear than anything else that would have killed him Caleb09 15:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

S Protection

Please protect against anonymous IPs, etc. Thanks. —☆ CieloEstrellado 12:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! —☆ CieloEstrellado 12:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

THANK YOU FOR THE PROTECTION!

What happened to the sprotection? As soon as it was lifted, the vandalism came back! Please sprotect it again! A man just died — he shouldn't be made fun of! --Tachikoma 13:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah..I've been checking on this page for about an hour, and the vandalism thing keeps coming on and off. - EmeZxX 14:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Antarctic incident

what happened to that section...? pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Was merged into a Controversy section. Having a section with two short sentances is pointless, thus it was merged into one. Info is still all there, it just looks less scrappy now. Cvene64 12:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Short sections = inspiration for expansion, yo. :P pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

True, but anymore on the Antartic incident would be superfluous. Sections that could do with expanding would be image and Animal Planet. Cvene64 13:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Species of Stingray??

Anyone able to determine, which specific species of Stingray was the culprit? If so, we should add it to the article. I assume it was a very large species. LindaWarheads 12:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC) - Quite Possibly, but due to the vast number of 'rays it would just be impossible to determine what species killed Steve, let alone include it in the article. --Maxasus 13:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)::

It was a bull ray according to CNN's website and wildlife "man" Ben Cropp, here's a link: ([3]).

Picture of Stingray Barb

Hi, just curious about something, earlier on there was a picture of a stingray's barb in the death section. Just wondering why it was taken down. I'm not up to speed yet with the going's on here so just want to clarify. Thanks --Happyfriday 14:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I assume because someone thought it was in poor taste. -- markpregen 07:37, 4 September 2006 (PDT)

I'd say it's poor taste to be put on this page...maybe as a compromise link to article on that species (if it already exists) and perhaps a picture could be put there?TJ0513 15:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

murder weapons are show in court all the time, in front of the victims family. i hardly think the barb pic caused any offence and should be re-instated. it gives a good idea of how easily it can pierce human flesh.

I agree. Showing the method of his death is hardly offensive for an encyclopaedia, especially given that the manner of death is so rare, and is not as familiar as one would expect from a gunshot, stabbing, or explosion. My only suggestion for this, from an informative standpoint, is to include at least a basic scale for the image of the barb (for example, "the average stingray barb is x cm in length." Professor Ninja 15:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

-- First thing I wanted to see was how a Stingray Barb could actually kill someone. - Dan

Readded Trivia Section

Re added it for the sole reason that it is to be reworked into prose, which is going to be difficult if nobody can read what is supposed to be reworked. All the user that took out the trivia section "as per" the to do list did was delete it wholesale, which is not what the to do list instructed at all. I suggest leaving it for now until the editing dies down and somebody can use that section to rewrite it in full an in context, instead of just excising it completely and leaving whoever has to prune it to wade through what will become an invariably lengthy history. Professor Ninja 14:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

How soon does this article become locked?

It's only a matter of time before the "tripling elephants" fanboys move in on this one. -Utopianfiat 15:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandals

This page is getting a LOT of vandalism. I think it needs to be locked down for now. Jasonid 15:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 15:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

this is crazy 50 edits(almost half are reverts) in 11 minutes to the article please someone put a tempory lock inplace Gnangarra 15:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The news outlets are going to have a field day with this one Jasonid 15:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree this page is getting too much vadalism and it is too hard to determine which edit is valid with so much traffic. Some comments too insensitive, so a lock down would show good protocal until things calm down. LogicUser 15:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this link suitable?

Should we include this link on the page? (link below). It is a video on YouTube, relating to Steve Irwin's death. [4]

been removed by youtube

re-instated by youtube

Vandalism

There's been a tad too much vandalism. Can we ban new and unregistered users from modding the article?

we need to have this page protected. Can anyone please get a Admin to do that? dposse 15:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[5] ESPECIALLY ON THE DAY HE DIED!

Dis-tasteful! PLEASE PROTECT THIS ITS HORRIBLE WHAT SOME IDITOS ARE DOING :(

--Zeldamaster3 15:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been watching,reverting as well as archiving the talk page for over 9 hours today that isnt anywhere near the worst of the comments thats have been reverted. more the pitty that someone would do this to anyone. Gnangarra 15:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think vandalism is the incorrect word to use as it suggests that the offense is punishable by law. I think something like 'pratting around' is suffice.

Will you *----* off if you don't know anything about Wikipedia procedures and terminology. Read Wikipedia:Vandalism before expounding your worthless opinions on the matter. On the original subject, I'd like to add my voice to the call for admin intervention, but for semi-protection please, as most of the vandalism is coming from anons. The rate of editing on this article is very high and it's difficult to keep track of the changes. 86.134.213.12 15:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

please refrain from losing your temper. more people will like you as a result. thanks in advance. please also bare in mind that young children use this site frequently and should not be reading such words as used by yourself.

I am not concerned about whether people like me or not, particularly illiterates such as yourself. The young children reading this site will be far more distressed when they look up their dead hero and see that his article has been vandalised. You may think an innocuous four-letter word is worse than what you idiotically describe as "pratting around", but you are most certainly wrong. Please leave the management of Wikipedia to those wiser than yourself. 86.136.7.160 12:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is currently posted on ITN/main page. As per WP:PP: "Articles linked from the main page should NOT be protected (full or semi) except to clean up vandalism. Protection should be kept to 10-15 minutes in these cases." Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The edits were flowing too fast. Just in adding the semi-protection notice, I had to re-edit the page twice because the edits of others were reverting my addition of the notice. Attempts to revert vandalism would be similarly afflicted. - Mark 15:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

After seeing the frequency of the vandalism (+40 edits in less than two minutes), I had to put the sprotect back on. Yes, I would rather have sprotect on if the frequency of the vandals, along with our vandal fighting bots, leads to numerous the edit conflicts. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I have semi-protected this article (which seems to have happened several times today already). There is far too much traffic on this article for any legitimate effort to stop vandalism. The effect of this semi-protection is to stop newly-registered accounts and anonymous contributors from changing the article. In the meantime, if there is something of probative value to add to the article, these changes may be suggested here on the talk page. Thank you for your understanding and co-operation. - Mark 15:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

And it got unprotected a few minutes later. "that anybody can edit": 1, "an encyclopedia": 0. -/- Warren 15:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

After seeing the frequency of the vandalism (+40 edits in less than two minutes), I had to put the sprotect back on. Yes, I would rather have sprotect on if the frequency of the vandals, along with our vandal fighting bots, leads to numerous the edit conflicts. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

3rd or 4th

The article has that he was fatally stung on the 3rd, but his death date is the 4th. Which one is correct?Joniscool98 15:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Nevermind...it's been fixed.Joniscool98 15:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)