Jump to content

Talk:Steve Irwin/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Deaths from Stingrays

An 12 year old Indigenous Australian boy died from a Stingray stab-wound in 1986. This is in addition to the soldier who died in the St Kilda Baths in 1944.

Soldier in 1945, boy in 1988, woman in 1938 seems to be what I find... Skittle 10:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Date format

Put the date format back to how it belongs, right now. It is not the 22nd February to exist, and it is not February number 22, it is the 22nd of February, 2006. Steve Irwin was an Australian, and he did not speak 'American English', This is the 'English Wikipedia', not the 'American English Wikipedia'. Nick carson 02:46, 5 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? --Brian May 20:09, 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)
The assertion in the Upper Ferntree Gully article was the only web based reference to him being born in that hospital. I removed the assertion as it was unverified - it is also excessively trivial - it doesn't matter which hospital had which famous people born in it. IMDB gives Irwin's place of birth as Essendon [1] as does [2] which in turn references http://steve-irwin.biography.ms/ but that site is too busy to view.--Arktos talk 00:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not?

Why not just block the IPs of the vandals, rather than protecting and unprotecting several times an hour? -24.92.41.95 23:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That might work, unless the IP of the vandal is a shared IP. --GVOLTT 23:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Because we'd spending hours banning thousands of IPs when we should be editing this article to report on the events that's happening. dposse 23:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Though the edit themselves are considered vandalism the majority are just tributes and that we should assume they were done with good intentions Gnangarra 23:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Hahaha. Then i guess you weren't here when people kept putting pictures of penieses on the article, multiple times within a few minutes of time. Along with the server issues Wikipedias as experiencing, it made things impossible! dposse 23:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
We do block the IP addresses that vandals are using. But keep in mind that there are over 253^4 IP addresses in the world. That's more than enough for vandals to get a hold of and leave us trying to block IP addresses indefinitely. --Cyde Weys 00:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

archiving - again

This page is again become extremely large and should have completed discussion archived. As I havent been on for 7 hours could someone who has been monitoring this page do an archive. leaving only those discussions that are still ongoing. Gnangarra 23:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

There must be a better way to handle breaking news!

Hi, I find it very sad to see how this page has been edited over the last day. Even ignoring the vandalism, the whole idea of re-writing the entire article in the past tense, etc, as the news is actually coming in, is very poor. Why not just put a simple Breaking News box near the top of the existing article, saying first that there have been reports, then that the reports have been confirmed, etc. No changes to the main body of the article until the breaking news is in. Would this not be a better way to handle this? Apart from considerations of taste and sensitivity, this just seems like very poor practice. Just my two cents' worth... Leeborkman 00:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is the rewriting of the article poor? It's improper NOT to keep the first first reference point for so many people updated? Steve Irwin is dead. This is fact. Also fact is that I will die, and you will die. If you have an issue with mortality, that's your own problem. --202.173.191.116 09:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your objection. Once someone has died the article should be rewritten to be in past tense. It's a simple matter of grammar. Keep in mind Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a wire news reporting service, so you can't expect everything to also stay consistent in terms of tense or what not. In the end it all gets ironed out though. That's the wiki process at work. --Cyde Weys 00:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly my point. This is an encyclopedia, not a wire news reporting service. Hasty up-to-the-second updates do nothing for the credibility of this site. What's the rush. You say "once someone has dies the article should be rewritten", and I agree, but this does not necessarily mean it should be rewritten on-the-fly, as the reports are still coming in. Leave the news to the news services, and treat this site as an encyclopedia. That requires a little distance and perspective. I love the wiki process, but that doesn't mean that things cannot be done better. As I said, I would have gone with a simple side-bar noting the gist of the breaking news, followed by a complete re-write some time after the dust has settled. I don't know if that could have been managed, but I believe that the result would have been much more professional. Leeborkman 00:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
agree with User:Cyde on this. Also Wikipedia is very dynamic, looking at the history as news did break, it was incorporated as best as concensus dictated, the true issue was due to the popularity of the man, the juvenile behavior of some vandals, it made the work of the regular editors very difficult... My hats off to everyone involved in this effort as this is obviously a great tragedy to the editors of this article as well (one generally edits what one is interested in) UnseemlyWeasel 00:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Among other differences, a key element that sets Wikipedia apart from other encyclopedias is our ability to rapidly update articles as situations change. Why would we want to suppress one of our best qualities? —David Levy 01:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Because such haste makes Wikipedia editors seem a little creepy, among other things. What was your first thought upon hearing of Steve's death? Quick, I'd better update his Wikipedia article! It won't look good when it is eventually reported that Steve's article was changed to past tense within 12 seconds of the first rumour of his death, and that Terri Irwin's article went from "wife" to "widow" even sooner. That's not impressive... that's callous, or at least that is how it appears to me. An encyclopedia is better off floating a little way above the minute-by-minute news. Leeborkman 01:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say that we should rush to post unverified rumors. We have plenty of concrete information now, and I don't see how including it in the article is "creepy" or "callous." —David Levy 01:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, my concern is not that these were unsubstantiated rumours, merely that these events were still current and emotive, so there should be some pause for reflection. Without wishing to imply anything, and please ignore me if you find this offensive, but I wonder what the motivation was of the first person who changed the article to past tense. That's the first thing that crossed my mind when I saw the changed article, and imagine that would be a fairly common response. It looks callous to me. It would be different if this site were maintained by machines - instant updates would seem perfectly natural - but humans are humans and their actions (eg, instantly changing an article to past tense upon hearing of the subject's death) are sure interesting. This will end up the subject of someone's doctoral thesis. Thanks for giving me a hearing. Leeborkman 02:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Presumably, that person's motivation was to improve the article's accuracy. I'll also note that given the widespread expectation that Wikipedia will be up-to-date, many people would be disturbed to find the article written in the present tense (as though no one cared enough about Irwin to update it). If anything, that would come across as insensitive. —David Levy 02:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I definately agree with Leeborkman, an encyclopedia should not be concerned with maintaining a news-like persona. They should at least wait till everyone knows the facts rather than having unconfirmed reports clogging articles. Since news sites get rolled by hoaxed all the time, a slowly slowly approach for an encyclopedia might better suit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.164.195.56 (talk • contribs) 06:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC).

I agree with the first comment. To have a box or a seperate page maybe to handle all the reports as they come in would be a good idea, and would not hinder wikipedia's ability to be a constantly updated encyclopedia. After a few days, when reports become confirmed and circumstances become clearer, the original document can be changed with some perspective. (By the way, sorry if this is not the correct way to voice my opinion. I'm new!) --130.194.13.103 01:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

After a few days? Numerous key details surrounding Irwin's death have been officially confirmed. Why should we wait? —David Levy 01:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

HI!! Just as a matter of interest, I have raised this general issue on the talk page of the Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons page. It just seems worthwhile forming a general WP policy on how these things are handled, so that we don't end up debating this same issue every time someone dies. Thanks for all the responses. Leeborkman 06:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

What's all the fuss about the past and present tense? As far as I'm concern, anybody that cared about this article is most likely to be affected by Steve Irwin's death, and I believe the person who rewrote this article did it because he felt deeply about his death, and just wanted to do something about it. It's not as if there are prizes or rewards to be given out to the first person that rewrite all the tenses when someone died, are there? People edit stuffs out of their own free time and goodwill, and I don't think flaming them is the right thing to do. — Scuder1a 14:22, 5 September 2006 (+8 GMT)
Gee! I hope I haven't flamed anyone, Scuderia! And I'm not trying to cause any fuss. I just wonder if there is a better way to do this, so I'm trying to ask that question in the appropriate place. Wikipedia is rightly concerned with its reputation, and I think that this is the kind of issue that could affect it. As you can see, the view is not unanimous (even though I do appear to be in the minority) and the question is certainly of interest to me. If it's not of interest to you, then I apologise for taking up your time. Thanks. Leeborkman 06:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I dont think you can plan for such events and its a credit to those who have maintained and developed this article in last 24hours to even have achieved anything considering the volumes of edits taking place. Steve Irwin was an exceptional person in the way he touched so many lives most living people when they pass wont recieve anywhere near this kind of attention. I say create what ever policy you feel necessary but this event shouldnt be used as the basis nor should the policy be designed to accommodate a similar situation. Gnangarra 06:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

protecting talk pages?

Is it possible to protect this talk page from random IP addresses? That idiot keeps vandalising this page with his spam, although he keeps getting IP banned. dposse 00:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I had come up with this idea, and this would probably work, unless this user registers. Then again, newly registered users would also be blocked. --GVOLTT 00:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is possible. If that "idiot" isn't a good case for closing Wikipedia to anon's altogether, I don't know what is. -- Longhair 00:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes we can - but it is pretty grim if we do. He is now spamming all sorts of pages. A range block might be in order. What does he think he is doing - hardly respectful to "his hero"--Arktos talk 00:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Then please semi protect this talk page. We need to get to work here, and this "tribute" spam is screwing everything up. dposse 00:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think protecting this page is a good idea. It is very much against the spirit of wikipedia. I have started to try range blocks.--Arktos talk 00:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. I'm not too sure that will work but you can try it. I know it's against the spirit of wikipedia, but we have to be practical here. dposse 00:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The real solution here is to locate the owner of that ip range. It's probably owned by their employer, university, or similar. Report them via email, telephone, whatever it takes. I think they'd stop and think then, faced with the scale of disruption they're unfolding here. People value their incomes and futures. Sometimes you need to hit them just as hard back as they're hitting you. -- Longhair 00:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Possibly helpful links [3] and [4]. --GVOLTT 01:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That's not very practical. We need to do something now to solve this. dposse 00:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It's the most practicle solution offered so far. I'm blocking as fast as I can, and I assume they only need to move to the next seat to continue. -- Longhair 01:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I managed to get the two above websites added to the Meta Spamblocklist, let's see how this works. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I ended up with RIPE as the source too - The RIPE article states a forum open to all parties with an interest in the technical development of the Internet. The RIPE community’s objective is to ensure that the administrative and technical coordination necessary to maintain and develop the Internet continues. - bit of a joke when this jokers actions will perhaps prevent that aim--Arktos talk 01:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

With the article semi-protected (as it should be), new and anonymous editors must access this talk page to request legitimate edits. Let's not sever their only practical means of constructive participation. —David Levy 01:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Look at the history of this talk page, my talk page, and G VOLTTs talk page, then come back here and say that with a straight face. dposse 01:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, readers generally don't turn to talk pages for encyclopedic information, so it isn't nearly as important to maintain their integrity as it is to do so with articles. Secondly, semi-protecting a talk page won't prevent the vandals from retaliating by striking elsewhere within the site. This is far less likely with articles, which are viewed and edited by many people who don't even visit talk pages (let alone edit them) and vandalized by users seeking high-visibility targets (articles receiving the most traffic). —David Levy 01:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

New Info On Last Moments

I have found new info (with a legitimate source) that states that Steve did not die instantly, but that after he had been stung he took the barb out of his chest before losing consciousness. Here is the reputable source: ([5]). The great kawa 00:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you find another source? CNN, Reuters, MSNBC, ABC News, ect? dposse 00:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[6] [7] ~Rangeley (talk) 01:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

eyewitness account here: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20356827-2,00.html

I have also heard similar reports...from my Mum! haha. But I think they're true, she heard it on the morning news. --130.194.13.103 01:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, Ninemsn is not exactly "unreputable." It is the face of the Channel Nine television network. I have put the information in by the way with a different link. Ansell 03:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The information about him pulling out the barb before he died has been reported in Singapore's Straits Times broadsheet. — Scuder1a 14:34, 5 September 2006 (+8 GMT)

It was on 3 News here in NZ just over an hour ago. Fra 011 011 07:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

References

Now that the article has calmed down a bit, can we pare down the references a tad? We do not need 40. We need maybe 10 total. --Woohookitty(meow) 00:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking into that right now. -/- Warren 00:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Ten might be a bit low. Let's be careful about what we erase. dposse 00:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I'll be careful... double-check my work! -/- Warren 00:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't know about anyone else, but I add a reference to almost every line I add to avoid the dreaded "unverified!" removal. pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. If we can reduce the number of distinct sources that all say basically the same thing, that's a good enough goal. I'd like to remove the New York Times reference, for example, but it seems to be the only source that's claiming that Irwin died of cardiac arrest. I added the word 'apparent' recently because of that. -/- Warren 01:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No, the times isn't the only one saying that. [8] dposse 01:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well 10 might be too low but 45 is definitely too high. Let's just see what's redundant. --Woohookitty(meow) 04:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The introduction

The intro right now is very weak. I feel it should be at least twice as long, and give a good overview of the whole article, could someone have a go at rewriting it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.231.74.131 (talk • contribs)

I disagree. I think it's fine. dposse 00:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Per WP:LEAD guidelines, it's far too short given the article's length. A lead section should be able to stand alone, and succinctly summarise the entire article. -/- Warren 01:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I took a crack at expanding it to explain his career and a note about his death. I think it's pretty correct and fair, but I'm not sure that the article supports everything I said, so it may come across as POV.--Dhartung | Talk 06:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Working on other Irwin articles

Just thought I'd let people know that The Crocodile Hunter: Collision Course movie redirects to The Crocodile Hunter tv series. I really think the movie needs its own article. So yeah, thought id let pple know.

Sure, there are more people here at the moment, but discuss that on the talk page to The Crocodile Hunter.

Newly registered users able to edit???

There have been recent vandal edits on the Steve Irwin article page (Check the history.). I thought there was semi-protection against IPs and newly registered users. This needs to be fixed. --GVOLTT 00:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep, Steve Irwin's article has been vandalized so many times since he died. That's the reason admin sprotected this page against vandals. Daniel's page ☎ 01:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Did you read me correctly? If you didn't, I guess I should have said these vandal edits were made by newly registered users after the sprotection was added. Refer to the following edits: [9], [10], [11], and [12]. --GVOLTT 01:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I read your comment correctly, But No, This article doesn't necessarily to be fully protected because there were not so many vandals on article. For example, 3 months ago, On article Al-Zarqawi who was leader of Terrorist group called Al-Qaeda. Like person who died on that day. There were many vandals on that article too. It happened like this time steven died. That's the problem when famous person died. I understand what you were referring to. Daniel's page ☎ 02:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I think you are missing GVOLTT's point. :) The reason why user's got around the semi protection because their accounts were "sleeper" accounts. These are accounts created but then not used until something like this occurs. User:Uhhhhh7777 is an example. he was the user who posted in the first example you put forth. His account was created on August 24th. Because his account was older than 4 days old, he was able to edit the page while it was semi-protected. I bet if you look at the other users, you will find the same situation. --Woohookitty(meow) 04:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Offered state funeral

Added. Thanks for the heads up! dposse 01:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks from me too, Mr. Howard mentioned a state funeral on his death. Daniel's page ☎ 01:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

From the article "Premier of Queensland Peter Beattie says that he has offered the Irwin family a state funeral for Steve Irwin.[1]" - where does the article say that? It says "Asked if his government would honour Irwin with a state funeral, Mr Beattie replied: "We will honour Steve Irwin in whatever way his family wants."" http://statements.cabinet.qld.gov.au/MMS/StatementDisplaySingle.aspx?id=48081 is the official statement and says nothing about a State funeral. --Oneeye 01:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It's the first sentence of the article.

"STEVE Irwin will get a state funeral if that's what his family wants, Queensland Premier Peter Beattie says." [13] I just rearranged the words a little to make it sound better.dposse 01:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Good Grief! Why don't they also ask Pope Benedict to canonize him as well? It's sad for the guy to have died, but a state funeral is taking it too far. TripleH1976 01:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Really? I think it'll be great and the fans and family will be happy as well. dposse 01:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
We gave Kerry Packer a State_Memorial Service which is the equivalent of a state funeral, also Don Bradman. Australians do honour people other than politicians.--Arktos talk 01:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


zScout: Yeah, but he's a huge political figure in his country. Him giving a state funeral to the Irwins is like the Vice President here giving one. dposse 01:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Irwin was not a huge political figure here--Arktos talk 01:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Just because it will make people happy doesn't mean it is the right thing to do. I think people are being rather sensationalistic about his death. TripleH1976 01:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I was talking about Queensland Premier Peter Beattie. Beattie is a huge political figure in his country. dposse 01:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Beattie is the premier of one of the states, the state in which Irwin lived and died in fact. Beattie is also a relatively long serving premier and yes is well known. He is not however in the federal sphere. Huge political figure does not mean much. It is within the Qld premier's power to offer a state funeral. Politicians like to make people happy cheaply and this is better than ahealth crisis. This coming weekend there is a state election!--Arktos talk 01:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, but his offer does hold weight, because of this emotionally charged situation, even if he doesn't have the power to do it. dposse 02:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
ah, sorry. i misunderstood. I don't know much about the government over there. dposse 02:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
As for PM Howard, he said here that while the option is still open, he will approach the family first before anything is official. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Which is why it says that they were "offered" one. dposse 02:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
It's the first sentence of the article.
"STEVE Irwin will get a state funeral if that's what his family wants, Queensland Premier Peter Beattie says."

Sorry to be pedantic but if you read the quotes not the reporter's headline interpretation, that is not what Beattie actually said. It says "Asked if his government would honour Irwin with a state funeral, Mr Beattie replied: "We will honour Steve Irwin in whatever way his family wants."" and this is supported by his official statement. As it stands the Wiki article implies that Beattie made an offer, he didn't, he responded to a reporter's question in an open and non-committal way. --Oneeye 02:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Does it matter? A reliable media source said it. Besides, what came first? The media report or the press release? dposse 02:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Protection and unprotection

Hey, thanks for consulting me first. Really. Couldn't have seen the light without you. Really. Seriously... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Why didn't you check that the issue had already been discussed and the porposal rejected first--Arktos talk 02:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The issue was posted on WP:AIV and was clearly a continued attack by, likely, a single user rotating IPs. Why didn't someone wait 15 minutes or so to give them time to move on or, per Wikicourtesy, contact the protecting admin before deciding to undo the action? RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Why didn't you extend the courtesy of participating in the relevant discussion on this page (instead of ignoring the feedback contained therein)? —David Levy 02:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally, it appears as though the vandal in question already moved on. Had you bothered to check the revision history, you'd have realized that. —David Levy 02:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
[after two edit conflicts] Thanks for bypassing the relevant discussion and ignoring my input on this issue.
The article's semi-protection template directs new and anonymous users to this page, and it's unacceptable for them to find that they're blocked from editing it too. —David Levy 02:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Because, once something is posted to WP:AIV, any admin checking that page is likely to view the relevant diffs to the report and act accordingly. This appeared on its face to be ongoing vandalism by a user rotating IPs; as such, blocking the IPs is often ineffective. If indeed the issue turns out to be more complex than it appears on its face, the courteous thing to do is inform that administrator of the "big picture", as it were, allowing for further action. Overruling the action is considered discourteous and outside protocol. Or, perhaps I'm just too by-the-book for my own good... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Again, it was discourteous of you to bypass the relevant discussion on this page. (You didn't even post a reply.) If this occurred because you weren't aware of the discussion's existence, it was irresponsible of you to protect a talk page without properly examining its contents.
And again, when you protected the page (with no explanation other than "Crikeys! Bloomin' sprouts..."), no vandalism had occurred since a full thirty minutes earlier (when the vandal announced that he/she was going to sleep). During that time, new and anonymous users posted several constructive questions and comments, and you locked them out. It seems as though you intervened without making any effort to investigate (so no, I wouldn't say that you're "too by-the-book"). —David Levy 02:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The investigation of vandalism in progress is often a by-the-seat-of-the-pants action limited to the targeted page itself; we all depend on each other to fill in any blanks. It appears, then, that we both dropped the ball. Please feel free to spend more time on WP:AIV, where we haven't seen you this year. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
No. You dropped the ball by protecting a page that hadn't been vandalized in thirty minutes (during which time nineteen edits had occurred), apparently without even bothering to examine its contents or revision history. You either dismissed or ignored a discussion in which the possibility of protecting the page was discussed and rejected. You did so without providing any justification, without including a link to any outside discussion, and without citing the report from WP:AIV. Now you're implying that I'm failing to fulfill my responsibilities as an administrator because I don't frequent the same project pages as you. Wow. —David Levy 03:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Protecting a talk page before reviewing the discussions on the talk page of a protected article with 1700 edits in less than 24 hours and where there is a discussion about protection of the talk page on that talk page discounts the efforts of the admins who have been working on protection and blocking. The intervention was discourteous to those of us who have been here. --Golden Wattle (formerly known as Arktos) talk 02:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
See my discussion above with appropriate apologies. I now depart permanently from this issue. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Protection

The page is protected, but there's tons of information about penis and anus. I'm pretty sure a sting ray's penis didn't kill the man, yet that's what the article says. Could the protected version of the page not defame this dead man?Kitler005 02:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

They did it right. The vandalsim it not on there now. Kitler could be looking at a version that's lagging on the server. pschemp | talk 02:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Wasn't within the edit I just made :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
It was taken out by a later edit, but the point is that an apparently very recent editor (named Annoythefish) modified it at 02:13, which was after the semi-protect was put in. Maybe it depends on how "recent" is defined here. Wahkeenah 02:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Um yes, as semi protect only stops new accounts and IP's, that would be correct. Vandalsim can still happen. So? pschemp | talk 02:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
So, what's the definition of "new" accounts? That guy seemed to be brand-new, with activity only starting yesterday or today. Unless he set up an account awhile back but made no edits. Wahkeenah 02:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
4 days or older. And yes he had to have registered it more than four days ago. Its the registration date that counts for semi protection, not the first edit. pschemp | talk 02:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
That's good idea to semiprotect this article's page for about 4 or 5 days. If this page is not protected, there will be more vandals and editing wars I guess. Daniel's page ☎ 02:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

cite web vs cite news

Someone went and changed all the cite news to cite web. Although the results are very similar, cite news is used for news articles that are posted on the web (thus the URL parameter) and cite web is reserved for sources that do not fit another category (like a press release or a online journal, etc - See Wikipedia:Citation templates. Any thoughts/explanations on why this change was made? --Trödel 02:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I make the distinction if I put the reference in myself, however, I would not bother refactoring or anything as the essential parts are the same. Ansell 02:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I am not planning on refactoring - but someone did feel that was necessary - and they probably don't know what they are doing - so I am hoping they read this and not go on a refactoring, edit enhancing romp through wikipedia :) --Trödel 03:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Would someone Please remove the unappropriate gesture about Mr. Irwin in the career section. If you don't have anything nice to say about someone, don't say anything at all!

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. [14]

No, of course not. dposse 02:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I dunno, opinions might vary, that's why I'm getting a poll of the opinions on the talk page.
I watched the video and I do not think it really belongs here at all. There are many folks using that site, among others, to express their views about Irwin's death and none of those "fansites" should be included here. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
YouTube about His death, That could be good ideas to put youtube on about Steven's death. Hmmm, Let's me figure out which one would be good for links. If somebody put any things on links, they might consider that he or she is spamming per WP:SPAM. How about Video that is similar to YouTube. Daniel's page ☎ 03:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Reference 29

I hate edit conflicts so much... Anyways: 

Immediately after the attack, Irwin was shown on tape pulling the barb out, before losing consciousness.[29]

Umm.. On AC 360 on CNN tonight, John Staiton said that the above is actually a bunch of bull. And that Irwin died after the barb pierced his heart. -24.92.41.95 02:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well he didn't die before it got his heart...What the point here? I'm confused. pschemp | talk 02:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
That made no sense. How could he pull the barb out before it got to his heart yet his heart was pierced by it? -24.92.41.95 02:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Get a citation from a reliable source. Try getting the transcript of the interview. dposse 02:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Transcripts are here, but they haven't been updated yet. -24.92.41.95 02:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
It an Australian newspaper, referencing someone on the boat, ie, John Stainton. So I see it as reliable. You would have to have something pretty convincing, like the tape itself, to rebutt it. Ansell 02:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Then we won't know for sure until the video is released to the public? -24.92.41.95 02:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems like it. dposse 02:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone might want to correct the dates on that one, the website has the report dated the 5th of September, not the 6th, and the retrieval date of the 6th of June 2006. Perhaps some kind of mistake? or someone just screwing around with the page? Ways 03:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Irwin's friend and manager, whose name I cannot recall, also stated that the claim was "rubbish". This happened on CNN at about 10 pm tonight, EST. It was a bit awkward because he calmly stated that he was "offended that [the interviewer] would even bring it up" AdamBiswanger1R.I.P. Steve Irwin 03:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, find the transcript, video, or some other reliable source. dposse 03:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think they will release this "snuff film" to the public? I doubt it... but that would probably be up to the family. I gather there is no autopsy report yet, so it is uncertain precisely what the cause of death was. It does stand to reason that he would have had a few seconds of consciousness in which to instinctively pull the stinger out, before succumbing to its effects. And I'm guessing that whatever word was on his mind at that moment wasn't "crikey!". Wahkeenah 03:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I was watching the CNN interview in question. Aired live at 9PM Central time. The anchor filling in for Anderson Cooper interviewed Jeff Corwin, Jack Hanna, and John Stainton. They are currently re-airing the program in question as I type this, so I just re-watched the segment in question. (AC360 on CNN). John Stainton was asked about the "rumor" that Steve pulled the barb out of his chest. John Stainton replied that it was absolutely ridiculous (in his words "pure rubbish"), and that he was "offended" by the question. John also said that he had not seen the video of Irwin's death and he had no desire to. "I don't want to see it". He also repeated the claim that Steve died instantly. This conflicts with other accounts from Stainton. Link to transcript: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0609/04/acd.01.html 12.215.141.83 05:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You should have also posted that he continued on saying this:

SANCHEZ: I'm -- I'm only asking this question because we would like to clear up something. There's a report out there that he actually reached out and -- and -- and grabbed the barb, being the courageous fellow that he was, and took it out after the -- after it happened. Is that true?

STAINTON: Don't you hear a lot of rumors and -- and stuff that goes around on these things? And it's just absolute rubbish.

SANCHEZ: That's not true?

STAINTON: Oh, of course it's not true. I'm offended that you even mentioned it to me, to be honest.

So then... -24.92.41.95 12:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I would be nervous about that one. As the person says, they weren't underwater, they didn't see the tape, and they do not want to for some reason. Hardly puts the interview at a higher level than an australian newspaper article which claims to have seen the evidence on tape. Ansell 05:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The thing about it though is that it's the same source. Stainton was quoted in the Aussie news as saying this:

"I did see the footage and it's shocking," Mr Stainton said today in Cairns. "It's a very hard thing to watch because you're actually witnessing somebody die ... and it's terrible." Mr Stainton, also a producer and director of Irwin's popular television shows, said the footage showed Mr Irwin pulling the barb out of his chest before losing consciousness. "It shows that Steve came over the top of the ray and the tail came up, and spiked him here (in the chest), and he pulled it out and the next minute he's gone. "That was it. The cameraman had to shut down." Mr Stainton, who was aboard Mr Irwin's vessel Croc One when the tragedy occurred, said it was likely the television star and naturalist died almost immediately as a result of the stingray's blow."

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20356303-5005961,00.html

So what really happened? Stainton is used as the cite for Irwin pulling out the barb, and at the same time he is giving an interview that contradicts what is in the Aussie news. He is quoted as seeing the tape on news.com.au, and then in this recent live interview he claims to have not seen it and the barb being pulled out is "absolute rubbish".... so it's a bit of a sticky wicket. I guess Stainton might not be in the best shape right now as far as talking to the media. He was one of Irwin's best mates after all. 12.215.141.83 05:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hate to say this, but I can confirm John Stainton did say specifically the above and that he was offended even by being asked the question, on CNN. He has also said almost all along in video that he "possibly died instantly" which if he is also the source for Mr. Irwin having pulled the barb out seems contradictory. On top of all that, I am not even sure that the barb would even have been left in his chest, I don't believe it is barb, as in the sting of a bee, but more like a knife.UnseemlyWeasel 07:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Daughter's series??

Forgive me if this was discussed earlier in the discussion page and I missed it but the article mentions (and, to its credit, so does the footnoted article accompanying it) that the fatal accident happened while filming "a segment in the television program his daughter Bindi was hosting". Now, if the article is correct (and again, I find no reason to doubt this, as I can vaguely recall when Irwin got married and had Bindi, and I'm not even a huge fan), Bindi just turned 8 about 6 weeks ago. She's hosting a TV show?? Something about that doesn't seem right, yet there's absolutely no evidence to the contrary ...--Canuckguy 03:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Unless it is one of those cases of daughter Bindi hosts while daddy Steve helps. But good catch. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Bindi was host of a kids show - I actually saw a news short of her filming here in Queensland a few months ago. She has appeared on a number of TV shows in the last 4 years. I'd give you a news reference, but every news site is over-loaded. Parasite 05:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, his daughter was due to "host" a TV show for kids, apparently heavily enhanced with dad's spare footage. It was going to be called Jungle Girl (and don't google that without a filter, you'll be sorry). Silly but true. Who knows what's gonna happen now, though. --Dhartung | Talk 05:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

vandalism remaining

Somebody needs to remove the statement 'The prick is dead' under the 'Rise to Fame' heading. It's blatant vandalism. I can't remove because I am a new member. Thanks. Redtitan 03:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like its fixed now. Thanks. Redtitan 03:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

animal planet vs the animal planet

The name of Animal Planet is Animal Planet, not "The" Animal planet. Don't insert that again. pschemp | talk 04:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it just proper grammar to have "the" at the beginning of a sentence/paragraph? It sounds wrong as it is now. Also, do you mind not being so rude? Some good faith might be nice. dposse 04:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
It depends on the context if you need to add "the" or not. But, from whenever I hear about the channel in their promos and idents, they always use "Animal Planent" and do not use "the" before it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm talking about proper grammar, not about what they might or might not call themselves. dposse 04:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, and proper grammar here, for English, for the start of a sentence is, "Animal Planet plans....whatever." pschemp | talk 04:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
This goes back to first grade english. "The" is just proper, isn't? I'm talking about what they call themselves. You could go to their article to know that piece of infomation. dposse 04:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
That is what I was getting at with my comment in this section; they call themselves "Animal Planent." User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It's perfectly valid to start a sentence with "Animal Planet plans ..." It's certainly not "The Animal Planet". Keep in mind, Animal Planet is a proper noun in its own right. That'd be like writing a sentence, "The President Bush plans to invade Iran ..." --Cyde Weys 04:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

An article doesn't matter at the start of a sentence for a proper noun. Cyde illustrated why rather succinctly. Even in the case of adopting the definitive article as part of your name, you'd only use it when it's likely to cause ambiguity. The Clash in Hammersmith, for example, instead of Clash in Hammersmith (for obvious reasons). Professor Ninja 04:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"The" is NOT necessary if the sentence begins with a PROPER noun. SarahTeach 06:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steve_Irwin/Archive_4&oldid=1248855841"