Talk:Steve Irwin/Archive 8/8 - 13:30 (UTC) 8th Sept to 14:20 (UTC) 14th Sept

message: As the article is currently unable to be edited, heres some proposed quotes to better understand how he handles snakes differently from other snake handlers: 
"People tie their shoes and don't really give a rip. Whereas me, it's like, oh, you are very gentle with the shoelace. It is like this, mate. You get a snake - most people deal with snakes and fair dinkum, they deal with snakes and go for the head. What is the sensation when someone goes to your head? It is pretty threatening, isn't it?"..."Instantaneously you are freaking out. So the snake starts freaking. What I do is gently coerce the snake, hence mucked with more venomous snakes than anyone else in the world and never been bitten. It's a gift."
Also, some quotes on his parents:
"I love my parents just so much, mate. Like my mum - how would you be? I was born on her birthday. All she ever did was just love me and prop me up and get me back out in there, and my dad! Just the legend of the universe. When I was the tiniest little kid, Andrew, I would look up at my dad and he was larger than life. He was just this action hero. He was everything I wanted to be and all I've done in my life is follow in his footsteps, mimic him and try to be him and nowadays I just try to make him proud, mate. I love my parents like nothing else. They are everything to me. Absolutely everything. The day that my mum went was the day I lost something. I lost something. I lost something really big."
Quotes are from transcriptions from Enough Rope with Andrew Denton.
Thanks. Nick carson 06:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some info on his method of handling snakes

message: Peter Broke has died to day, and that article links to Steve Irwin. Perhaps this could link there? Two Aussie icons dying in the same week.--HamedogTalk|@ 08:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the Peter Brock talk page. Consensus there developed into a removal of the reference due to it only being incidental. If there was a cause for the phenomena then it may be relevant. Ansell 08:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yes, I have read that, but I watched atlease an hour of the Sky News report tonight and they made several references to the fact it was the second great loss in a week for Australia. Even John Howard said first we lost Steve now Peter. Should be referred to in both.--HamedogTalk|@ 16:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The two are unrelated in everything but their date of death.  They're already in :Category:2006 deaths. We don't put Hitler as a related item on Ghandi just because both were vegetarians, why would we put these two as related just based on when they died? — ceejayoz talk 23:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about two Aussie Icons to die in the same week?--HamedogTalk|@ 02:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're missing the point.  They are not related in any way except the closeness of their death dates.  Related articles are linked to because it is reasonably assumed that a user looking at the current page is likely to be interested in the related article (key word, again, being related).  Not many people are going to go to Steve Irwin's page and be expecting a link to a racecar driver's bio. — ceejayoz talk 05:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking to [[Peter Brock]] 

message: A quote by Steve Irwin on what he wanted to be remembered for was removed. I would have thought this summary statement of his whole life's goal would have merited inclusion. If others agree, can they please make the edit instead of me? I'm sure the people on this talk page have much more experience with how best to include it. Perhaps there should be a "Quotes" section? After all, the fact he was so quotable was often commented on in the media also.
Here was the quote:
In episode one of the Crocodile Hunter series ("Steve's Story"), Irwin is quoted as emphatically stating:   
    
 
youcantryreachingme 01:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Here's a link to that video.  Your quote was slightly wrong, but thats ok. Just fix it and add the video link as a citation. By the way, i think the "If we can get people to care about wildlife" quote is probably better.dposse 02:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can't access the video - do you have the text for the corrected quote? (From memory, "The one thing that I, Steve Irwin, would want to be remembered for is passion, and enthusiasm. Conservation. It's my life, my job, my whole persona." - the quote I used I took from an online source and put the difference down to my poor memory... youcantryreachingme 01:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irwin quote on what he wanted to be remembered for 

message: "He was described after his death by the CEO of RSPCA Queensland as a "modern-day Noah", and British naturalist David Bellamy lauded his skills as a natural historian and media performer.[16]"
Shouldn't that be down in the Reaction subsection? dposse 19:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "after his death"... 

message: Not to step on the toes of you pro Wikis but in the section entitled "Media Image" in regards to the sentence that says "His unabashed enthusiasm for dangerous animals and childlike energy sometimes made him appear simple, which drew some criticism at home." Is this statement a fact or an opinion? And if we keep it in the article I believe it would be more accurate to say that he appeared "simple minded" rather than "simple", since these are two entirely different things. 4giron 17:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was bothering me so I just went ahead and added "minded" after simple. I am sure a thesaurus has many other variations of this state of being such as dimwitted or perhaps even simpleton, but simply simple just doesn't cut it for Wikipedia 4giron 19:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media Image 

message: Technically, the Onion did a parody in their Onion Podcast. It's titled "Australia's 'The Stingray Hunter' Says 'It Should Have Been Me'".I don't know if anyoue feels it's worth mentioning in the actual article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kc12286 (talk • contribs) .
:No, but you can add it to the uncyclopedia article on Steve Irwin. Andjam 01:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Onion Radio News

message: I understand that the section should be concise, but recent condensations should show both sides of the argument (sympathetic and not sympathetic with Greer)ñ also, please read the referenced article if you´re going to condense, because the edits I´m fixing misquote and ignore the gist, meaning that the editor didn´t bother to go to the source. Pablosecca 03:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did make edits to show both sides. Instead of reverting, help by being more concise. Your edits fork the article into another topic altogether.--I already forgot 06:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: They dont "fork the article into another topic", they add depth to an interesting and relevant point. Are you an aussie? Aussies understand the presence of "cultural cringe" and are more often than not skeptical of types like Irwin. So it´s important to note these things from both sides. Hamilton makes several important points, which I include. PLEASE, if you´re going to condense the quotes, do us a favor and do it intelligently. For instance, you moved the quotation mark on Hamilton´s quote to include something he didn´t say. READ THE REFERENCED ARTICLE to make sure your quotes are correct, otherwise you´re just messing up the work of others.Pablosecca 17:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, you win. It’s clear that you do not intend for anyone to change your original edit and will make any excuse to revert the change. The fact that you state "Aussies understand the presence of 'cultural cringe' and are more often than not skeptical of types like Irwin" indicates you may be editing with your pov. Wikipedia is an international collaboration and I only wish to improve the content of the article from that standpoint. The excessive use of quotes in the section (and other parts of the article) reads like a news article and not and encyclopedic entry, however, I do not wish to prove a point or niggle over the section so I will bow out of the edit dispute. --I already forgot 02:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with I already forgot. To an extent, the reaction of the Aussie public to Irwin's death is relevant as he was, to some, an icon. However, the reaction section in the article seems excessive, and I do agree that it reads like a (disjointed) newspaper article. It is mostly a disconnected list of what people thought about Irwin. As a disclaimer, I'm very new to the Wikipedia community, and am here trying to provoke thought and not ruffle any feathers, but the section seems out of place in an encyclopedic entry. I think a concise statement about memorials and perhaps a few reactions of very notable public figures is in order, but frankly, when I came to the article to read about the incident I was confused to find references to Kelly Ripa and Rosie O'Donnell. It may be valuable to the article to talk about different public figures' and groups' reactions to the Crocodile Hunter while he was alive--in particular, comments on PETA's objections to Irwin's practices might be a good counterbalance to a section about his conservationist philosophy (PETA's comments' only relevance in the reaction section is that they occured after the death)--but they seemed quite out of place in the section on his death. As it stands, the reaction section also repeats quite a bit of information about memorials and such. My take on this is that the article should be an organized summary of the most relevant points, not a conglomerate of each and every bit of info on the subject floating around right now. I haven't edited anything myself, and I'm quite open to thoughts/disagreements/etc. Porlesa 15:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're spot on with your analysis of the rapid, uncontrolled growth of that section of the article.  Please be bold, jump in, and edit away!  --ElKevbo 16:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Greer etc

message: Yes he is a television personality but is he properly called a wildlife expert? Maybe we should be more specific. He managed a zoo, which requires a certain expertise -- the question is qhat kind of expert. Should we keep it or change it? Thanks Pablosecca 04:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at three news articles from the References and none of them refers to Irwin as "wildlife expert". In the Larry King interview, he refers to himself as "wildlife warrior" (accordingly, this article calls him that). He also said "My dad was a wild life expert" (no "like myself" or "as well"). I guess we should just change "wildlife expert" to "conservationist" (or maybe "wildlife conservationist"). — LazyEditor (talk|contribs) 04:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: These are all great points of view.  If you know of considered research from reliable sources that supports them, they'd be most welcome in the article (per wikipedia's policy on maintaining a neutral point of view).  Otherwise we should all just take our grousing to another forum. --SiobhanHansa 00:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: That's irrelevant and without foundation in fact.--Jack Upland 00:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Whether he was a wildlife "expert" is a subjective judgement. He did not call himself that, either. He called himself a "wildlife warrior". It's fair to say he was a wildlife "advocate". Maybe if he were really an "expert" he wouldn't have let himself get so close to that stingray. Wahkeenah 17:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Given that he spent millions setting up areas for wildlife protection, would you at least let us call him a conservationist or wildlife lover? Ordinary Person 15:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ´Wildlife expert´?

message: Even regarding his own death, Irwin displayed a sense of humour. He once insisted, "My number one rule is to keep that camera rolling. Even if it's shaky or slightly out of focus, I don't give a rip. Even if a big old alligator is chewing me up I want to go down and go, 'Crikey!' just before I die. That would be the ultimate for me." [23]
Unless someone can find a source for this quote that is more reliable than an online music tabloid quoting from the Daily Star, one of Britain's notoriously unreliable tabloids, this needs to go.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unreadablecharacters (talk • contribs) 19:26, 9 September 2006  (UTC)
:Yeah, sounds dodgy. Especially as he was known as the Croc Hunter, not the Alligator hunter.--HamedogTalk|@ 11:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This quote (or at least something like it), along with the one I have mentioned below in this talk page (being remembered for passion and enthusiasm ... conservation is life, job, whole persona) - I believe comes directly from episodes of the Crocodile Hunter series. youcantryreachingme 00:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Keep that camera rolling" 

message: This phrase only googled for this article, wikipedia mirrors and a couple of irrelevant news links. I don't know why it was inserted in the reference, as far as I can tell the Channel 7 show was "Steve Irwin: A Tribute". Psychobabble 12:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "An Aussie Hero"

message: With all the speculation, hear-say, and conspiracy theories about, wouldn't the origional film be a good source to lay the foundation as to exactly how he was stung?  I know for some sensitive people they're rather not see it, but a reference to a copy would be welcome to those like I looking for the events as they unfolded.  This would allow those that wanted, an opportunity to know or decide for themself.  If it's already mentioned in the article, is it available? Has a statement stating if it will be released been provided already?  Thanks. Supaplex 05:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The film is (or was) in the possession of the Queensland Police. It's likely to be destroyed at the wishes of the family. -- Longhair 05:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Steve Irwin would have wanted footage of his death at the hands of an animal to be kept, and said he would have wanted to keep the camera rolling. It would be a great shame, for starters Mr Irwin's wishes not being met, and for an uncorrectable mistake to be made. Canberra User 06:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no point asking anyone here why. You're better off asking those with the power to make the relevant decisions about their reasons. -- Longhair 06:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What of the filming? 

message: from statements made by Steve and Terri from the tv program "Crocodile Hunter Confessions" about the incident with their son and the crocodile.
also, rewrote intro to make it more encyclopedic.
PainMan 09:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats hardly encyclopedic, by changing the name into "Stephen Robert Steve Irwin" and removing a valid source for no reason. Why don't you go to the Tony Blair article and change the name into "Anthony Charles Lynton Tony Blair"? And why did you shorten the whole controversy part into one incident? I have reverted your edits on both the intro and the controversy. Tips - next time you make a change in a heated article like this, discuss, because most probably your edit will be worse than what hundreds of others agreed on, anyway, and even if you think you have some good ideas, discussing is always better than making big changes yourself. Aran|heru|nar 12:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added commentary on "Baby Bob" controversy... 

message: I  really do think that this wiki article should be blocked altogether and Admin only allowed to edit this page. Because people are Signing in and Vandalising--82.47.145.146 13:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article was heavily edited before the death - since then (6 days ago) it's received over 2,500 edits. The sting-ray community has obviously mobilised to clear its good name.--Shtove 14:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Block 

message: This section, arguably, appears to violate the anti-POV strictures.  The remark that he "accepted...taxpayer money" doesn't indicate from what source or from whom the money came.  Was it a public service ad (do they have these Down Under, probably, governments have always loved to propagandize their citizens or subjects)?  Was it a campaign ad?  (This seems highly unlikely since most celebs who support a party, in parliamentary systems such as Australia's, or a candidate, in representative republics such as the US, hardly want to hurt the party by draining funds from the campaign coffers.  Furthermore, accepting money sorta undermines the integrity of the endorsement, doesn't it?  Yet we have no clue because the writer's state was vague to the point of opacity.
Also, the sum indicated, $175,000, isn't specificed as US or Australian dollars.
Finally, and most importantly, this sentence is not properly sourced.  Just writing "Australian Broadcasting Corporation" hardly suffices. URL and date, or if from a printed source, then name & date of publication, author.
The final sentence, "He earned scorn from the media..."  surely not every media outlet in Australia walks in lock-step?  Just plain bad writing that defies common sense.  It also lacks sufficient sourcing--required if it were relevant, which it's not, imo.
Since Steve's politicl activities appear to have been, at best, a marginal part of his life, it hardly warrants inclusion in what should be a short, concise summary of his life.
The entire article is horrendously long, disorganized and needs to be rewritten from top to bottom.
Perhaps it's time for one of the Powers-At-Be to step up and "bring order to chaos"!
PainMan 16:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After the info was added to the article, I used this source [] to verify. It is an Australian article so the currency is in Australian.--I already forgot 17:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed section called "Politics" 

message: Can anyone post a link to the Autopsy to the external links section.  In addition, the exact species of stingray cited in the article would be important. LindaWarheads 01:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Autopsy

message: Reading the John Stainton quote and considering the emotional state he was probably in purhaps the word he is refering to the ray. Did he mean the ray pulled the barb out? Do the barbs detach? --Gbleem 05:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes they do break off, stated in Stingray. -JE 14:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  pulled barb out 

message: While full protection is certainly warranted, I wonder whether it might ultimately be a better idea to leave it semi-protected. This onslaught is giving us the opportunity to weed out many specifically-created vandal accounts (mostly created back in June to evade semi-protection).--cj | talk 03:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point, but these personality types always crave the attention they seek, and simply move elsewhere, like my talk page for example. What do others think? -- Longhair 03:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your doing a fine job. You could try and catch up with all the sleeper sock puppets but I'm sure for every one that gets a time out, a new one is created. In the end, no matter what, someone is still going to consider you an ***hole so all you can do is protect the page when its needed and consider it done until further notice. --I already forgot 04:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been called worse. Like water off a duck's back... -- Longhair 04:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I've filed a Checkuser request to hopefully find out who's the puppetmaster of all these accounts. --Slowking Man 03:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's keep it vprotected for now until we can find out who performed this latest attack. --Woohookitty(meow) 04:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. pschemp | talk 04:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The results of the checkuser are in. It's an AOL user behind the vandalism :( I'm moving the article back to a semi-protected status. -- Longhair 17:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Full protection

message: Increased numbers of stingrays being killed - prbably connected with Irwin's death --Golden Wattle  talk 11:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah. dposse 12:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retribution 

message: User:TydeNet has requested to remove the image of the eagle ray, as it's "NOT the type of ray that killed Irwin". I or any other administrator can make edits whilst full protection is active. Do others agree with this change? -- Longhair 13:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According our article, a bull ray is a type of eagle ray. Its not a perfect image, but we don't have anything else closer. Perhaps state that in the caption?pschemp | talk 21:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: We need another change, the edits made by PainMan. I have reverted his edits for being absurdly poor (which includes deleting half of the Controversy section), and has started a discussion in this talk page, but he has re-inserted his edits without any reasons or edit summaries. It would be appreciated for someone to look up his edits and revert them if possible, thanks. Aran|heru|nar 13:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes to article whilst full protection is enabled

message: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/12/stingray_deaths/
*To the IP address who posted the above, and to anyone who might care: It's ironic that Germaine Greer was talking about nature taking "revenge" on Steve Irwin. Nature doesn't take revenge on anyone. Revenge is a human trait. Greer and the stingray killers are all morons. Wahkeenah 15:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that revenge is less likely the motive of these senseless killings. Someone who truly looked up to Steve would never commit such an atrocity. It is more like greed that these sub-humans are guilty of. How much you want to bet that we'll be seeing "The actual stingray barb that killed Steve Irwin", for bid on EBAY sometime in the near future. 4giron 15:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, yes, another human trait... that there's "a sucker born every minute". Or thousands of them, probably. Wahkeenah 16:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great news 

message: Am i the only one who is wondering why there is a picture of a differant kind of ray on this page, a stingray picture would be appropriate but the image of the eagle ray has no relevance.(Neostinker 16:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. We should try to find an image of a "bull ray". dposse 20:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to our article, a bull ray is a type of eagle ray. The caption could be made clearer but that's the closest we've got. pschemp | talk 21:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spotted eagle ray image

message: Should we try to make a section about this group that Irwin started? dposse 20:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is encyclopedic, why not? MyNameIsNotBob 02:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wildlife Warriors 

message: * Interesting news analysis piece from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation: Experts ponder public grief over Irwin  Also Irwin's death prompts rush to web Could possibly be factored into the section on reaction. --Golden Wattle  talk 01:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The 'public' grief seems a bit contrived. I must admit some degree of surprise when the major newspapers and TV took on Steve Irwin's death as their main focus. From a South Oz perspective he was only really known for his over the top TV shows in the US. He was probably better known in Qld and the US. Ozdaren 23:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public grief 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Infobox Picture 

message: Why is the photo cropped? The full length really gave you the khaki image. savidan(talk) (e@) 03:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: The source that is supposed to back up that he was an Essondon fan, source 28, does not actually mention him supporting Essendon F.C. Unless it can be proved, this should be removed.
Source number 31 shows him playing football in a football jersey, not playing AFL. Was he not a keener follower of football than AFL?
Is there any justification for the AFL references apart from his use as a paid promotional participant in that one game and his one unexplained appearence in an Essendon jersey? He appeared on the NRL footy show many times. That should be mentioned in that section as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.225.218.22 (talk • contribs) .
:28 says "He was a fan of Essendon in the Australian Football League, and loved mixed martial arts competitions." If it doesn't mean he was a fan of Essendon Footy Club, what does it mean? I can't see how it's ambiguous. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essendon fan 

message: Whats with the comment about Steve having a baby with an outside source...who is Terri's sister apparently? I really dont think that should be there!
Its at the bottom of the article where Animal Planet has named the garden after Steve.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.150.14.236 (talk • contribs) 
: I think it's since been deleted.  Appears to be pure vandalism, nothing more.  --Jaysweet 16:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Baby from an outside source comment"?????? 

message: Can someone review the first point in the American memorials section. There appears to be some vandalism.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.169.156.244 (talk • contribs) 
:This is weird... you are the second IP user to report said vandalism, but I just don't see it.  There was some vandalism there, but it was reverted by AntiVandalBot.  Maybe the server is having troubles somehow??? --Jaysweet 16:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Animal Planet garden had an extraneous word in its title ("Sensory") which did not appear in the cited source.  That may be what this anon user was reporting to us.  I removed the word (among other edits).  --ElKevbo 16:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I was going to bring up the "Sensory Garden" thing.  I was all set to revert your change, but now I am not so sure.  The earliest reports I am sure called it the "Steve Irwin Memorial Sensory Garden."  Also, the majority of reports use "Sensory".  But a handful of more recent reports seem to have dropped "Sensory".  However, I haven't been able to find any information I'd call "official."  Please check here and here and see what you think....  --Jaysweet 17:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a press release from Monday from the folks who own the garden itself...  I would probably take that as the most official?  It uses "Sensory Garden"... --Jaysweet 17:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right - it's inconsistent even in the Discovery Networks press releases.  This appears to be a summary of the press release and it refers to it as a sensory garden.  The full press release (what you get if you click on "Read the full press release" from the document previously mentioned) doesn't refer to it as a sensory garden.  I would think that the full press release that is currently on the Discovery Channel's website is the most authorative source but there is obviously a lot of room for debate.  I don't really think it's terribly important and I'll go with whatever consensus we establish until the mystery clears itself up.  --ElKevbo 17:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Weird...  You are right, the very same company does it differently in various press releases.  Anyway, I'm with you: It's not that important, so I'm just going to leave it for now.  --Jaysweet 17:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the press release that they sent out right after his death, it said "Sensory". Are you telling me that they edited it? Why would they do that? dposse 20:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, it's very confusing...  Actually, I think they issued a brief press release that was written only by the president of Discovery Communications, and then an extended press release.  The former says "Sensory," the latter does not.  Heh, I'm really scratching my head over this one... --Jaysweet 21:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  American memorials 

message: Stephen Irwin (And maybe even Steven Irwin?) should link to Steve Irwin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sontra (talk • contribs) 
:Right you are.  I am working on adding a bunch of redirects right now... --Jaysweet 19:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Good catch, Sontra! (Incidentally, Stephen Robert Irwin already had a redirect, but not Stephen Irwin... go figure...) --Jaysweet 19:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stephen Irwin 

message: According to this obituary, Irwin began the channel ten documentary series Totally Wild. Has anyone else heard this? Andjam 00:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Totally wild 

message: 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 06:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wildlife Warriors]]