Talk:Steve Irwin/Archive 9

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

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: I'm not surprised you haven't received a response from Australia Zoo. I tried emailing their media email address on August 22, and their info email address on September 1 (a courtesy email asking about copyright of images I've taken in their zoo), and I'm yet to receive a response. (I decided to upload them as I don't expect to get a reply soon) Maybe phone would be the way to go once things quiet down. Andjam 05:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reckon they'll be flat out for quite a while now. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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 03:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wildlife Warriors]] 

message: Can someone explain why this inside a good link?  Anomo 05:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i think you mean why this "isn't" a good link. First of all because its a copyright violation as much of the stuff on youtube is, and second becuse it just doesn't add anything profound to the article. However, we don't use or advocate copyvio material, so it needs to stay our just for that reason. pschemp | talk 06:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Okp5FTKOB4 

message: Earlier today someone under the name Baritone made an edit changing John Stanton's quote 11 days after the fact to this,  "He came on top of the stingray and the stingray's barb approximately 30 cm went up and into his chest] and put a hole into his heart", said Stainton, who was on board Irwin's boat the Croc One. Baritone added the 30 cm bit. Is this really what Stanton said or is there a vandal in our midst. Just an FYI.4giron 02:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed it. dposse 14:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: John Stainton quote

message: how do i find the copyright status for it? -- AAFL 13:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is copyrighted by the Discovery Channel. http://animal.discovery.com/fansites/crochunter/steve/wallpaper/wallpaper.html I think it could be used under . bogdan 13:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. dposse 14:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thats how it was before but somebody took it off. Thanks Everyone -- AAFL 23:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Memorial Wallpaper 

message: Do we really need an entire paragraph about Dr Clive? I think thats taking "some defended her" for a bit of a ride, in that 99% did not defend her, yet there is this massive paragraph in her defese, yet only one person is noted as having actually some what defended her. It should be summed up, its far too long, and if we really need that much info on Dr Clive, it should be in Greers article. Cvene64 00:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reckon it would make more sense to roll Greer and Hamilton together in the criticisms section, as they both made essentially identical points.  So instead of focussing on the controversy and outrage, let's just note the substance of their joint criticisms, criticisms that cannot be simply dismissed when considered at some distance. Leeborkman 00:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'm not saying to dismiss thet criticism at all, it does have a place in the article, I just find the section a bif POV, as there is only like a few sentances about the negative reaction to Greer, but a huge rationale about why what she said is understandable, the defense being longer than the section on Steve's early life and so on... Cvene64 01:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the current balance is strange, and I'm suggesting that the balance could be restored by rolling Greer and Hamilton into the criticisms section.  At the moment, the whole Steve Irwin article is too much news, and not enough about the things that make Steve notable.  After all, almost half the article is now taken up with Steve's death and its aftermath, which is not actually the important, interesting or notable thing about Steve Irwin.  I mean, the guy was a professional who got killed in the line of his job, in an unexpected way, no doubt, but there is not that much more to it, unless there is some suggestion of a conspiracy to cover up the truth, or something of the kind.  In general, unless a person is only notable for the way they died, it just seems strange to write as many words about their death as about their life.  In other words, because Steve's death happened right now, ie during the writing of this article, it is being greatly over-emphasised within the article.  Compare this with articles on historical figures... say Charles Darwin, maybe the greatest naturalist of all time... just one sentence about his death.  Abraham Lincoln... just one succinct section on his assassination!  If we step back and look at the encyclopedia as a whole, we see that modern day figures are treated in a completely different way to historical figures, ie we concentrate on news headlines, instead of distilling what is notable, which is really the point of an encyclopedia.  Or have I got it all wrong as usual? ;-) Leeborkman 01:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I most certainly agree with you, spot on. I think once everything has settled down, the article should be re-written, focusing much more on his biography, in particular conservation/career/Australia Zoo. Death/memorials/service/backlash/Greer (in my opion) should be rewritten into something which is at least 1/4 of its current length. I agree that there is too much news in the article, a lot of what is in here would have been better off on wikinews, instead of in his wikipedia page. The article has not even started to touch on his conservation/animal planet side of things. The article could definantly do with a great deal of work.. Cvene64 04:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think this section should be cut down dramatically, these people are really nobodies and not that famous. Enlil Ninlil 05:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to reconsider that statement, Enlil.  Germaine Greer might have jeopardised much of the esteem that she has earned over the years, but she has been one of the great minds of the last few decades.  Clive Hamilton is obviously less well-known, but still a significant Australian intellectual.  It might not be a popular thought, but I'm sure that Greer will be remembered and revered for her contributions to feminism (and therefore to the world) for many many years to come.  She has always been provocative and lacking in graciousness, which can make it hard to take her views seriously, but don;t be misled into thinking her a "not-that-famous" "nobody".  On the other hand, there is no particular reason why these two should feature prominently on the Steve Irwin page, except that they were conspicious among Steve's critics.  See ya. Leeborkman 05:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: He graduated from Caloundra State High School in 1979. 
Do people "graduate" from high school in Australia? AdorableRuffian 08:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly not back then. But I don't have a problem with it because it is definitely currently accepted useage and I can't think of a better phrase. -- I@n 08:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Educational terminology 

message: Wasnt Steve in a FedEx commercial?
--Johnston49er 06:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. And, as with all things video, it's on YouTube. —C.Fred (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FedEX? 

message: Apparently the National Enquirer is claiming that it has photos of the stingray attack on Irwin (it's a front page story this week). I think it's rather distasteful and have no intention of picking up the magazine to see it for myself but maybe someone else has. Can anyone confirm that these photos are genuine? Since the article discusses the video, it is probably appropriate to indicate if photos of the incident have been published. 23skidoo 07:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we could claim the photos are fair use and add them to the article if they are ligit. And for those who have a moral stance against these images, such as not being in the article out of respect. read WP:NOT. My only issue is if we can get them for fair use.--HamedogTalk|@ 09:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  :-( You can't claim fair use on everything. National Enquirer will likely consider this an exclusive item and make it a selling point; redistributing it here is not fair for them. — LazyEditor (talk|contribs) 17:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I highly doubt it. -- Longhair\talk 02:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked both Yahoo! and Google. All links to the so called video release are fake. Like I said earlier, the video will likely be destroyed, if it hasn't been already, due to the overwhelming support for its destruction by friends and family of Steve. You never know though. Reynoldsrapture 23:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos of the accident

message: *If this document is publicly released it should be added to Wikisource and referenced in the article, it would have much information on the death occurrence.  MapleTree 14:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a discussion about this some time ago (try the archives), and apparently it can take several years for such report to be released. — LazyEditor (talk|contribs) 16:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Coroners Report

message: Does it?  "True blue, dinky-di Aussie" obviously means "real Australian", but I'm not at all sure that "True Blue" means Australian.  Could it not just means "genuine", "real", etc? Or is the phrase "true blue dinky-di Aussie" so well-known that the "dinky-di Aussie" part is assumed?  Just wondering...Leeborkman 04:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or possibly True Blue means "the opposite of un-Australian", ie "good". ?? Leeborkman 05:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "True Blue" means Australian?  Does it really? 

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