Talk:Steve Irwin/Archive10

message: Does anyone know where he is buried?
 
I've heard that the exact location was kept secret by his family. 18.1.2006
:You heard right. According to Terri, he had specifically requested that the location of his grave be kept secret from the general public, for the sake of privacy. Phoenix Flower 23:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Where is Steve buried

message: On a tabloid newspaper called The Globe, the front page says :was he drugged?? Also they claim that Terri got a "shocking makeover". Is this true? I don't have the newspaper or whatever so I dunno. Frankyboy5 23:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Irwins have made it a point to keep the location of his grave a secret; I'm sure they wouldn't allow them to exhume him. Phoenix Flower 23:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I heard him say that in an interview and was very impressed. He stayed away from tobacco and caffeine as well. Good on ya, Steve-o! Phoenix Flower 23:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Was He Drugged?

message: Should we unprotect the page now that it's been over a month since his death? Or will it still get vandalized by IPs? I dunno, I just think that it's been protected for a long time and that new users can make constructive edits sometimes, too... Comments? •The RSJ• (Say What?!—CCD) 05:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Every single time it was unprotected, the "flying dick" vandal arrived. Hopefully it'll be ok this time. dposse 02:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Grr! WikiVandals... Ah well, maybe September 4th, 2007 will be a good time to unprotect it (I it doesn't take that long...)  The RSJ  300 million and still going strong! 01:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Could the flying dick vandal be Willy on Wheels? --Jrothwell (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still Protected? 

message: Since the sections on Irwin's death/funeral now makes up about 1/3 of the article, should the death/funeral section be created as a new article, with a short paragraph summarizing it and then a link saying "Main article: Steve Irwin's death"? Latitude0116 17:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, considering the death of Irwin caused such a stir, it should be moved to its own article... •The RSJ• (Say What?!—CCD—Give Me Some Ideas!) 02:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Absolutely not. The section needs to be trimmed, not forked. At present, the section is excessive and disproportionate in a biographical sense. This article, however, will ultimately be revised to present a more encyclopædic documentation of Steve Irwin's life.--cj | talk 04:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Alternatively, if the ratio between the death/funeral section and the rest of the article really upsets you, just make the rest of the article longer. :D --DavidHOzAu 04:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to split, his death isn't significant enough to deserve an article. The only reason it's been flooding this article is because it's a current event. THe article is long, all it means is the sections on his death need trimming. For example, do we really need a 100+ word paragraph on stingrays being killed? The fact that two stingrays turned up in brisbane and the other eight elsewhere is trivia --`/aksha 08:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: HERE HERE I move to third the motion not to split the article, all those in favour say I. I. Enlil Ninlil 10:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Please no.  Once the dust settles this will be rewritten as a normal biography and a fork will just make that much harder. Give it a couple of months and trim out the trivia.  -- Moondyne 11:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Leave it in article there's not enough real information to warrant a seperate article. If you read the complete article it is in dire need of a considered edit once you get to the section on his death there is so much duplicated information. Does every TV station, personality that paid tribute to Steve need to be mentioned. The subsection of critisims in the section on his death should be edited down and combined with the earlier section of critism.  Gnangarra 12:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The death section is perfectly fine where it is. dposse 02:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text:   I tried to edit down the critcism section, but it was reversed.  It is not needed at all.  Indeed much of the reaction is not needed - positive or negative. 130.102.0.178 04:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm a big fan of Steve's and I don't think his death requires a seperate article.  Dionyseus 04:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't have much of a problem with the inclusion of the reference in general, but the way it's worded is horrible, so I'm changing that.  If someone else thinks that the reference's existence itself is against policy, feel free to remove it.--Anaraug 17:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move death to new article? 

message: Just thinking, is it relevant to state the latest stingray attack in the US that has happened within the last 24 hrs and make reference on Steve's wiki regarding a "similar" inicident?  Thoughts...? --Mikecraig 00:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Stingray attack 

message: time to protect article again? 21 of the edits in the last 24 hours were reverted for vandalism (counting from the history page). and from many different Ips too --`/aksha 12:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the vandalism continues, then go ahead. dposse 22:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protect article?

message: Just came across this article which reveals Irwin contemplating the effect his death would have on his family. It should be incorporated into the article when the vandalism cools down. Jpe|ob 13:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems okay. The title is a bit misleading, seeing as it says that it was published in Readers Digest. If it were to be incorporated, it may be better to use the Readers Digest as a citation. Ansell 11:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irwin exposed in unpublished interview 

message: Is it true that Steve Iriwn was rudely mentioned in rap lyrics recently, something to the effect of "You are Steve Irwin, I am the Stingray"?, I remember reading about it but not who the artist was.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.78.87 (talk) 05:59, 30 October 2006
:Can you remember where you read it? --Jrothwell (talk) 17:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rap lyrics? 

message: I suggest the backlash section be removed.  First the article is quite long.  Second, this is not really about Steve Irwin.  Third, it actually does not state facts but refers to "speculation" - which is insufficient for an encyclopedia.Alan Davidson 00:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. There are cites for both statements, and I think it is relevant. -- Mapetite526 18:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backlash 

message: There seems to be a mixture of American and British English punctuation in this article. I suggest sticking with one, as it is more consistent. I believe Australians use British English, but I could be wrong.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by UBeR (talk • contribs) .
:Australians use Australian English, which is similar to British English, but not exactly the same. This article is about an Australian man and according to the national varieties of English section of the MOS, Australian English should be used. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The other issue in play is that there are some direct quotes from American sources in the article, and the quotes have preserved the exact wording of the sources. —C.Fred (talk) 16:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: American + British English 

message: As there is a reference from Snopes saying that 'rumours of Steve attending a church before his death appear to be urban legend' would anyone object to me putting in a quote from Terri Irwin about Steve Irwin's belief in God?I have full citation for it,and it seems a little strange if the article includes something from Snopes (denying that Steve Irwin went to church),but there is another source (Terri Irwin) saying that Steve did believe in God that wasn't included.Serenaacw 01:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Groan...the only reason I originally put in the mention of Irwin's religion at all was because of the claims that he started going to church just before he died.  If you must, stick in a brief note after the church-going thing along the lines of, "Terri Irwin , however, stated that Irwin believed in God in a magazine interview" and add the citation.  Irwin, whatever he privately believed, said virtually nothing on the topic.  --Robert Merkel 05:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal Information 

message: 'although Terri Irwin has stated in an interview that Steve believed in God.'
that bit is in the Personal Information section.As I'm not sure how to do a footnote on Wikipedia,could someone please add a footnote for that ? The interview was in Woman's Day on October 9th 2006.Really sorry to bother you,but I'm not sure how to do it and I don't want to mess the page up.Serenaacw 06:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes 

message: This should be an encyclopadia standard detailing with the life and contibution of a particular person.  I think the reference to South Park sould simply state that there was a reference in South Park without the details and without the cartoon.  This is more about South Park's standard and the viewers' standard (whether that be good or bad) than it is about Steve Irwin.  It should be placed on the South Park page - if anywhere. Alan Davidson 12:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I find the south park episode humorous in the typical south park style but it hardly warrants a lengthy section on the Steve Irwin page. I find the whole controversial memorials section to be a very weak entry that actually brings down the quality of the article.--I already forgot 14:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not censored and may contain offensive content.  Readers use it at their own risk. Slac speak up! 03:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a question of censorship.  Why are the vandals contributions removed - that is not a question of censorship either.  This article should be an encyclopadia standard detailing with the life and contibution of a particular person.  This should not be a place for South Park, but about a meaningful contribution.  The fact that he was featured in South Park - which is a widely watched show - is a controversial memorial.  The details and picture are not.  Should we take this down? Alan Davidson 05:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Alan.  My response was only directed at Alex's comments, not yours.  I don't see that mentioning the South Park episode is irrelevant.  If you feel that the image is not relevant, you are certainly within your rights to take it down, since nobody has objected as yet and I suspect they won't.  But some reference to the episode I would say definitely has a place. Slac speak up! 05:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe the image is relevant, as it is directly referred to in the text, doesn't appear to violate any policy and WP:NOT says it is allowed. Please give reasons why it shouldn't be included if you oppose.--HamedogTalk|@ 13:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone above believes it should be removed or is questionable.  Even the contributor "Slac" originally wrote that we were "obliged" to remove it - so I did.  If you check the history page, you will see he later changed this word to "within your rights".  First this is not censorship.  It is about maintaining an encyclopaedia standard.  Almost every famous person has been lampooned by programs such as Jay Leno, Conan O'Brien, Saturday Night Live etc etc; but this does not mean that we should dedicate some 16 lines of their biography to it and an image.  We would fill up all famous people's biographies with such things.  It is their contribution in life which matters first.  This article is almost one half dedicated to his death.  And 16 lines on a stunt by a TV program is out of proportion.  There are other such TV programs, why are they not mentioned.  I suspect it is because this has been placed by South Park fans.  If anywhere, it should go on the South Park site.  Whether it is clever or not, or ironic or not is not the measure.  Remove the image - and the text should be reduced in future if not now. Alan Davidson 03:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Park 

message: There are a number of computer games circulating which parody Steve Irwin’s death. I believe the wiki should have at least some mention of these since they are just as much a part of popular culture as the Halloween costumes and episodes of South Park. They also show the reaction to his death in different forms of media and give us a clearer picture of the impact of his death in popular culture.
Most notably this one. 
 —Preceding unsigned comment added by PirateYakuza (talk • contribs) 
:I don't think so. — Moondyne 00:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, I believe it is relevant. Wesconianbee 11:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Computer game 

message: I've added :Image:steve-irwin-death.jpg to the "Death" section. It is a photograph taken from the death video showing him behind the stingray, right before he got stabbed. I'm including it here because it perfectly illustrates the article. My question is, is it in the public domain? After all, it's in posession of the police, right? Wouldn't that make it public domain?  Floaterfluss  (talk) (contribs)   03:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there's a flaw with the image, in that its page doesn't identify the source. As it exists now, you assert that you took the picture—in which case, there wouldn't be a question, would there? Because it's uploaded as licensed under GFDL, with the  tag, yet because it's asserted that the image is "fair use" and "uncopyrighted," I'm recommending speedy deletion under criterion I7, invalid fair-use claim. —C.Fred (talk) 04:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think the photo is fraudulent.  It looks so fake.  Fighting for Justice 04:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not real, its from a tabloid that I recall reading. They said right on the page that it was an artists rendering. ~Rangeley (talk) 04:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean to say that he didn't dive with his khaki short-sleeved shirt on? ROFL. Deleting the image from the article. 75.35.77.22 04:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If this image is from the original recording given to the police, they arent the copyright holder and wouldn't have the ability to publish such an image. Gnangarra 04:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it were authentic, even if it had been stolen, then a compelling fair-use claim could be made in the U.S. where it matters.  However, it's an artist's rendition and an unconvincing one at that.  Artists' renditions aren't necessarily unencyclopedic if they are realistic or otherwise informative, but there is no way a fair use claim can be made on them, unless the rendition itself becomes newsworthy for some reason. 75.35.77.22 04:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The news reports that the footage was handed over to his wife and was not released to the public. Yahoo news. Enlil Ninlil 02:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photograph taken right before Irwin's death 

message: I think this page should be protected again. It seems every time I turn around, it's been vandalized. Phoenix Flower 09:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  lock 

message: I've opened up a Steve Irwin memorial website on Wiki-Site. Should I include it in the external link section yet or not? Scott Gall 07:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No.--HamedogTalk|@ 07:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steve Irwin Memorial Wiki 

message: The topic still has relevance in Australia as per today's SMH article (lead onthe SMH home page right now) http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/irwin-cover-up-nude-greer-goes/2007/02/15/1171405337542.html - portrait hanging in the Australian National Portrait Gallery is related back to those comments even if tendentiously.--Golden Wattle  talk 00:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An art gallery took down a painting and replaced it with another.  They state that it was a coincidence. A journalist remembers a 5 month old story about these two... Chicago8 11:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ... and puts it as the lead on the home page of one of Australia's major newspapers.  It was one of the most read (top 10) articles that day.  Yet discussion above refers to the importance of comments by Greer being removed from the article.  I support yet again their reinstatement.  Perhaps non-Australians just don't get it but Irwin was an Australian and Greer was also (expat) and her comments matter.  They should be in the article; her comments are still in the news 5 months later.--Golden Wattle  talk 20:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Still on the Greer kick eh? Brings back memories?  :) I'm pretty old by the way. :( --I already forgot 07:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: No after he died there was a little greer and a lot of Irwin, and 5 month later a little more greer, not worth mentioning. Enlil Ninlil 06:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greer and Irwin again 

message: There is a section "Controversial Memorials".  These are not memorials, but are lampooning.  Many many celebrities and others are lampooned by comedic TV shows - some more sophisticated than others.  Jay Leno, Conan O'Brien etc etc start off by lampooning such people - but this is not worthy of an encyclopedia.  I suggest this section be deleted, but I would like a discussion.  I am not critical of the lampooning - it is part of life - but in fact we would fill many articles over and over with such references. Alan Davidson 04:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the heading is wrong.  However, Ihtink the subject material is worth keeping - not to say it can't be made slightly more concise or edited in some way but not removed entirely.--Golden Wattle  talk 09:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This encyclopedia should not be about lampooning.  These programs exploit others in the commiunity for present a quirky homour and sell their programs.  There is no intent to present a memorial - let alone any serious material.  The section should be removed. 130.102.0.178 10:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lampooning by TV shows etc 

message: The screenshots need fair use rationales. --Nehrams2020 04:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA comment

message: The article is very well written and comprehensive. There are a couple of minor issues that prevent GA status. First, is the 'citation needed' tag under film. GA class articles should not have this issues. The 'early years' section, as well as a few areas under 'career' seem somewhat under-referenced as well.
The order of sections seems a little strange. It goes from 'early years' to 'career' to 'filmography' to 'personal life' and then 'death'. It seems to make sense having his career section early on, but I would move 'early years' to the first subsection under 'personal life', since it's a bit more related there. The 'filmography' section is just a list, and would be better moved to near the end of the content (before references). Also, why is the section containing inline citations called 'notes and references'. There are no 'notes' here, only inline citations. The section should be changed to simply 'references'.
The 'other personal trivia' section is just a listing of random bits of trivia. These sections are generally discouraged from articles (see WP:TRIVIA). While it's ok for start-class and B-class articles to have trivia sections, as it does help to gather information from multiple users, these sections should be removed prior to GA and FA status. Dr. Cash 21:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seven days are up, and as far as I can see, none of Dr Cash's points have been addressed, so I'm failing this one. 4u1e 10:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA review

message: The article uses the word "whilst" consistently.  One instance was recently changed to "while", but this was reverted (a) to be consistent with the rest of the article and (b) to honour Australian spelling.
Consistency is fair enough, but I think that "while" would be much more commonly found in Australian lingo than "whilst", which is a little old-hat, imo.  I'm considering changing all the "whilst"s to "while"s.  Any objections?  JackofOz 01:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objections. I was going for consistency, and a previous editor had changed it, noting "whilst" to be the preferred form. A quick scan of abc.com.au turns up "while"—and in an article where "Centre" is used incorrectly! (The proper name in question is "Johnson Space Center"; the reporter used "Centre.") —C.Fred (talk) 01:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the standard is to prefer the dialect of wherever the subject comes from.  So if "while" is more commonly used in Australia than "whilst", then they should be changed. --Mus Musculus (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, see User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a. Thanks. Sjones23 21:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Argh! "whilst" is *not* an Australian English convention!  I'll find you my federal government style guide at work tomorrow to convince you. . . Slac speak up! 23:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: This very topic has been discussed numerous times before (trawl through the archives to see precisely how many, if you like). So long as the form is correct and consistent, no-one should be changing it.--cj | talk 13:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point made here was, the form is not "correct" in the sense of proper modern usage. If it's stilted usage, I think that's a valid reason for change. If it's a recurrent problem in multiple articles, which it sounds like it may be, it should be addressed in a subpage of the WP:MOS. —C.Fred (talk) 23:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's incorrect; the form is legitimate. The problem is some folks simply don't like it, and would rather change the article to conform to their own preference than follow guidelines.--cj | talk 01:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks folks.  I just went in to remove the whiles, but someone's beaten me to the punch.  Not to be outdone, while I was there I changed "honoury" to "honorary".  :)  JackofOz 23:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It's really not legitimate.  I'm looking at my Australian Government style guide (sixth edition), and while it mentions introductory clauses beginning with as since or while, but no use of whilst.  Whilst doesn't even appear in the index, as opposed to while. Slac speak up! 03:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd argue that the AGSG does not mention every legitimate word in the English language.  My dictionary says whilst = while.  Whilst is indeed legitimate (= not incorrect), but outdated now.  Very few people say "amongst", either - most prefer "among".  Nothing to do with whether they're legitimate words - which they both are.  JackofOz 09:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whilst is not at all obsolete. It is very active in Australian English as a matter of fact. There have been several discussions like that which ended with "whilst" being the accepted form.--Kamikaze 14:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Grammar Girl, in her podcast #43 (transcript can be found at qdnow.com), notes that "whilst" is archaic in American but acceptable in British. While Although this doesn't specifically address Australian usage, it implies continued modern usage, so I'm now of the opinion that there is not evidence that "whilst" is archaic. —C.Fred (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never claimed it's either obsolete or archaic in Australia.  I've said it's old-hat and outdated.  It's certainly encountered, but very rarely from people of, for example, Steve Irwin's generation, or younger.  In any case, this discussion seems to be a little academic now since the words in question have been replaced with "while" in the article.  JackofOz 08:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that that should not have happened. It shouldn't need saying yet again, but being perceived as "old-hat and outdated" by some is not a valid reason to replace an existing, consistent, and correct form of language in an article.--cj | talk 13:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the old-hat/outdated reason wasn't sufficient, but the consistency reason was reason enough.  Once the words were replaced for that (valid) reason, there's no point in continuing to debate whether any other reason may or may not have been valid.   That's why I say this is now academic.  It would be fine to continue this discussion on a more appropriate page that discusses the relative merits of "while" and "whilst" - but Steve Irwin's talk page is definitely no longer such a place.  --  JackofOz 14:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. This discussion is needless as "whilst" is currently predominant in the article.--Kamikaze 19:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "While" vs. "whilst"

message: Could we please for God's sake (not to mention the sake of poor Mr. Irwin who is not around to refute all the tabloid rubbish) at least semi-protect this article, if not fully protect it? —  $PЯINGrαgђ  22:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please request page protection at WP:RFPP. Spebi 23:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protect 

message: Could somebody please put Steve Irwin's name (which is above his image but outside the infobox) into the infobox, but still keep it in place above his image within the infobox.  I have tried to fix this myself, but have been having problems because of the type of infobox being used for him.
Also, I'm wondering if the comment about 'the fatal stingray attack being captured on film' should be in the footnotes section of the infobox. Figaro 13:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I've removed the footnote. --Steve  (Stephen)  talk  05:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox query