Talk:Steve Irwin/Archive 11

Steve didn't pull the barb out

"The manager of “Crocodile Hunter” Steve Irwin has denounced as “absolute rubbish” reports that Irwin pulled a stingray’s barb out of his chest before lapsing into unconsciousness and dying. John Stainton told CNN that the reports, which quoted him, were based on “rumors.” Nevertheless, he acknowledged that the attack, which occurred in the water at Batt Reef, off the Australian coast north of Cairns, was caught on camera. Stainton further denied reports that he had watched the tape, saying he couldn’t bear to do so. The tape is currently in the hands of Australian authorities."

Initial reports misconstrued Stainton's improper pronoun usage to mean that Steve pulled it out, not the ray.

MikeSims 21:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, Alan Davidson removed the information w/o a reason (summary). [1] « FMF » 19:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Greer comments

The lack of any reference to Germaine Greer's controversial article about Irwin, published both in the UK and in Australia shortly after his death lets this page down. This seems tantamount to censorship, IMHO. Snowbunni 10:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Should be re-instated. This guy tormented a lot of innocent animals in his life. Some would say he got what was coming to him. I think that's a bit harsh, but it's a good lesson that if you play with fire, you can't complain if you get burned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.103.181.19 (talk) 12:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

As no-one has raised any objections, I have duly amended the criticism section to include Greer's articleSnowbunni 21:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Please check the archives, this has been thoroughly dealt with. 58.174.165.100 14:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I did indeed check the archives prior to making the changes and I take issue with your assertion that this matter was 'thouroughly dealt with'. Rather, it seems to have been more of a 'never the twain shall meet' scenario, with neither side coming to any agreement. As stated above, I believe the failure to include any reference to Greer's article, given the degree of publicity it attracted, is tantamount to censorship and undermines the basic principles which guide this site. Whilst I accept that Irwin's more enthusiastic admirer's have taken great exception to Greer and the sentiments she has expressed, an unwillingness to acknowledge them can not, and should not, erase them from the record, or indeed from this page. Snowbunni 19:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The previous comment was mine. I really do not want to repeat the copious amount of material dealing with this. Among other things she admits that she made up what she said. She says imagine Irwin said "this" and then rips into Irwin for saying the words she imagined. Since it was first put in, it has been absent by concensus much longer than its short appearances. On the censorship issue, this has been dealt with before as well. Of the many many comments made after Irwin's death, not all are put in this article. This is not censorship, it is encyclopedic editing. Alan Davidson 05:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

'This is not censorship, it is encyclopedic editing'? Well, keep telling yourself that, if you must. Sadly, it won't make it true.Snowbunni 09:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

the footage

did they ever air the footage of the fatal stingray barb that killed steve irwin?

Only if you find reliable sources. Greg Jones II 15:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I dont think so, the Queensland police say they didn't release it and all copys were destroyed, the original was handed back to the Irwin's. Enlil Ninlil 06:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Repetition

Sir David Attenborough's comment He taught them how wonderful and exciting it was, he was a born communicator is repeated in Rise to Fame subsection and Environmentalism section. Please remove from either of the two place. Thanks Tarif from Bangladesh 12:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Holiday

The Stever Irwin Day has been set in Australia.
It is set for 15 November 2007. - http://www.steveirwinday.com
I think this should be added.
Also, as you will see on the Steve Irwin Day website, on the 16th and 17th of November will be the "Steve Irwin Classic"

To celebrate the extraordinary life of The Crocodile hunter, Steve Irwin, two very special days in November have been nominated as the Steve Irwin Classic. Over 16 & 17 November there will be a stack of awesome activities which will feature many of the things Steve loved, especially surfing. Steve was passionate about his family, wildlife conservation, but it was also his love for surfing that helped fuel his passion for life.

The Steve Irwin Classic will include the Crikey Cup; a golfing tournament, surfing competition, surfers paddle out, beach concert and a Gala dinner.

"There is presently a resolution under consideration in the Kentucky General Assembly to make February 22, 2007 Steve Irwin Day in honor of what would have been his 45th birthday."

"Presently"?

It would work if it were for a certain day of the year, but I don't see how they would legislate to make a day that passed months ago a holiday... Out of date information? Seems to me like they would of passed it, denied it or just ran out of time before a decision was made... 65.27.139.162 11:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV?

"Both he and his wife publicly stated that Irwin was in complete control of the situation, as he had dealt with crocodiles since he was a small child, and based on his lifetime of experience neither he nor his son were in any danger."

The above sentences are the opinions of the Irwins. They are not facts . Therefore they cannot be "publicly stated" - they are merely claimed or asserted as such by the Irwins. Indeed, whether or not Irwin was "in control of the situation" and whether his son was "in any danger" are exactly the issues that his critics have taken issue with. In other words, they are what is in dispute and causing this controversy. Therefore, the lines above, as written, are not NPOV.

Also, using a different camera angle, by itself, does not end the debate or turn Irwin's opinions into facts (a croc further away can still pose a danger and control of a situation is a complex thing).

Therefore, I will change the lines in about a week or so, unless a valid reason is presented not to. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.97.88 (talk) 06:33, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

All hinges on your definition of "state". Merriam-Webster's dictionary gives as definition 2 of state (transitive verb): "to express the particulars of especially in words; [to] report; broadly to express in words". By that definition, the sentence is perfectly reasonable as it is. (And entirely aside from that, I think the opinions of someone who had worked with crocodiles on a daily basis for several years and is familiar with the dangers posed by them are probably more worthy of trust than those of the average person who happens to watch the film of a single camera angle on the evening news. Opinions they might be, but why should they be untrustworthy?) Thefamouseccles 10:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The increased distance from the croc greatly reduces the danger. A crocodile is opportunist, waiting until pray is close enough that the crocodile can capture the prey in the first swift attack. They are not prone to chasing prey, particularly on land. This understanding of the nature of the animal is what keeps people who work with animals safe. Steve and Teri Irwin are both experts in the habits and behavior of crocodiles in greneral and have even greater understanding of the particular crocodiles that were uses in their show. These are the opinions of experts who were actually there; they should be kept as they are valid expert testimony. The opinions of anyone who is not an expert in the field should be questioned rather than that of world recognised experts. CLuxV1 17:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If you are looking for an expert opinion on crocidiles you'd have to go a far bit to find someone willing to say Steve and Terri Irwin don't know what they are talking about. This is like saying Einstein didn't contribute to the atomic bomb because he only thought it would work. When one of the foremost experts in the field thinks something, you may want to take that opinion into account. Even so, as the people who committed the act, their rationale is noteworthy. Would you remove any mention of David Berkowitz' interviews because the dog didn't really speak to him, that's just his opinion? Padillah 03:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

obvioslly you ned to learn the deffinition of publicly stated.

"publicly" 1. In a public manner; openly. 2. By or with consent of the public

"stated" explicitly formulated or narrated

that means he openly said that he was incontrol of the situation. seeing as he was and expert, arguably the best in the world, at what he did, id listen to him. 69.115.204.217 (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Name Change

Why was the change that I made to the names reverted? From what I have seen you usually have the person's full name at the beginning of the article, and what they are known as above the picture. Will Bradshaw 18:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Because his name isn't "Professor". See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Academic_titles. Besides that, Steve never worked as a professor, wasn't known as one and it only became known after his death that UQ was considering making him an adjunct Professor. This is dealt with further on in the article, but the title does not belong in the intro. Sarah 07:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with that, but if that is how names are done then I'll leave it, but you should note that someone else has removed 'Steve' from the name, which, acording to current policy, should be there, maybe the policy needs changing. I looked around and can't find any guide lines for the name in an infobox, and from what I have seen: Eddie Murphy, David Beckham, Stephen Hawking, Anne Robinson, their full name is not used in the infobox, so I will change Steve's. Will Bradshaw 07:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia concerning Adjunct Prefessors : "adjuncts typically hold a Ph.D". Mr Irwin is the most famous graduate of Caloundra High School. As he is deceased, held no university qualifications, was never referred to by his postumous title during his lifetime and was never employed by the University of Queensland I believe the incorrect use of the title 'Professor' should be corrected in the entry (HaroldPlinth 14:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)).

South Park Reference

Why was this removed? It seems pretty encyclopedic to note that South park featured him on an episode parodying his death. Is it just me? Brett 05:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This has been dealt with in the archives. Briefly, Irwin has been parodied and satirised on countless television programs since his death. They all cannot be mentioned. Alan Davidson 13:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Countless? Isn't that Weasel Words? To discount your 'briefly', do you care to name your references to back up you reason for exclusion? 21:30, 7 October 2007 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.112.185 (talk)

becase if you name one, you have to name them all or someone will yell "BIASED!" its much easyier to say many. 69.115.204.217 (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Criticism NPOV?

Why is the criticism section tagged as NPOV? It says see the talk page but nothing here explains it either. Padillah 19:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and I'm removing the tag. If someone wants to put it back, please explain why here. BambinoPrime 21:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I think its fairly obvious. Having Dan Mathews direct uncountered quotes seems biased. He has no special knowledge of Steve Irwin just an opinion like everyone else. They say more about him than Steve Irwin and probably belong in his article. Also, WP:MOSQUOTE says "Editors should remember that Wikipedia is, at its core, an encyclopedia, and not an opportunity to list the best and worst quotations pertaining to an article's subject". We can distill his sentences into something like "a PETA leader doesn't like Steve Irwin" which is basically all you have. --MarsRover (talk) 03:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Didn't He Live, Too?

About half of this article deals with Irwin's death and the reaction to it. Shouldn't the article focus more on his life (as with the majority of other articles on dead people on wikipedia) than his death, which, after all, was substantially shorter than his life? Just a suggestion. 204.38.47.171 16:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)random_person416

Yes. In particular, the Memorials section is extremely gratuitous. Whenever a beloved person dies, the memorial section gets out of control. Perhaps it is time to trim down. Starting a new section below...

Trimming and/or deleting Memorials section

The Memorials section is extremely gratuitous, and as random_person416 has pointed out, it consumes as much of the article as Irwin's life (!). I think it is time to trim, but I will wait for consensus before blanking hundreds of words of text.

Objections? Thoughts? Alternative suggestions? Legal threats and/or personal attacks? --Jaysweet 16:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I just counted the article (with Word's lovely Word Count feature, for the nitpickers; I did NOT sit here and count every word by hand!!!) and out of 5,661 words, 2,463 words are about his death. That's about 44% of the article. Maybe it could be trimmed to just the facts of his death and a short section on memorials and such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.38.47.171 (talk) 16:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

...Strange Things

"...and has grossed $33 million..." Now, this may not seem like an odd thing for someone to put in the article (it's under the Films section), but why did someone feel the need to link the dollar sign of all things to the USD page?! I think this is a case of over-linking, which tends to happen when newcomers discover the magic [[ ]] symbol. I'd remove it, but I'm still considered a "newly registered member". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.38.47.171 (talk • contribs)

Actually, that should be linked, to indicate which dollar is the dollar in question. (Assuming it's a first reference, which it probably is; subsequent references should not be linked.) This is especially true since Irwin was Australian, so the "logical" guess would be the Australian dollar. —C.Fred (talk) 16:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I get it now. It just kind of confused me for a while because I always forget that other countries than the US use the "$" symbol for their money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.38.47.171 (talk) 11:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Someones ignorant... --124.187.230.185 (talk) 12:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

fans:--77.127.57.174 (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Ameen is a young 14 years old he is very, very ambitious and always dreamed of becoming the savior of endangered animals at the same time mail to be just like the famous Steve Irwin Crocodile Hunter. Most people love to worship, but he served mankind and the environment that brief us and, without them we are not alive, it's a great man and the myth entered the world of living organisms to make us a little bit of skills and good interaction with nature, Steve Irwin is already worthy of appreciation. For that's not surprising that the dream of ameen to become Figures as the most famous by the ethics and skills of high

What contribution to research and conservation?

Despite the University of Queensland awarding Irwin an adjunct professorship for his "remarkable contribution to research and conservation", the introduction notes his role as a television personality and zoo owner as more significant. Then the article goes into his media work, tourism promotion and environmental advocation. It briefly mention that he co-discovered a single species of turtle, and founded a number of projects. None of these activities are all that remarkable.

So either the article is lacking most of Irwin's "remarkable contributions to research and conservation" or as many in the Australian conservation movement believe his role was much less significant than the spin and hype would lead one to believe. - Shiftchange 04:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems your question is answered by your first line. Alan Davidson 08:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

"None of these activities are all that remarkable."- I beg to differ. Promoting conservation through television was more effective in bringing awareness and affection for the animals he starred in his shows than most scientists can do in a lifetime of diligent scholarly work. Steve's personality reached out to the viewers and made a lasting impression on them, and for the animals he advocated. That's what stood Steve out, and that's where his contribution to conservation was most felt.--Nobraindisease (talk) 05:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's just laughable. All he did on TV was put himself and others in a variety of highly dangerous situations so that the viewers could watch. I seriously doubt his sensationalistic BS had any really significant effect on conservation. Oh, sure, they may have said stuff, but how many more people put in the actual time and/or money necessary to really contribute to conservation as a result? The scientists whose contributions you dismiss so quickly are the ones slaving away in tropical jungles to count salamanders to justify protecting additional habitat, not showboating around on TV like a jackass who doesn't even know what a snake-hook is. Mokele (talk) 03:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever your personal view, the first line for this section sums it up. The university considers what he did as ... "remarkable contribution to research and conservation". Alan Davidson (talk) 06:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The university is kissing ass in hopes of attracting more donations from alumni. As Shiftchange pointed out, he's not really done anything to warrant such a quote, and since its absence doesn't detract from the article, I say we leave it at that. Mokele (talk) 04:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

But this is an encyclopedia, we state the fact of the recognition by the University not the opionion of Shiftchange! 121.208.35.55 (talk) 06:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

And we do state that the university recognized him? There's no reason to waste effort on a quote of dubious accuracy. Mokele (talk) 01:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question - yes. 121.208.35.170 (talk) 14:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

With respect, and my whole family love Irwin's work, he really was a side show entertainer who had the magic ingredient (like the Beatles) to make it big. I think the conservationist tag is taking what he did a bit far. But again, all respect for his work, he certainly publicised Australian wildlife and the bush right around the world in a family friendly, entertaining way. Many universities these days give honourary degrees to popular celebrities. Hence, I too question the soundness of your emphasis of the University of Queensland bestowal. You should just like Irwin for who he was, a bloke who came from back-blocks poverty, had little formal education but who became very successful as an entertainer for which he had tremendous natural talent and was a loving family man.

165.142.249.81 (talk) 06:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Steve Irwin Memoral Service

22:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC) The following statement is inorrect. "In a final tribute, Australia Zoo staff spelled out Irwin's catchphrase "Crikey" in yellow flowers as Irwin's truck was driven from the "Crocoseum" for the last time to end the service. Flags on the Sydney Harbour Bridge flew at half mast on the day of the memorial service."

In fact it was the champion Australian barbershop chorus "The Blenders" dressed as zoo staff who laid out the wreaths. The Blenders also provided the backing vocals to John Williamson and Daniel McGhan when they performed their tribute songs. There is more informaiton available on The Blenders web site www.theblenders.com.au - and contact details are also there 22:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Its Doctor Steve Irwin

Right before he was died the professor he had been researching with had sent him papers and a certificate of doctorate.

i don't really know much about specifics, like who gave it to him, i just know the papers were on his desk and he never got to see them.

so the page needs to say Doctor Steve Robert Irwin.

any specific info needs to be listed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smurfmanser (talk • contribs) 03:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there any actual source for this, or mere heresay? Mokele (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I would think if this were valid, there would be a lot of sources. The school awarding the doctorate would have likely done some kind of big presentation and remembrance at the next commencement. Most schools make a big deal of giving honorary doctorates; I would think the awarding of an actual doctorate would have gotten even more attention. —C.Fred (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually (and I know this isn't a valid "source") I just heard the same thing on Crikey! What an adventure. Apparently a friend of his applied without him knowing. I don't know whether he ever found out or whether it even went through (due to his death). But surely there must be some written sources on this. --Cameron* 14:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ramming boats

Looks like we have the beginning of a possible edit war, here: [2] [3] [4] [5]. This content does not appear to be referenced at this time, has been tagged as unreferenced for at least a week (since January), and I'm not entirely clear on why it should be mentioned in an article about Steve Irwin. We have an article on the Sea Shephard group. We have an article on the MV Steve Irwin (if the ship itself was directly involved, that might be a stronger case for relevance). Was Irwin directly involved in these activities, or are we planning on making it regular practice to make in-line mention of any and all possible controversies of any and all groups people have associated with? If kept, should definitely be referenced, regardless. – Luna Santin (talk) 12:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The group itself have stated their record of sinking 10 ships [6], this is already on the Shepherd article. Otherwise, what are the objections? Irwin's last intended mission was to join shepherd on their atlantic mission, the ship is named after him because of that, Irwin's main interest was saving endgangered species, sinking ships damages the marine environment. All of those statements are completely factual, and relevant to an article on Irwin. I am not intending to paint Irwin in any kind of bad light, but this conflicting position is definitely worthy of mention in an NPOV article about Steve. MickMacNee (talk) 12:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm not totally happy with it, but I see a little more of where you're coming from. Checked the SS article, there is some mention (and at least cursory sourcing) over there. Probably redundant to point that out, right now, but I got edit conflicted, so. :p It just seems like an odd mention, to me, like it's begging a point by comparison or juxtaposition (intended or not). Or maybe it just seems more relevant on the other article. I see now that this is in the Controversies section, which may change matters slightly. Just brainstorming a bit, are there any other phrasings which might also work? Anything from just describing the SS group as "controversial" to mentioning a "history of sometimes-violent confrontations" or anything of that nature, say? – Luna Santin (talk) 12:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to butt in but that {{fact}} tag looks like it is challenging the statement that sinking a ship can cause damage to marine environments. Is that the fact that is being challenged? Padillah (talk) 13:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that highlights the bit that makes me uncomfortable: we're making a leap from describing Irwin's association, to then describing controversial actions he may or may not have endorsed, to then describing environmental impact of those actions he may or may not have been happy about. I keep thinking back to that "synthesis of data" bit in WP:NOR, which I guess means this strikes me as a bit much daisy chain. After some more reflection, some sort of mention of the group's activities is probably appropriate, but what we have now seems at least slightly excessive to me. – Luna Santin (talk) 13:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this something approaching a reasonable compromise? I used two sources, one that MickMacNee provided, another that's being used on the SS article itself. Haven't used the pretty {{cite web}} templates, just yet, pending whatever anybody has to say or do about the edit. Thoughts? – Luna Santin (talk) 09:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that cuts it really, the whole point is the Group's actions of sinking vessels which, while saving whales, does damage marine environments. I agree it can't be stated either way what Irwin thought of that without further quotes (this could be added for clarification), but the facts as put there are relevant in an Irwin article considering his general conservation ethos and his intention to join the vessel. FYI, the USS Arizona is still leaking oil into Pearl Harbour, 67 years after it was sunk. MickMacNee (talk) 12:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... a little better, now? – Luna Santin (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Not realy, the new statement and two refs provided only refer to the controversial nature of the group, this isn't realy relevant to Irwin per se, and is covered elsewhere on wiki. The specific action is sinking ships. I'm re-inserting the sinking statement, and moving the controversial ref to within an existing statemetn, I don't think this is in dispute. I will leave out reference of environmental consequences until anyone finds references or expresses for it support here. MickMacNee (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No objection from me, at this point. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

i think the mention of sea shepher naming the ship after him, and the link to that page suffices. this page is about steve, nt sea shepherd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I doubt Steve would even indirectly support lunatics of Whale wars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.90.7.52 (talk) 11:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

first of all, "lunatics" is a rather biased word for what they do. second, he did indeed support them in there saving of animals, and was planning on joining them. his wife even agreed with sea shepherd to rename there flag ship after him. third, the actions of sea shepherd have little to do with steve except for naming there ship after him. fourth, the few ships the sea shepherd sunk were in port, maybe 2 were sunk at sea. the ships they sunk did massive damadge to the enivernment while in action, sinking them did far less. (whales remove ALOT of carbon from the atmosphere, killing them stops that AND realeases carbon.) 69.115.204.217 (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Error - Death anniversary section

There is a location error found under Death Anniversary:

Quoted text: 'On September 4, 2007, Australian fans gathered at the Irwin family zoo on the Gold Coast, Queensland ...'

Australia Zoo is not on the Gold Coast - it is on the Sunshine Coast.

Please edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aroz867 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it is definitely on the Sunshine Coast which is a totally different spot from the Gold Coast (one is North of Brisbane, one is Sounth) - someone please change. Agarner (talk) 09:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed

Has anyone noticed that he died exactly a year after what Robert Farquharson did? Anyone out there think this is unusual, a coincidence, etc.? Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 23:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's entirely too coincidental to mention. Further, unless a reputable media source has commented on it, it's original research. —C.Fred (talk) 23:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

well, its odd but not really worthy of mention. many dates have important events that happened in the past but its not needed to be put on there page. for example, on d-day(june 6th) a fire destroyed most of moscow and napolieans brother became king of spain but those arnt mentioned on its page. second, things that are blantenly obviosy if you look at them can and should be included if there important. like if someone claims to be burned by rotten butter. everyone with a brain knows that even though it smell bad, it dosnt eat through flesh. thats my two cents 69.115.204.217 (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Death: Reaction

Wildboyz, which debuted in 2003 on MTV and moved to MTV2 in its third season, is a spin-off and follow-up to Jackass starring Steve-O and Chris Pontius. The show ended in 2006, after 4 seasons. The reason for not making a fifth season came after the death of Steve Irwin, in which Pontius and Steve-O commented, saying "If this could happen to him, and he's a professional, we've got to look out for our own safety." —Preceding unsigned comment added by UnorthodoxJ (talk • contribs) 01:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

disbelief. Why did the want him dead?184.157.59.240 (talk) 10:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Backlash against stingrays

This part of the article cites as a reference a page which distinctly states:

CLAIMS that people were chopping off the tails of stingrays to avenge the death of Steve Irwin were ridiculous, says Sunfish chairman Bill Turner.

There is nothing in the (very short) article to refute this claim and my further research suggests this is the case. This incorrect 'factoid' needs to be immediately removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardMcNixon (talk • contribs) 17:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Now... seriously guys...--195.130.92.43 (talk) 10:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Many rays were found dead on a number of coasts around australia and the world after Irwins death with their tails cut off. ZooPro 06:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Spelling

I noticed honor and honour being used in this article. Which is correct in Australian English? --Cameron* 14:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It should be "honour", as far as I know. I fixed this just now. Richwales (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's "honour" (GT4GTR (talk) 12:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC))

Yeah, the proper Australian English is honour, just as British English is honour as well. It's because the two are basically the same. Paleo Kid (talk) 03:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Bindi age question...

a daughter, Bindi Sue Irwin (born 24 July 1998),

However, on her page, it has her birthdate listed as 1/24/1997. Can anybody confirm which one is correct, so I (or anybody else) can make the proper edit? Whammies Were Here 16:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's 1998. She turned 10 this year. By the way, that's 24/1/97 here in Australia, not 1/24/97. (GT4GTR (talk) 12:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC))

If it is July, then it should be 24/7/98 not 24/1/98 04:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)123.2.110.26 (talk)

steve lrwin

hi steve irwin was the best animal helpere he wored aroung the world just to save the animals life —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.189.111 (talk) 07:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Death: Negative Reactions

Should this be elaborated on? I was personally quite offended when Glenn Beck and Carlos Mencia made light of his death on their shows. I stopped watching both shows for that reason. Quietmartialartist (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Death

Under the section on death, the following is written, "It is thought, in the absence of a coroner's report, that a combination of the toxins and the puncture wound from the spine caused Irwin to die of cardiac arrest, with most damage being inflicted by tears to arteries or other main blood vessels.[63] A similar incident in Florida a month later in which a man survived a stingray barb through the heart suggested that Irwin's removal of the barb might have caused or hastened his death.[64] The coroner's report has not yet been released." Two points: in the second sentence, what is being described (but not enunciated) is the condition known as "cardiac tamponade", in which blood leaking from a heart wound fills the space between the heart and the pericardial sac around the heart. This compresses the heart and does not allow it to beat. If Irwin removed the barb, it would have caused bleeding into this sac and thus cardiac tamponade. The Florida man who survived the attack did not remove the barb but was transferred to a hospital where surgeons could safely remove the barb in the operating room and repair the hole in the heart. All of which is to say that it would be helpful to amend the second sentence in this section of the Wikipedia article so that it reads, "removal of the barb might have caused or hastened his death by bleeding from the heart wound into the pericardial sac, resulting in cardiac tamponade and therefore cardiac arrest." (Amended portion in italics). Second point: it's been over three years since this happened - has the coroner's report still not been released??

David Graham 27 October 2009:—Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.107.49.97 (talk) 19:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

One case does not provide enough basis to form an opinion or state possible medical conditions that resulted in Irwins death. Until such time as the report is released it should remain how it is. There are endless possabilities to the reason for his death including blood loss via the wound. I know one of the crew members that was on board the vessal at the time and his explanation to me was that Irwin had lost a lot of blood and the wound was quite large. This information of course is not in the article for many reasons. The florida man was injured by a different species or ray also. ZooPro 06:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

In section about Death it says "the spine had pierced his heart", but neither reference mentions the piercing of his heart. The references state there was a hole "over the heart", but that's not the same as piercing the heart. That phrase should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.46.243 (talk) 10:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

what is steve irwins most important accomplishment

the theory of relativity is a good one

but its by isaac newton so sorry. HAHA lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.6.128.34 (talk) 03:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Steve Irwin won a couple of the emmy awards in 2003 and 2004. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.96.39 (talk) 06:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

he is posthumously banned from morracan IWC meeeting

sea shepherd reported that on the list of people japan sent to moracco to be prevented from entering, steve irwin was at the top of the list. should this be added? 69.115.204.217 (talk) 02:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably not, unless an independent source is corroborating the report. Even then, I'm not sure it would warrant mentioning. —C.Fred (talk) 03:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Herpetologist and Zoologist

Don't you need some sort of academic qualification to be called either of these things under "occupation"?

He was a zookeeper, not a zoologist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeph 1 (talk • contribs) 11:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

True that he was a zookeeper. However, I poked around google just a bit, and I didn't see anything about being required to have a degree to be a zoologist -- just "practice the science of zoology." Unlike medical doctors, this is not a "regulated" field. If the claim was that he was a Doctor of Zoology, then that would require PhD to be true. I did find reference to amateur zoologist (referring to some students), so the term is not exclusively used for a degreed professional. Personally, I would have used what's in the lead (television personality, wildlife expert, and conservationist), as it's more likely to be citable (and should be -- I don't see either set of descriptions cited), but that's just my take. Donlammers (talk) 12:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Steve Irwin is an adjunct professor at the University of Queensland's School of Integrative Biology and is therefore a Zoologist according to Australian Registered Training Organization regulations. Whilst Steve did not personally receive his formal letter of acceptance he was non the less an adjunct professor. Australian standards also allow that anyone who has undertaken formal training in the field of reptiles may be titled as a herpetologist, Steve undertook formal training in Darwin (Certificate 3 captive animal care) back in 1986, Wes Mannion is also considered a herpetologist as he also undertook the same certificate. ZooPro 14:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to go in and change anything in the article at this time, but it sure would be nice if we could cite this somehow and put it in the appropriate articles... Donlammers (talk) 14:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I will have a hunt around for some sources to cite that. ZooPro 23:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

There was already mention of the adjunct professorship under Honours (you guys just don't know how to spell ;-). However, both citations were dead links. I replaced the two dead links with one live link. Lots of mention on blogs, tribute sites and such (which I try to avoid), but I found an ABC News article which I used. If you find something else, we can add it. I haven't gone looking yet for any other certifications, but it's something that should be included if we can find them. Donlammers (talk) 11:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Sea Shepherd

"Sea Shepherd is a controversial[40][41] environmentalist group that conducts direct action operations including the sinking of whaling ships to protect marine species and environments." This part of the article i think is inaccurate. Has there been any proven case of the Sea Shepherd group sinking whaling ships? The only case I know about is the opposite of a whaling ship sinking a Sea Shepherd ship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.27.126.211 (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Sinking ships does not seem to be supported by the cited articles, so I have removed that. "Direct action" is probably a good description for trying to plug ship's outflow ports by going up to it in a dinghy and bolting a steel plate to the hull (so I left that). Any more information than this article currently contains probably belongs in the Sea Shepherd article, and should be discussed there. Donlammers (talk) 19:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Bull ray?

According to this article he was stung by a bull ray. According to its own article Bull rays are not found in this part of the world. In fact there is even a comment on the bull ray talk page to this very fact.TeigeRyan (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

We may need to make clearer that it was Ben Cropp who described it as a bull ray. "Veteran marine wildlife documentary maker Ben Cropp, who has spent hundreds of hours filming on Batt Reef, says Irwin had come too close to a bull ray. Citing a colleague who saw footage of the attack, Cropp says Irwin had accidently boxed the animal in, causing it to attack. 'It stopped and twisted and threw up its tail with the spike, and it caught him in the chest,' says Cropp. 'It's a defensive thing. It's like being stabbed with a dirty dagger.' Says Cropp: 'It's a one-in-a-million thing. I have swum with many rays, and I have only had one do that to me.'"^{[emphasis added]}[7] —C.Fred (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Is that so? Then somebody should hop over to Bull Ray and clarify that, or at least comment on that talk page.TeigeRyan (talk) 01:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Closing this. See Bull rays. The term is used both for a particular species (Pteromylaeus bovinus, and colloquially for other species that are seen around Australia. Don Lammers (talk) 12:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Major restructuring

I just finished a major rearranging of the content of this article, in an effort to make it flow more logically and be less of a chaotic jumble. I plan to do more work, but this should hopefully be a start toward hopefully getting the page to a Good Article level — something that's been tried before, but without success. Richwales (talk · contribs) 23:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I've nominated this article as a Good Article. Richwales (talk · contribs) 06:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I would like to thank you for the work you have put into the article, if it was not a conflict of interest for me I would review it, Good luck I have no doubt it will achieve GA status soon. ZooPro 08:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Steve Irwin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll make straightforward copyedits and style improvements as I go. Please correct me if I guff the meaning. I'll jot notes below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• If there's no chance the commented-out images can be used, why not just remove them?

• Refs need more information. I find using the various cite formats helps.

• Surely Marriage and family belongs in a biography rather than career section? explained elsewhere. I'll pay that.

• Given The Crocodile Hunter was his main show, this is underrepresented in the article. A bit more about it would be good - potted summary of format (there is also a dead link in this section)

• Actually, I'd rename the The Crocodile Hunter section to The Crocodile Hunter and related work - this allows us to place some of the material of basically similar work (10 deadliest snakes and movie spinoff) into that section. The Other television and film work can also include the media campaign material really too.

• Streamlining these subsections allows us to place the material in a more chronological order - currently it jumps back and forth a bit which is a bit confusing.

• Also, the mention of Australia Zoo is pretty brief and a little confusing. A little more on how and when they assumed control, and when they renamed it, and if they impressed a change in direction from his father would be good to add.

Most of this can be found in the Australia Zoo article and on the Australia Zoo website. ZooPro 11:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, although that article is pretty patchy too and light on the area that is relevant to Steve taking over. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

If only life experience counted as a reliable source I could give you a full run down of it all. ZooPro 13:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I know, and one could slap a Pers. comm. tag after it like in real books :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

All in all, a good start, but I think I have flung up a fair bit of material to cover (I was going to do more copyediting but I think we need to get the content right first). I often let these reviews hang around for a while so a good job is better than a slap-dash one. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

"Surely Marriage and family belongs in a biography rather than career section?" When I restructured this article a few days ago, I couldn't see a good way to separate Steve Irwin's personal and family life from his career — the two were so thoroughly intertwined that any separation into two separate sections would be hopelessly artificial and lead to massive redundancy. Maybe the best solution is to use a section heading other than "Career". I'd welcome any input on how to handle this. Richwales (talk · contribs) 16:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I have slept on it and now agree that it is more difficult. I think the best answer is to leave it for the time being and buff up the rest of the article first. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've started working on additional cleanup. Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I just finished doing a bunch of stuff — mostly taking care of all the "citation needed" and "dead link" issues. Probably still more work remains to be done on the page, but maybe you can take another look now and let me know what you think at this point. Richwales (talk · contribs) 06:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind me butting in, but none of the three non-free images seem to be adding much; see non-free content criterion 8. I'd say they should be removed. J Milburn (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll admit I'm not an expert in WP:NFCC right now, but it seems to me that this is a judgment call and not obvious. For the moment, I would favour keeping these images in. Richwales (talk · contribs) 06:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• looking much better - some tags required addressing. I just pklaced them rather than just listing all unreferenced bits. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• I dealt with all the {{citation needed}} tags. It's extremely hard, BTW, to find reliable secondary sources for some of this material because the web is infested with Wikipedia-derived material and we need to be careful about WP:CIRCULAR violations. Richwales (talk · contribs) 06:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: (two images with FUR issues removed)

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail: - Most articles I edit I stick to free images. I think there is a grey area on the FUR for File:Crocodile hunter collision course ver2.jpg and File:Crocodilehuntertitlecard.jpg as the FUR is already being used for their specific articles, and I don't think this article loses much by their loss. I'll double check FUR rationale. The article could do with some more fleshing out on info about Crocodile Hunter and Australia Zoo, but not a deal-breaker for GAN. I think reading Terri's biography'd be helpful here, but I think it is broad enough for GA. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the images would be helpful, but I'm not going to insist on keeping them if others feel the fair use rationales aren't strong enough. Richwales (talk · contribs) 07:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok. done and dusted. GA pass. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help with this. Richwales (talk · contribs) 17:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Filmography

Steve Irwin actually stared in a wiggle's movie once too, so you should at that. I can't remember which movie, but the cover has Steve on the front. He plays himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.93.11 (talk) 07:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Not a movie just a film clip/song. ZooPro 12:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Death

Is it really necessary to devote a quarter of the article to his death? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.87.39 (talk) 23:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Probably not. When Irwin died, everybody and his pet rock jumped in and added every detail from every news story. Five years on (it still seems almost like it was yesterday, but it's really been five years now), it should certainly be possible to do some judicious hacking-and-slashing of the material, keeping the essentials without elaborating every little bit of trivia. Richwales (talk) 00:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Wildboyz and Steve Irwin

I've lost the actual interview-link, but I recall reading Steve-O and Chris Pontius of "Wildboyz" fame, saying they decided to cancel their nature-related show when Steve died. Perhaps that should be mentioned in the article? 83.253.32.171 (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

If you can find the link, we can consider putting it in the article. Without the link, we can't do that. Don Lammers (talk) 01:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It would be a really interesting addition. Hope you can find the link.P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 01:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

"Expert" or "enthusiast"?

There has been a disagreement in the works over whether or not Steve Irwin can be called a wildlife "expert". One editor has been insisting on changing the text to call Irwin a wildlife "enthusiast", defending this edit on the grounds that "Without demonstrable, academic achievements - it is technically incorrect to call the late Mr Irwin an 'expert'. Despite having gained significant knowledge and expertise, it is appropriate to call him an enthusiast rather than an expert." Personally, I strongly disagree with this proposed change; it is not absolutely necessary for someone to have academic training in order to be properly considered an "expert" in a subject or field. Although I am not proposing to cite Wikipedia as a source about itself, I will note that the existing Expert article makes it clear that expertise can come in many ways and is not by any means limited to the academic realm. In case this current content dispute persists, I think it would be helpful to clearly establish what the consensus is on this point. Comments or opinions, anyone? — Richwales 10:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support the use of expert on grounds that people don't become experts only by going to school and or being certified. "Experience", after all, has the same root.Don Lammers (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

As previously indicated. The term "expert" is not demonstrable and is subjective in its usage. Given that Mr Irwin did not always show expertise - such as his poor appreciation of continental ecological issues related to grazing and salinity, coupled with a poor appreciation of venomous, non-elapid, terrestrial snakes when dealing with the US Army - would suggest not using the term expert. A suitable compromise may be to remove 'wildlife expert' and replace with non-subjective language such as 'naturist'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karaokeneil (talk • contribs) 12:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC) I notice that a desire for accuracy in this article is contrary to emotive opinion. I reiterate the suggested compromise above that the subject term of "wildlife expert" be replaced with "naturalist". This will satisfy the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy and will eliminate the need to instigate a Good Article Reassessment.121.218.12.112 (talk) 12:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't consider "expert" to be an inaccurate statement here. Expertise is not always gained academically, and experts are often in (sometimes very strong) disagreement. Any one person is not an expert in everything, nor are experts immune to error. Then again, that may be a good reason not to apply the term to anyone. I agree with the suggested compromise of "naturalist" on the basis stated by 121.218.12.112. Don Lammers (talk) 00:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I'd caused too much confusion. My initial statement in support of the edit was not intending to imply that gaining qualifications "academically" was the only way to be considered an expert - but it is A WAY that is demonstrable. Other ways include substantiated peer recognition, publication of original material etc. With this said, the elimination of subjective/relative terms (like expert) is still recommended as I have taken a look at other entries on this site - particularly with respect to herpetology/biology and the use of the term "expert" is conspicuously absent. Entries on Wikipedia for Rick Shine (Syd University) and Eric Worrall (self-taught, but externally recognised for work in anti-venom research) lack reference to the term "expert" and there isn't even an entry for the late Graeme Gow who compiled the authoritative "Snakes of Australia" directory. I will monitor this talk topic for the next 24-48 hours and (provided there is no further dissension) will edit to reflect "naturalist". Thanks all for your patience.Karaokeneil (talk) 12:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Although I still feel "wildlife expert" is fine (and "wildlife enthusiast" is not acceptable), I would accept "naturalist" as a compromise here. — Richwales 21:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with "expert". "Enthusiast" is meaningless, as anyone can be enthusiastic. --Dmol (talk) 08:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

My view is that expert should remain. It is entirely appropriate for this person. Alan Davidson (talk) 00:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Constructive feedback appears to endorse the use of "naturalist" as a compromise. I appreciate the suggestion that "expert" remain however, the subject comments failed to provide alternatives as to how the article could remain neutral (in the sense that "expert" is a relative, subjective term - that cannot be substantiated). For "expert" to remain in the text, the article is unlikely to satisfy the NPOV (Neutral Point of View) policy and would be entirely inconsistent given the lack of usage of the term in (at least) two other cases as presented above. "wildlife expert" now edited to read "naturalist". Karaokeneil (talk) 05:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I am not convinced that we had a consensus here to make this change. I am willing to see "naturalist" stay, but if someone else insists on reverting back to "wildlife expert", let's please be sure to engage in proper dispute resolution rather than have an edit war. Everyone please remember that with very limited exceptions involving such overridingly critical things as vandalism or BLP violations — none of which are at issue here — edit-warring is not acceptable even if you are sure you are right (including if you are sure you have NPOV or other policies on your side). — Richwales 06:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Most respectfully - I did not believe we were entering into an edit war, nor did I think we were looking for truth by consensus. There has already been a consistent theme developed here that the compromise position is acceptable. Individual editors who maintain that "expert" should continue to be used (at the exclusion of the compromise) have not presented any sound reasoning apart from their own opinions. Given that the bulk of our understanding of Mr Irwin's "expert status" is gained from our exposure to his public persona.....we are simply not in a position to know to what degree his presentation to the public was based on him being an expert in his field, versus that which is the result of his script/copy writers and editorial/production input. My suggestion is that the term "naturalist" be included immediately - as this compromise is neutral, accurate and appropriate - and addresses the initial concerns raised when it was suggested that "enthusiast" be used in lieu of "expert". Let's not persist in being dragged into Wikiality. Karaokeneil (talk) 12:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I've added a news source which refers to Irwin as a "wildlife expert". Other sources of this type should be possible to find — just have to make sure not to fall into circular reasoning by citing a source which clearly took its info from this Wikipedia article. It may be the case that people will argue over whether a news writer is qualified to label someone an "expert" (i.e., whether a news story calling someone an "expert" qualifies as a reliable source on this point). A good venue for that sort of discussion would be the "Reliable Sources Noticeboard" (WP:RSN). — Richwales 16:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The doubts expressed as to the reliability of the cited source - especially considering the fact that media perspectives are likely to reflect the public persona indicated above, do not significantly reinforce the usage of the term "expert". I think this forum should be mature and intelligent enough to acknowledge the potential inaccuracy of the cited reference as a prima facie justification for NOT using the subjective language of "expert" and pro-actively amending the entry to reflect the term "naturalist". Karaokeneil (talk) 04:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the latest edit. He was an expert in wildlife. It may be convenient to suggest that concensus should not apply when it is against a particular view, but it was in place during his life, for more than five years, and more to the point is entirley accurate - as an honourary doctorate may corroborate. Alan Davidson (talk) 11:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I added another cite, re-using an existing source reporting a posthumous professorship conferred on Irwin by the University of Queensland. This action was more than a mere publicity stunt or show of sympathy, BTW, as the university had in fact chosen Irwin for the position just before his death: "Notification of the honour was waiting for Steve at Australia Zoo, but sadly he never returned to find out the good news." — Richwales 18:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

My work here is done! Many thanks to Richwales. The entire nature of my objection was not in the use of the term "expert" per se, but the fact that without substantiation it was inappropriate to use a subjective, superlative term......and, until the most recent citation, the usage of the term appeared to have been based on emotive opinions (largely) due to our perceptions of Mr Irwin's expertise as presented in the media. A good result in making Wikipedia a little bit more accurate and reliable. Thanks again. Karaokeneil (talk) 03:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Category

Please put him in Category:Underwater diving deaths.

Done. — Richwales 02:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Major rewrite of "Death" section

I just finished a major rewrite of the "Death" section — summarizing and rearranging material so as to convey the important points without nearly so much blow-by-blow bloat. Most of the original sources are still in place. Note, though, that I removed much of the "Other memorials" material — memorial projects which were planned, but for which I was unable to find sources confirming eventual realization, needed to be removed. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 08:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Addition request for 'Death' section

I found a very good secondary source (60 Minutes (Australian TV program) ) Season 29, Episode 2 (25 Feb. 2007) "The Venom Hunters" , journalist Liam Bartlett interviewing Australian venom biologist, Associate professor at James Cook University Jamie Seymour who was there with irwin when it happened.

LIAM BARTLETT: To be so venomous, so deadly, it amazes me we don't know more about it.

PROFESSOR JAMIE SEYMOUR: It amazes you? It scares me.

LIAM BARTLETT: It's little wonder Jamie has the utmost respect for these waters and the deadly creatures that live here. He was right there when his good mate, Steve Irwin, died after that fatal encounter with a sting ray. Was it sting ray venom that killed Steve Irwin?

PROFESSOR JAMIE SEYMOUR: No, basically with Steve, I mean there was venom left behind in the heart wound but basically Steve ended up with a 2.5cm tear in the left ventricle of his heart which means he had a slit like that in his heart in the lower chamber which is used to pump and basically, in a nutshell, the blood just drained out of his heart.

LIAM BARTLETT: When he died, did it make you think twice about what you do?

PROFESSOR JAMIE SEYMOUR: You immediately become a heck of a lot more cautious about what you're doing but you can't walk away from it. As I said, if I don't do it, who does?

LIAM BARTLETT: But, like Steve Irwin, you could make a mistake?

PROFESSOR JAMIE SEYMOUR: Yeah, you can, you can. But do you wrap yourself up in cotton wool and sit at home?

Transcript Source

• This is the only mention of Steve Irwin in the transcript. 79.181.15.207 (talk) 14:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 21:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)