Talk:Steve Irwin/Archive 8

Some info on his method of handling snakes

As the article is currently unable to be edited, heres some proposed quotes to better understand how he handles snakes differently from other snake handlers:

"People tie their shoes and don't really give a rip. Whereas me, it's like, oh, you are very gentle with the shoelace. It is like this, mate. You get a snake - most people deal with snakes and fair dinkum, they deal with snakes and go for the head. What is the sensation when someone goes to your head? It is pretty threatening, isn't it?"..."Instantaneously you are freaking out. So the snake starts freaking. What I do is gently coerce the snake, hence mucked with more venomous snakes than anyone else in the world and never been bitten. It's a gift."

Also, some quotes on his parents:

"I love my parents just so much, mate. Like my mum - how would you be? I was born on her birthday. All she ever did was just love me and prop me up and get me back out in there, and my dad! Just the legend of the universe. When I was the tiniest little kid, Andrew, I would look up at my dad and he was larger than life. He was just this action hero. He was everything I wanted to be and all I've done in my life is follow in his footsteps, mimic him and try to be him and nowadays I just try to make him proud, mate. I love my parents like nothing else. They are everything to me. Absolutely everything. The day that my mum went was the day I lost something. I lost something. I lost something really big."

Quotes are from transcriptions from Enough Rope with Andrew Denton.

Thanks. Nick carson 06:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Linking to Peter Brock

Peter Broke has died to day, and that article links to Steve Irwin. Perhaps this could link there? Two Aussie icons dying in the same week.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 08:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

See the Peter Brock talk page. Consensus there developed into a removal of the reference due to it only being incidental. If there was a cause for the phenomena then it may be relevant. Ansell 08:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, I have read that, but I watched atlease an hour of the Sky News report tonight and they made several references to the fact it was the second great loss in a week for Australia. Even John Howard said first we lost Steve now Peter. Should be referred to in both.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 16:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The two are unrelated in everything but their date of death. They're already in Category:2006 deaths. We don't put Hitler as a related item on Ghandi just because both were vegetarians, why would we put these two as related just based on when they died? — ceejayoz ^talk 23:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

How about two Aussie Icons to die in the same week?--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 02:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You're missing the point. They are not related in any way except the closeness of their death dates. Related articles are linked to because it is reasonably assumed that a user looking at the current page is likely to be interested in the related article (key word, again, being related). Not many people are going to go to Steve Irwin's page and be expecting a link to a racecar driver's bio. — ceejayoz ^talk 05:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• • • • Also, these news articles may interest you:[1], [2][3]. "Brock's passing has left Australia in shock, especially following the death of Steve Irwin. Two of Australia's most famous citizens, both dying suddenly doing what they loved."--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 02:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
      • The core point is not that the deaths were close, rather, that because of this closeness it has had a profound impact on the Australian people. The deaths are already related in peoples minds because of this. I think thats worth a mention.--EDH 08:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Peter Brock is related to Steve with his death because He the "second great loss in a week for Australia" But Steve doesn't because he died first 222.154.128.74 01:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Before linking to Peter Brock, the Steve Irwin article should be linking to the Colin Thiele article. Colin Thiele died on the same day and his impact on Australia is at least as significance as Peter Brock's, if not more so (eg. outranks him in the Order of Australia). I'm not arguing that the Thiele article be linked to from here, just illustrating that it does not make sense to start linking deaths which are not related. By many measures Thiele's death is more closely related to Irwin's than Brock's. (Timing, significance, ...) Where do you stop making links? (Yes, a peripheral motive for this comment is to highlight the almost ignored death of a significant Australian.) John Dalton 04:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Irwin quote on what he wanted to be remembered for

A quote by Steve Irwin on what he wanted to be remembered for was removed. I would have thought this summary statement of his whole life's goal would have merited inclusion. If others agree, can they please make the edit instead of me? I'm sure the people on this talk page have much more experience with how best to include it. Perhaps there should be a "Quotes" section? After all, the fact he was so quotable was often commented on in the media also.

Here was the quote:

In episode one of the Crocodile Hunter series ("Steve's Story"), Irwin is quoted as emphatically stating:

“ The one thing I would want to be remembered for is passion and enthusiasm. Conservation is my life, my job, my whole persona. ”

youcantryreachingme 01:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

PS - when removed, the edit comment was "remove tribute" - but this is not a tribute (in my opinion) - it's a summary of his life's goals in his own words.

Agreed. Here's a link to that video. Your quote was slightly wrong, but thats ok. Just fix it and add the video link as a citation. By the way, i think the "If we can get people to care about wildlife" quote is probably better.dposse 02:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't access the video - do you have the text for the corrected quote? (From memory, "The one thing that I, Steve Irwin, would want to be remembered for is passion, and enthusiasm. Conservation. It's my life, my job, my whole persona." - the quote I used I took from an online source and put the difference down to my poor memory... youcantryreachingme 01:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"after his death"...

"He was described after his death by the CEO of RSPCA Queensland as a "modern-day Noah", and British naturalist David Bellamy lauded his skills as a natural historian and media performer.[16]"

Shouldn't that be down in the Reaction subsection? dposse 19:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Larry King transcript.

[4] This was the Larry King interview that he did with Steve after his "Baby and the Croc" incident. It has some very nice quotes and infomation in it. Can we try to work it into the article? dposse 20:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyone? dposse 02:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

There's already a reference to the transcript of the original 2004 show, Steve Irwin#_note-larry_king_transcript. — LazyEditor (talk|contribs) 18:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Unless you really want to talk about the irony for some reason, do you really feel it's in good taste to put that quote there? Sure, he said it, but there are many other quotes about his conservation policy that might get the point across better. As it is, no one will think about the the quote, they'll just be thinking, "Oh that's weird." I'm not advocating censoring it, just I think it would be better (if people think it's appropriate) to put it in the discussion of his death, and put some other conservation quote in. What do others think?

I'm sure it's unintentional, but as it is it reads as a kind of bad joke... Komdori 18:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep, the bit about getting animals into people's hearts is in poor taste, given the circumstances. Friday (talk) 18:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, if you are talking about this edit, please start a new section in this talkpage, as it has nothing to do with dposse's question. About the contents of the edit itself, it has absolutely nothing to do with Irwin's death. It's his opinion about the 'animals on show' issue, and I honestly think it's good material for the Environmentalism section (and not for the Death section). That quote explains a lot about his motivations for filming shows about animals, and it supports the preceding sentence (about sharing his enthusiasm for animals). — LazyEditor (talk|contribs) 19:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but having a quote from Irwin about "letting animals into your heart" is just too much, I think. I'm not saying it was intentional or anything, but I don't think it should be in there. Friday (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't really care that you removed that sentence without waiting for more opinions, but are you sure you're not just influenced by the edit summary? I've re-read that paragraph a few times and still don't associate it with his death, because of all the context around it. — LazyEditor (talk|contribs) 19:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I put it in this section since that's from where the quote came--feel free to break it out if you think it's more clear. There are a lot of good quotes there that could replace it without it losing much (or anything). Komdori 19:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

If there are other more suitable quotes, I think that would be preferable. I agree with LazyEditor that I didn't instantly associate it with his death -- but if one does, that's some bad taste right there. If there are equally memorable quotes that get the point across, I'd say, "better safe than sorry" that somebody would be unnecessarily hurt by the imagined-or-implied irony. --Jaysweet 20:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Media Image

Not to step on the toes of you pro Wikis but in the section entitled "Media Image" in regards to the sentence that says "His unabashed enthusiasm for dangerous animals and childlike energy sometimes made him appear simple, which drew some criticism at home." Is this statement a fact or an opinion? And if we keep it in the article I believe it would be more accurate to say that he appeared "simple minded" rather than "simple", since these are two entirely different things. 4giron 17:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It was bothering me so I just went ahead and added "minded" after simple. I am sure a thesaurus has many other variations of this state of being such as dimwitted or perhaps even simpleton, but simply simple just doesn't cut it for Wikipedia 4giron 19:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Onion Radio News

Technically, the Onion did a parody in their Onion Podcast. It's titled "Australia's 'The Stingray Hunter' Says 'It Should Have Been Me'".I don't know if anyoue feels it's worth mentioning in the actual article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kc12286 (talk • contribs) .

No, but you can add it to the uncyclopedia article on Steve Irwin. Andjam 01:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Greer etc

I understand that the section should be concise, but recent condensations should show both sides of the argument (sympathetic and not sympathetic with Greer)ñ also, please read the referenced article if you´re going to condense, because the edits I´m fixing misquote and ignore the gist, meaning that the editor didn´t bother to go to the source. Pablosecca 03:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I did make edits to show both sides. Instead of reverting, help by being more concise. Your edits fork the article into another topic altogether.--I already forgot 06:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

They dont "fork the article into another topic", they add depth to an interesting and relevant point. Are you an aussie? Aussies understand the presence of "cultural cringe" and are more often than not skeptical of types like Irwin. So it´s important to note these things from both sides. Hamilton makes several important points, which I include. PLEASE, if you´re going to condense the quotes, do us a favor and do it intelligently. For instance, you moved the quotation mark on Hamilton´s quote to include something he didn´t say. READ THE REFERENCED ARTICLE to make sure your quotes are correct, otherwise you´re just messing up the work of others.Pablosecca 17:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, you win. It’s clear that you do not intend for anyone to change your original edit and will make any excuse to revert the change. The fact that you state "Aussies understand the presence of 'cultural cringe' and are more often than not skeptical of types like Irwin" indicates you may be editing with your pov. Wikipedia is an international collaboration and I only wish to improve the content of the article from that standpoint. The excessive use of quotes in the section (and other parts of the article) reads like a news article and not and encyclopedic entry, however, I do not wish to prove a point or niggle over the section so I will bow out of the edit dispute. --I already forgot 02:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with I already forgot. To an extent, the reaction of the Aussie public to Irwin's death is relevant as he was, to some, an icon. However, the reaction section in the article seems excessive, and I do agree that it reads like a (disjointed) newspaper article. It is mostly a disconnected list of what people thought about Irwin. As a disclaimer, I'm very new to the Wikipedia community, and am here trying to provoke thought and not ruffle any feathers, but the section seems out of place in an encyclopedic entry. I think a concise statement about memorials and perhaps a few reactions of very notable public figures is in order, but frankly, when I came to the article to read about the incident I was confused to find references to Kelly Ripa and Rosie O'Donnell. It may be valuable to the article to talk about different public figures' and groups' reactions to the Crocodile Hunter while he was alive--in particular, comments on PETA's objections to Irwin's practices might be a good counterbalance to a section about his conservationist philosophy (PETA's comments' only relevance in the reaction section is that they occured after the death)--but they seemed quite out of place in the section on his death. As it stands, the reaction section also repeats quite a bit of information about memorials and such. My take on this is that the article should be an organized summary of the most relevant points, not a conglomerate of each and every bit of info on the subject floating around right now. I haven't edited anything myself, and I'm quite open to thoughts/disagreements/etc. Porlesa 15:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you're spot on with your analysis of the rapid, uncontrolled growth of that section of the article. Please be bold, jump in, and edit away! --ElKevbo 16:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• After all the debate about Greer, someone suggested that she had previously made comments on the same subject while he was still alive. Is this true? Did he respond? If so, then it's possibly a noteworthy inclusion. If not, then it's just the ravings of someone seeking more publicity. Wahkeenah 03:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

´Wildlife expert´?

Yes he is a television personality but is he properly called a wildlife expert? Maybe we should be more specific. He managed a zoo, which requires a certain expertise -- the question is qhat kind of expert. Should we keep it or change it? Thanks Pablosecca 04:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I looked at three news articles from the References and none of them refers to Irwin as "wildlife expert". In the Larry King interview, he refers to himself as "wildlife warrior" (accordingly, this article calls him that). He also said "My dad was a wild life expert" (no "like myself" or "as well"). I guess we should just change "wildlife expert" to "conservationist" (or maybe "wildlife conservationist"). — LazyEditor (talk|contribs) 04:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Irwin was raised in a reptile park, quite literally, which he and his father expanded over the course of thirty odd years to the Australian Zoo that it is today. He lived and breathed animals and conservation. Steve Irwin was the owner/director of the zoo and had more than forty years of experience handling wild animals. While he may not have had a degree from a university like more traditional scientists and "experts", he was still an expert in every sense of the word. Jeremy Bright 04:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I've always seen "Naturalist" when reading things about him. Sabar 08:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC) If Irwin had finished a degree in zoology, I would still hate him but I would have to admit he does have a formal education. Irwin never even went to college {unless Wikipedia left something out} much less obtained expertise as a scientist. Irwin was one of the world's most talented stuntmen but did not have any compassion for animals. I regret Wikipedia didn't do enough to expose him for being an opportunist whoose only concern for animals was useing them as props. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Edward Saint-Ivan (talk • contribs) .

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

I though grousing was the whole point of Talk (wink). Anyway, Thompson Gale's Biography Resource lists Irwin as "wildlife enthusiast, zookeeper, television show host", and I've put a citation in the article. Pablosecca 07:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Describing Irwin as a wildlife expert is not superfluous. The fact that he was hired for his expertise by the media and by the Australian government (cited in numerous sources) should give credibility to the statement. He was also the director of Australian zoo and not a "zoo keeper". Irwin spent most of his life studying and preserving wildlife and had hands-on experience and training during this time at the Australian zoo. He's also been described by other experts as a biologist [[5]] so like I mentioned before, describing him as expert, zoo director, conservationist, or naturalist is not superfluous and is much more accurate than the current description.--I already forgot 17:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

We were having a discuss at work when we finally figured out what Greer was on about. She's an expatriate Aussie, she's trying to make it in English high society and didn't like Irwin's use of Strine. She's one of those Aussies (and there are many) who want to forget where we came from, Steve reminded her and others of our "roots" (in the Alex Hailey sense) and she didn't like it.

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

I agree with Jack Upland. I respectfully take issue with the user who called Steve Irwin a biologist. Steve Irwin never even finished college. Steve Irwin was one of the greatest stuntmen to ever live. I take away nothing from his genius but he was no biologist and he loved animals only as props. Maybe the misinformed expert also didnt go to college.

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

Wahkeenah, Your last sentence was outstanding!!!! Usually the word expert means a formal education but there are exceptions like if one makes a scholarly contribution. Irwin was a stuntman and to his credit one of the greatest stuntman to ever live. "Wildlife Advocate" doesn't describe his career but rather his belief system. He used animals like props even if he did advocate for animals.

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

"Keep that camera rolling"

Even regarding his own death, Irwin displayed a sense of humour. He once insisted, "My number one rule is to keep that camera rolling. Even if it's shaky or slightly out of focus, I don't give a rip. Even if a big old alligator is chewing me up I want to go down and go, 'Crikey!' just before I die. That would be the ultimate for me." [23]

Unless someone can find a source for this quote that is more reliable than an online music tabloid quoting from the Daily Star, one of Britain's notoriously unreliable tabloids, this needs to go.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unreadablecharacters (talk • contribs) 19:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds dodgy. Especially as he was known as the Croc Hunter, not the Alligator hunter.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 11:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This quote (or at least something like it), along with the one I have mentioned below in this talk page (being remembered for passion and enthusiasm ... conservation is life, job, whole persona) - I believe comes directly from episodes of the Crocodile Hunter series. youcantryreachingme 00:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

can you possibly find the episode name/number? SOADLuver 03:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was reading through the links of "Where to pay tribute(or something like that) at the top of the page, and came across this at http://www.ripsteve.com/cause-of-death.html : "Steve is quoted as saying "if I die, I at least want it filmed on camera" in an interview which took place in 2003." This isn't definitive proof of such a thing being said, but I doubt that they would make it up.Casual Karma 05:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Even if he did say it, it doesn't mean he meant it literally. It could be gallows humor. Wahkeenah 17:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"An Aussie Hero"

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

Precedent deaths caused by stingrays

I live in Italy and I would report to you that on 6/25/2006 a 14/15 y. old italian boy, Michele Arnulfo, was dead after about 30 min. of hospitalization for internal haemorrhage for a vein's perforation caused in the sea by a wound in the abdomen probably made by a stingray (in italian: pastinaca). The autopsy found a wound deep 15 cm and a 6 mm hole in the artery and the iliac vein.

The accident happened in Italy, locality of Costa Smeralda, city of Porto Cervo - Cala di Volpe, about 150 meters offshore of the beach of Liscia Ruja (or Liscia Ruia).

Standing to the newspaper article, near to the accident his words were: "Iniziate a risalire a bordo - ho visto una cosa, la voglio prendere" (in english: "begin to come back on board ship - I saw a thing, I want to take it"). Then "Mi sono fatto male: andiamo via, andiamo via..." (in english: I got hurt: let's go away, let's go away..."). Short after he loose consciousness and never get back. He dead at 4:45 pm.

In the days after the accident the scuba divers of the italian gendarmerie (Carabinieri of the Nucleo Subacquei of Cagliari) in that piece of sea caught a stingray of 55 cm with a tail of 6 cm and saw numerous stingrays, while a bather reported to 112 (emergency telephone number) to have seen a(n animal like a) stingray 7 times bigger than that.

You can read something more here (in italian language. You can use babelfish.altavista.com to translate it):

http://www.girlpower.it/mondo/news/cronaca/notizia.php?nid=28788

http://www.hotdogline.com/news.php?idnew=5432

http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/cronaca/articoli/articolo316106.shtml

http://it.news.yahoo.com/28062006/203/studente-morto-catturata-pastinaca-50-centimetri-printable.html

http://www.repubblica.it/2006/06/sezioni/cronaca/giallo-costa-smeralda/razza-o-punteruolo/razza-o-punteruolo.html

http://www.d1television.it/page.php?cPath=0&id_page=4&module=News&action=view&id=407

Furthermore, on 9/03/2006, about 24 hours before the death of Steve Irwin, a 35 y. old italian scuba diver, Augusto Murri, reemerged - alive but with lancinating pain - from the sea Near to Villasimius in Italy with a bleeding deep hole between the appendix and the liver, without knowing what caused it. The suspects went on a stingray.

Source (in italian)

Sorry for reformatting your comment, but horizontal scrolling utterly sucks. Professor Ninja 11:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Was the boy pierced through the heart by the stingray and survived? If not, i see no relevance to this article. dposse 17:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

No, but since the article states that "As of 1996, only seventeen worldwide fatalities had been recorded due to stingrays, [35] and the attack on Irwin is believed to be the only fatality from a stingray ever captured on film.[41]" I think that the exceptionality of these events make them relevant and interesting even if there's not total certainty that they are caused by stingrays.

Do you think that for those 17 cases there was total certainty about it?

Coroner's report

Where is the coroner's report? It has been nearly a week...it seems to me like we should have an official cause of death by now...am I mistaken? Grammaticus Repairo 03:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Coroner's reports take time. For example the most recent inquest published by the Queensland coroner was of a man who died in October 2004 and the inquest findings were published just short of two years later.[6] Similarly the report on the June 2000 fire in a hostel at Childers, Queensland which killed 15 and received international coverage, was published July 2006.[7] --Golden Wattle ^talk 00:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

There is an official cause of death. They did an autopsy and the results were he was killed by the barb to the chest. [8] Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

As much as I appreciate the link, that article is essentially worthless (and I am not going to comment on the fact that it came from the 'Entertainment News' section of an ISP homepage). Although the heading of the article is "Autopsy confirms Irwin died instantly", no such information is actually presented in the article's text. In fact, of the entire article, only the first two sentences contain any relevant information about the autopsy findings, and even that information is vague, at best. The article states:

A post-mortem examination has confirmed Crocodile Hunter Steve Irwin died after being speared in the chest by a stingray. It has been confirmed Irwin was killed when the poisonous barb on the ray's tail pierced his chest while filming for a television program at a reef off Port Douglas.

Absent is any mention of his death being instantaneous, let alone an account of the actual, specific cause of death. Was the cause of his allegedly 'instant' death a result of being stabbed in the chest, or a result of the venom in his system, or something else entirely? And if he did indeed pull the barb from his chest, which he apparently did, as I understand it (based on information about the video footage that was captured), then was his death truly 'instantaneous'? From what source did the writer get his/her information? It hardly sounds like it came from an official report of any kind. I do not understand why this information is so elusive. Grammaticus Repairo 22:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It's actually an AAP (an Australian news agency whose articles are frequently in the mainstream press) article available on many news sites. If you're looking for actual coroners reports, the film etc, you could be waiting for a very long time. That kind of thing is very slow at being released in Australia, if at all. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I am indeed coming to that conclusion. Víva bureaucracy! Really, all I want to hear is the official, medically specific cause of death (ie. "blunt force trauma to the head" or "ligature asphyxiation"). I would like to hear from the medical examiner the actual manner of death, be it from the stab wound, heart attack, or other damage, and how it was (or wasn't) complicated by the presence of toxic venom. I am not interested in unofficial conjecture, which is exactly what the article cited above sounds like. In my opinion. Grammaticus Repairo 00:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• The procedure to apply for a copy of the report is set out in the link I gave earlier (see below):

How do I get a copy of the Death Certificate and autopsy report?

After the autopsy, the doctor will issue a form to the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages showing the initial assessment of the cause of death. Once this happens the death is officially registered.

You can obtain a copy of the Death Certificate from the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages or some funeral directors can obtain a copy on your behalf.

In some cases, the cause of death may need to be changed when further test results are known. If this occurs a copy of the Death Certificate with the updated information can then be obtained as above.

The doctor who did the autopsy will also provide a detailed autopsy report to the coroner. If you want a copy of this report you will need to write to the coroner at your local courthouse.

Feel free to apply to the Queensland court system for a copy. I am not being entirely facetious, Wikipedia is not the place to satisfy morbid curiosity referring to otherwise unpublished reports. As per the news item posted by Sarah Ewart "We're not going into the detail but there's definitely no surprises. Everyone knows how he died," a police spokeswoman said. The autopsy report is not published. Outcomes of inquests are. As discussed, inquests are a court of law, they take some time - they won't be hurried to satisfy the merely curious.--Golden Wattle ^talk 01:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I quote from the article:

It is thought, in the absence of a coroner's report, that a combination of the toxins and the puncture wound from the barb caused Irwin to die of cardiac arrest, with most damage being inflicted by tears to arteries or other main blood vessels. It is also possible that he died quickly as a result of a punctured aorta. Until the coroner's report is released, however, the precise cause of Irwin's death remains conjecture.

So, because I have an interest in knowing the actual cause of death, I am a "morbidly curious" individual? As the quote above has remained part of the main article page for quite some time now, it would appear that either Wikipedia IS "the place to satisfy morbid curiosity referring to otherwise unpublished reports", or that the desire to know the actual cause of death is indeed not "morbid" by the standards of the Wiki community. I am sorry that you are apparently deeply offended by my desire to have this information made available. Personally, I am somewhat offended that you consider my interest "morbid curiosity". I have no interest in seeing his death video, autopsy photographs, nor in reading the examiner's medical report. ALL I WANT IS A SINGLE SENTENCE GIVING THE EXACT MEDICAL CAUSE OF DEATH. I could care less about the legal inquest, and have no interest in pursuing a copy of the death certificate or coroner's report (in whatever decade it becomes available). I never implied that the report should "be hurried to satisfy the merely curious". I also don't think that a statement like "Everyone knows how he died" should be considered a valid, official cause of death, regardless of who issues it. I hardly see the value in supressing such information. I understand that things are quite different in Australia than in the United States, but implying that, by my desire to have such information, I have some sort of "morbid curiosity" about Steve's death, is rude, mean-spirited, and downright offensive. Grammaticus Repairo

I'm not sure that I completely understand you so forgive me if I am misinterpreting your comments and questions. Until the coroner's report is issued, we really won't know the preceise cause of death. Thus we have to wait until that report is issued before we can write "a single sentence giving the exact medical cause of death." We're not supressing information - until that document is written and released we really don't have any information to supress. Personally, I think "struck by a stingray in the chest" is sufficient and the exact cause (massive trauma, poison, bleeding to death, etc.) is unimportant for this encyclopedia article. I probably wouldn't object if such information were added but I would think it a bit strange for most people (doctors, divers, and others with a unique interest excepted) to pursue this information. --ElKevbo 15:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

If "the exact cause...is unimportant for this encyclopedia article", then why is there what is essentially a discussion of possible, specific causes in the main article? In the "Death" section of the article, why has the information immediately preceeding the statement "...the precise cause of Irwin's death remains conjecture" been allowed to remain if it is indeed "unimportant" or reflects only "morbid curiosity"? ElKevbo, I don't know how much of this discussion, be it here or on the talk pages of Golden Wattle or myself, you have read, but it seems that, in Queensland, the coroner's report is a grand, legal document summarizing virtually every conceivable circumstance surrounding a given incident. And, as such, we will have to wait a number of years until its release. As I have previously stated, in the United States, particularly with high profile cases, a simple statement regarding the medical cause of death is generally made public within days of the death (or completion of the post-mortem examination). I do not think it is reasonable to have to wait for a period of YEARS for an official release of information which was collected within DAYS of Irwin's death. I do not understand why this information cannot/has not been released, the remainder of the coroner's report notwithstanding. And I do not understand why there is such a hostile reaction to my desire to have this information made available.

Incidentally, I did not mean to imply that information HAS been suppressed. Given the apparently closed and slow-moving nature of coroner's investigations in Queensland, it does not seem unlikely that this information has not been made public. I take issue with two things: First of all, the claim that the official cause of death HAS been released, as I have yet to find any credible details regarding the actual medical cause. Statements such as "struck by a stingray in the chest" are worthless. We knew THAT much from the first reports of his death. Did we think that it was from a gunshot wound? Secondly, it has clearly been implied that it is both unreasonable to expect 'cause of death' information from the coroner this soon, and that if such information were available, it should essentially be suppressed, because the only people that want it are those with a "morbid curiosity" about the case. In my opinion, it is neither unreasonable nor improper to expect that this information be released to the public (and in a timely manner as well), regardless of the status of the rest of the coroner's investigation. That's all. Grammaticus Repairo 16:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what problems or issues (that we in Wikipedia can address) you are raising but I am definitely unsure on what remedies you are proposing or for which you are asking. What is it you want changed or addressed in this encyclopedia article?

My opinion of the release of details of the death of a private citizen has nothing to do with this article and I thus withhold them to avoid unnecessary debate and discussion. --ElKevbo 17:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I simply thought it would be appropriate to have the details (i.e. the 'official, actual medical cause') of Steve's death listed in the main article, as there is only speculation and the implication that the "coroner's report" has not been released. This struck me as rather odd (shocking, in fact), as such information is generally quickly made public in US cases. After receiving info on how the Queensland coroner operates, I do acknowledge that it will probably be years before this information is released. As such, no longer can I propose that such information be added to the article with all speed, as it would appear that that information does not yet exist in a form available to the public. So I will simply say that I feel this is relevant information that should be added to the main article at whatever point it becomes available, though nobody is likely to be particularly interested anymore when the report is released sometime in the next decade.

However, if indeed such details are offensive to the wiki community and betray only a "morbid curiosity" in Irwin's death, as others have alleged, I then propose that all of the statements of conjecture regarding Irwin's actual cause of death (as well as the statement implying that we are all still awaiting the release of the coroner's report, as if it were going to appear at any moment now), be permanently excised from the main article.

I also do acknowledge that I have made various statements of opinion that do not really belong on this discussion page. However, all statements I have made are in direct reply to responses other users have posted (some of which have been clear misrepresentations of fact). While all of the opinions I have expressed may not belong here, certainly the inflammatory passive-agressive statements posted by other users do not belong here either. Grammaticus Repairo 17:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I would not be opposed to removing the following three sentences from the article until coroner's report is released:

It is thought, in the absence of a coroner's report, that a combination of the toxins and the puncture wound from the barb caused Irwin to die of cardiac arrest, with most damage being inflicted by tears to arteries or other main blood vessels. It is also possible that he died quickly as a result of a punctured aorta. Until the coroner's report is released, however, the precise cause of Irwin's death remains conjecture.

I'm somewhat ambivalent, personally. That information is well-sourced, but since everything it sources is just early speculation, one can convincingly argue it is not very encyclopedic. As far as the article is concerned, that's the only thing I see that is in question here. (As far as Grammaticus feeling he was mistreated, I can't really comment on that... Though I will say WP:CIVIL is probably the most oft-broke rule on current events talk pages ;D ) --Jaysweet 17:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL...true enough! Grammaticus Repairo 18:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that removing those sentences sounds like a pretty good compromise. --ElKevbo 18:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• For more info on Queensland coronial procedures see [9]--Golden Wattle ^talk 01:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe they're waiting to interview the stingray. I hear he's going to be on Bill O'Reilly's program sometime soon. He'll be questioned about his stance on Global Terrorism. Wahkeenah 22:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Extraordinary rendition. We'll never hear from this stingray again... --ElKevbo 15:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

What of the filming?

With all the speculation, hear-say, and conspiracy theories about, wouldn't the origional film be a good source to lay the foundation as to exactly how he was stung? I know for some sensitive people they're rather not see it, but a reference to a copy would be welcome to those like I looking for the events as they unfolded. This would allow those that wanted, an opportunity to know or decide for themself. If it's already mentioned in the article, is it available? Has a statement stating if it will be released been provided already? Thanks. Supaplex 05:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The film is (or was) in the possession of the Queensland Police. It's likely to be destroyed at the wishes of the family. -- Longhair 05:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Why? Steve Irwin would have wanted footage of his death at the hands of an animal to be kept, and said he would have wanted to keep the camera rolling. It would be a great shame, for starters Mr Irwin's wishes not being met, and for an uncorrectable mistake to be made. Canberra User 06:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

There's no point asking anyone here why. You're better off asking those with the power to make the relevant decisions about their reasons. -- Longhair 06:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

This really is not on topic, and like memorial, et al, should be removed by an Admin or someone else higher up the wikipedia food chain. I would never want my comments to be removed by another editor, so I'm not going to take it upon myself to do so (unless it were inarguable vandalism or something like that).

One thing's for sure, imo, images from the video should never be displayed in a wikipedia article.

PainMan 09:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC) Could a link not be added though. Even indirectly?

Could a link not be added though. Even indirectly? --82.47.145.146 13:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Added commentary on "Baby Bob" controversy...

from statements made by Steve and Terri from the tv program "Crocodile Hunter Confessions" about the incident with their son and the crocodile.

also, rewrote intro to make it more encyclopedic.

PainMan 09:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thats hardly encyclopedic, by changing the name into "Stephen Robert Steve Irwin" and removing a valid source for no reason. Why don't you go to the Tony Blair article and change the name into "Anthony Charles Lynton Tony Blair"? And why did you shorten the whole controversy part into one incident? I have reverted your edits on both the intro and the controversy. Tips - next time you make a change in a heated article like this, discuss, because most probably your edit will be worse than what hundreds of others agreed on, anyway, and even if you think you have some good ideas, discussing is always better than making big changes yourself. Aran|heru|nar 12:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Cmon, is this an encyclopedia or a snuff site?!?! --Sillious 05:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Block

I really do think that this wiki article should be blocked altogether and Admin only allowed to edit this page. Because people are Signing in and Vandalising--82.47.145.146 13:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

This article was heavily edited before the death - since then (6 days ago) it's received over 2,500 edits. The sting-ray community has obviously mobilised to clear its good name.--Shtove 14:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Australian spelling and American Spelling.

Yes, this is an article about an Australian and we should use Australian spelling for this. However, this does not apply to direct quotes from american websites that use american spelling, like the quotes in the article from the american Animal Planet website. Please, leave it alone. dposse 16:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to say I completely disagree with this. As I'm an American I was taught to write American English. I am unfamiliar with the Australian variant. So to strictly insist upon its use because the subject is Australian is silly. If one were writing an article on the origin and development of punk music, would have to be written in Cockney? Should a bio of John Lennon's youth be written in the Scouse of his native Liverpool?

Like it or lump it, as my mother used to say, American English is the standard version. Those outside the Anglo-Saxon world care nothing about the minor differences in orthography and vocabulary that exist within it. The pervasiveness of American culture and commercial leadership have assured that (just as French was the international language from the 17th until the middle of the 19th century, for the same reasons).

Finally, there's little real difference between the various national versions of English, American, British, New Zealander, South African, Caribbean, etc. It's mostly vocabulary. All of these variants are descended from 17th century English--Shakespeare's--anyway.

I can see no reason to insist on the use of one variant or another. Only the most tiresome pedant will insist upon orthographic/syntactic conformity! PainMan 17:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The Manual of Style is very clear on this point: If an article's subject has a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, it should use that dialect. In addition, dposse is absolutely right that we should never change a direct quote. --ElKevbo 17:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

An article based on Australian should be written in Australian English. If however, we were to standardise the English across every article, English would be the standard, not American English. American English is not the standard anywhere outside North America. Sad mouse 19:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

We've already agreed, in past versions of this talk page, that we should use the Australian version of english. I made this topic because some wikipedians are confused about if this applies to direct quotes that use a different form of english. I say that it doesn't, and i just want wikipedians to be informed that changing the quotes is wrong. dposse 20:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

American English is only "the standard version" for Americans. To the rest of the English speaking world, it is not. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not have much more to put in but the following link has a discussion I had about the direct quote and therefore the usage of the american dialect for "honour/honor". User_talk:Ansell#Honour_or_Honor Ansell 02:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I would not be so arrogant to believe that it is, Sarah. I'm just saying that direct quotes shouldn't be messed with. That is all. dposse 13:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm often surprised at how...enthusiastic...some can be about these points. Articles style aside, if there's a direct quote (especially written) it seems incorrect to alter it for the sake of style. What if the quote was intentionally drawing notice to the dialect (obviously or not obviously). Such information would be lost.

As an aside--as for people claiming American English is only standard in the United States--Koreans often use American English, and learn this form, and Japanese almost exclusively learn and use this form. Japan, in fact, has English as an official language and uses the American variety, with Korea perhaps being close behind. Clearly both British and American dialects are in wide use in widespread regions. Consistent spelling in an article is one thing (I think it is to be sought, with the lone exception of direct quotes), but the vocabulary issues are oftentimes pedantic. Komdori 16:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

No worries, dposse, I was actually replying to PainMan who said, "Like it or lump it, as my mother used to say, American English is the standard version." Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of curiosity, do you have a reference for the fact that English is an official language of Japan, Komdori? My refs don't indicate this.Ordinary Person 15:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm an Australian, but I'd have to agree with the Americans. My understanding was that Wikipedia was written in American English. Is there an official ruling on this? I don't see why it should vary with the nationality of the subject. And I think the talk of dialects is largely irrelevant. The main issue here is spelling of which there are two varieties: British and American. British spelling is standard in Australia. Apart from the spelling issue articles should be written in standard formal English without slang or regional dialect expressions (except when quoting, of course).--Jack Upland 00:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see National varieties of English at WP:MOS. Also, British English is not the same as Australian English. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your information on Wikipedia policy. Arguably, Irwin is more an American celebrity than an Australian one, but let's leave that aside. (By the way I'd like you to give me 3 examples of where formal, written Australian English differs from British English.)--Jack Upland 10:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed section called "Politics"

This section, arguably, appears to violate the anti-POV strictures. The remark that he "accepted...taxpayer money" doesn't indicate from what source or from whom the money came. Was it a public service ad (do they have these Down Under, probably, governments have always loved to propagandize their citizens or subjects)? Was it a campaign ad? (This seems highly unlikely since most celebs who support a party, in parliamentary systems such as Australia's, or a candidate, in representative republics such as the US, hardly want to hurt the party by draining funds from the campaign coffers. Furthermore, accepting money sorta undermines the integrity of the endorsement, doesn't it? Yet we have no clue because the writer's state was vague to the point of opacity.

Also, the sum indicated, $175,000, isn't specificed as US or Australian dollars.

Finally, and most importantly, this sentence is not properly sourced. Just writing "Australian Broadcasting Corporation" hardly suffices. URL and date, or if from a printed source, then name & date of publication, author.

The final sentence, "He earned scorn from the media..." surely not every media outlet in Australia walks in lock-step? Just plain bad writing that defies common sense. It also lacks sufficient sourcing--required if it were relevant, which it's not, imo.

Since Steve's politicl activities appear to have been, at best, a marginal part of his life, it hardly warrants inclusion in what should be a short, concise summary of his life.

The entire article is horrendously long, disorganized and needs to be rewritten from top to bottom.

Perhaps it's time for one of the Powers-At-Be to step up and "bring order to chaos"! PainMan 16:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

After the info was added to the article, I used this source [[10]] to verify. It is an Australian article so the currency is in Australian.--I already forgot 17:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Steve the footy fan

Steve Irwin, while an afl footy fan, was a huge rugby league fan also, appearing on the nrl Footy Show several times, attending training with the Brisbane broncos, including a courageous attempt to tackle a rampaging Shane Webbke. It has just been revealed too, with a phone call from Australia zoo to the parramatta Leagues club, that while Steve was a true and loyal QLDer, his team was the parramatta eels, because they were popular in the area he grew up in. He always followed the State of Origin and loved his rugby league, building friendship with two of its greats in Paul Vautin and Peter Sterling —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.130.24.130 (talk • contribs)

Autopsy

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

• See above for a discussion on the coroner's report. The autopsy report is not public--Golden Wattle ^talk 02:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

pulled barb out

Reading the John Stainton quote and considering the emotional state he was probably in purhaps the word he is refering to the ray. Did he mean the ray pulled the barb out? Do the barbs detach? --Gbleem 05:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes they do break off, stated in Stingray. -JE 14:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

funeral

[11] [12]

here's another news story on Irwins funeral with some updated infomation. Please add it to the article. I would, but i'm a bit busy now... dposse 13:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Also [13] --Krapitino 18:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

His memorial will take place next wednesday so it would not interfere with Peter Brock's funeral, can someone add it when it is no longer fully protected. the article can be found here --AAFL

Full protection

While full protection is certainly warranted, I wonder whether it might ultimately be a better idea to leave it semi-protected. This onslaught is giving us the opportunity to weed out many specifically-created vandal accounts (mostly created back in June to evade semi-protection).--cj | talk 03:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but these personality types always crave the attention they seek, and simply move elsewhere, like my talk page for example. What do others think? -- Longhair 03:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Your doing a fine job. You could try and catch up with all the sleeper sock puppets but I'm sure for every one that gets a time out, a new one is created. In the end, no matter what, someone is still going to consider you an ***hole so all you can do is protect the page when its needed and consider it done until further notice. --I already forgot 04:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been called worse. Like water off a duck's back... -- Longhair 04:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I've filed a Checkuser request to hopefully find out who's the puppetmaster of all these accounts. --Slowking Man 03:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep it vprotected for now until we can find out who performed this latest attack. --Woohookitty^(meow) 04:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. pschemp | talk 04:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Retribution

Increased numbers of stingrays being killed - prbably connected with Irwin's death [14]--Golden Wattle ^talk 11:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[15] yeah. dposse 12:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

PETA comments

Also in the news PETA Attacks Irwin's Wildlife Career Only Days After His Death --Golden Wattle ^talk 11:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Why did they not say anything when he was alive? Doesn't seem like they really have a huge case if they had to wait till he died to voice an opinion! But then again, thats just my two cents against the insensitive people around. Ansell 12:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

does anyone take PETA seriously anymore? dposse 12:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

PETA doesn't have many activists in Australia, and All Headline News is a barely notable media outlet. Andjam 12:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

PETA did speak out against Irwin when he was alive. They arranged an Animal Planet boycott by their members until The Crocodile Hunter was taken off. Not partiicularly effective. They are one example of Irwin's critics, but they're not particularly mainstream, so probably not a great source for this article. --SiobhanHansa 13:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I found an article on PETA's website that kind of talks about Steve Irwin in a roundabout way. --User:magikid

PETA is a group of zealots out to ABOLISH "slavery"...they feel keeping pets....our domestic dogs, cats, horses, ferrets, hampsters, etc is SLAVERY. They want us to KILL our own pets or set them free into the wild to fend for themselves. PETA members have been charged with killing animals they adopted just minutes before from animal shelters and then they dumped their bodies in dumpsters. They support breed bans that KILL dogs. And you think their feelings on zoos and animals in movies are bad? Ingrid Newkirk (co-founder of PETA) supports terrorist groups and would rather see millions die from AIDS then find a cure. Their comments by no means, belong on Irwin's page. They are hypocritcal and callous. [[Sirengarg 19:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)]]

Changes to article whilst full protection is enabled

User:TydeNet has requested to remove the image of the eagle ray, as it's "NOT the type of ray that killed Irwin". I or any other administrator can make edits whilst full protection is active. Do others agree with this change? -- Longhair 13:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

According our article, a bull ray is a type of eagle ray. Its not a perfect image, but we don't have anything else closer. Perhaps state that in the caption?pschemp | talk 21:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Stingray mutilations prompt Irwin vengeance fears

If the article were not protected, i would now be adding to the "Reaction" section a summary of information from an article in Tuesday's Guardian. Stingray mutilations prompt Irwin vengeance fears reports that

Up to 11 stingrays have been found dead and mutilated on Australia's eastern coast since the Crocodile Hunter's death, prompting fears that Irwin's fans are exacting their revenge on the normally docile fish.

The fact that the tails and barbs of several of the animals were lopped off has environmentalists worried.

Stingrays found dead on two Queensland beaches may have been the victims of "revenge attacks" for the Crocodile Hunter's untimely death, the BBC reports.

Ten of the animals have been discovered "mutilated" - two on a beach north of Brisbane and eight at another undisclosed location. Irwin was killed by a stingray while diving off the Queensland coast earlier this month.

Wayne Sumpton of the state fisheries department could not confirm that the killings were connected to Mr Irwin's death, but government officials said the authorities are investigating and prosecutions may follow.

Michael Hornby, director of Mr Irwin's Wildlife Warrior fund, roundly condemned the killings, saying: "We just want to make it very clear that we will not accept and not stand for anyone who's taken a form of retribution. That's the last thing Steve would want. I hope everyone understands we have to protect wildlife now more than ever. This is what Steve was all about." Please add this article to Steve's. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 14:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC) In cyberspace, meanwhile, an online gaming website has attracted some flack for distributing an "offbeat memorial to Steve Irwin" via email in the form of a stingray-exterminating game called "Terri Irwin's Revenge".

According to stuff.co.nz, the MoFunZone freebie "takes the form of a simple animated pop-up box which depicts an armed Terri Irwin firing at stingrays underwater". The aim of the game is "to kill as many stingrays as possible without getting hit".

However, the mixed public reaction to Terri Irwin's Revenge can be gauged by a statement posted by creators Josh Tuttle, -altr- and Onic, which reads: "We are getting mixed reactions from our visitors regarding this game. We should make it clear, this game is intended to be a memorial and NOT a funny parody." ®

Michael Hornby, the executive director of Irwin's conservation group, Wildlife Warriors, said he feared the rays were being hunted and killed in retaliation for the TV star's death.

"We just want to make it very clear that we will not accept and not stand for anyone who has taken a form of retribution. That's the last thing Steve would want," he said.

"I hope everyone understands we have to protect wildlife now more than ever. This is what Steve was all about."

A Queensland government spokesman said the mutilations would be investigated as possible cases of animal cruelty, but they were not initially thought to be related to Mr Irwin's death.

Jpe|ob 13:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, BBC News has a story about this: Irwin fans 'in revenge attacks'.--ᎠᏢ462090 13:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no shortage of idiotic behavior among the human species. Wahkeenah 14:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It's only speculated that it's linked to Irwin's death - there are other plausible explanations as to why they've had their tails cut off. Andjam 14:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the alleged reason(s) for it, my comment still stands. Wahkeenah 14:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Great news

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/12/stingray_deaths/

• To the IP address who posted the above, and to anyone who might care: It's ironic that Germaine Greer was talking about nature taking "revenge" on Steve Irwin. Nature doesn't take revenge on anyone. Revenge is a human trait. Greer and the stingray killers are all morons. Wahkeenah 15:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that revenge is less likely the motive of these senseless killings. Someone who truly looked up to Steve would never commit such an atrocity. It is more like greed that these sub-humans are guilty of. How much you want to bet that we'll be seeing "The actual stingray barb that killed Steve Irwin", for bid on EBAY sometime in the near future. 4giron 15:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes, another human trait... that there's "a sucker born every minute". Or thousands of them, probably. Wahkeenah 16:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Spotted eagle ray image

Am i the only one who is wondering why there is a picture of a differant kind of ray on this page, a stingray picture would be appropriate but the image of the eagle ray has no relevance.(Neostinker 16:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC))

I agree. We should try to find an image of a "bull ray". dposse 20:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

According to our article, a bull ray is a type of eagle ray. The caption could be made clearer but that's the closest we've got. pschemp | talk 21:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Wildlife Warriors

Should we try to make a section about this group that Irwin started? dposse 20:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

If it is encyclopedic, why not? MyNameIsNotBob 02:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Public grief

• Interesting news analysis piece from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation: Experts ponder public grief over Irwin Also Irwin's death prompts rush to web Could possibly be factored into the section on reaction. --Golden Wattle ^talk 01:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

If there is some hard data that comes from these studies then I think it should be included otherwise maybe we could simply mention that his death caused certain scientific (is psychology science?) studies on public grief to be conducted.4giron 02:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The 'public' grief seems a bit contrived. I must admit some degree of surprise when the major newspapers and TV took on Steve Irwin's death as their main focus. From a South Oz perspective he was only really known for his over the top TV shows in the US. He was probably better known in Qld and the US. Ozdaren 23:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Infobox Picture

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)

This subject has already been brought up in a previous discussion now archived and apparently due to the copyright laws no one can seem to find anything better.4giron 02:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone familiar to wikipedia should contact Animal Planet, or Discovery.com, and request a picture be released to use in this article. Could this be done? Reynoldsrapture 18:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Photo

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

Essendon fan

The source that is supposed to back up that he was an Essondon fan, source 28, does not actually mention him supporting Essendon F.C. Unless it can be proved, this should be removed.

Source number 31 shows him playing football in a football jersey, not playing AFL. Was he not a keener follower of football than AFL?

Is there any justification for the AFL references apart from his use as a paid promotional participant in that one game and his one unexplained appearence in an Essendon jersey? He appeared on the NRL footy show many times. That should be mentioned in that section as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.225.218.22 (talk • contribs) .

28 says "He was a fan of Essendon in the Australian Football League, and loved mixed martial arts competitions." If it doesn't mean he was a fan of Essendon Footy Club, what does it mean? I can't see how it's ambiguous. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

"Baby from an outside source comment"??????

Whats with the comment about Steve having a baby with an outside source...who is Terri's sister apparently? I really dont think that should be there! Its at the bottom of the article where Animal Planet has named the garden after Steve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.150.14.236 (talk • contribs)

I think it's since been deleted. Appears to be pure vandalism, nothing more. --Jaysweet 16:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I also saw this, it has been removed now.

American memorials

Can someone review the first point in the American memorials section. There appears to be some vandalism.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.169.156.244 (talk • contribs)

This is weird... you are the second IP user to report said vandalism, but I just don't see it. There was some vandalism there, but it was reverted by AntiVandalBot. Maybe the server is having troubles somehow??? --Jaysweet 16:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The Animal Planet garden had an extraneous word in its title ("Sensory") which did not appear in the cited source. That may be what this anon user was reporting to us. I removed the word (among other edits). --ElKevbo 16:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was going to bring up the "Sensory Garden" thing. I was all set to revert your change, but now I am not so sure. The earliest reports I am sure called it the "Steve Irwin Memorial Sensory Garden." Also, the majority of reports use "Sensory". But a handful of more recent reports seem to have dropped "Sensory". However, I haven't been able to find any information I'd call "official." Please check here and here and see what you think.... --Jaysweet 17:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a press release from Monday from the folks who own the garden itself... I would probably take that as the most official? It uses "Sensory Garden"... --Jaysweet 17:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right - it's inconsistent even in the Discovery Networks press releases. This appears to be a summary of the press release and it refers to it as a sensory garden. The full press release (what you get if you click on "Read the full press release" from the document previously mentioned) doesn't refer to it as a sensory garden. I would think that the full press release that is currently on the Discovery Channel's website is the most authorative source but there is obviously a lot of room for debate. I don't really think it's terribly important and I'll go with whatever consensus we establish until the mystery clears itself up. --ElKevbo 17:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Weird... You are right, the very same company does it differently in various press releases. Anyway, I'm with you: It's not that important, so I'm just going to leave it for now. --Jaysweet 17:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

In the press release that they sent out right after his death, it said "Sensory". Are you telling me that they edited it? Why would they do that? dposse 20:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it's very confusing... Actually, I think they issued a brief press release that was written only by the president of Discovery Communications, and then an extended press release. The former says "Sensory," the latter does not. Heh, I'm really scratching my head over this one... --Jaysweet 21:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Irwin

Stephen Irwin (And maybe even Steven Irwin?) should link to Steve Irwin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sontra (talk • contribs)

Right you are. I am working on adding a bunch of redirects right now... --Jaysweet 19:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. Good catch, Sontra! (Incidentally, Stephen Robert Irwin already had a redirect, but not Stephen Irwin... go figure...) --Jaysweet 19:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Totally wild

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

• nothing on the series web site (via Channel 10) except that it started in 1992 which agrees with the obituary. The SMH would be regarded as a reliable source.--Golden Wattle ^talk 01:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Wildlife Warriors

Wildlife Warriors is a charity set up by Steve Irwin to protect wildlife. An article: Wildlife Warriors has been created. You are invited to contribute to it. --WikiCats 06:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)