Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running!    

Talk:Steve Irwin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Skip to Table of Contents Skip to Table of Contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Steve Irwin article.

To-do list for Steve Irwin: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Continue to add information about Steve and his legacy.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments
Flag Steve Irwin is part of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh)


Please see Talk:Steve Irwin/Comments/Archive.


A Wikipedian removed Steve Irwin from the good article list. There are suggestions below for improving areas to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, renominate the article as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review.

Removal date: 2006-09-05

News This article has been cited as a source or otherwise recommended by the mainstream press. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a press source for details.
Archive
Archives

Contents


[edit] Steve's death: Archives 1-9

Archive 9 has been created (see column on right). Nearly every topic concerning Steve Irwin's death has been covered in archives 1-9. For information about this please look there. Use this new talk page for fresh discussions. Thanks. Reynoldsrapture 15:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] South Park Controversy

There's been a stir about an episode of South Park featuring Irwin called Hell on Earth 2006, and It deserves mention. --JohnVMaster 00:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Was He Drugged?

On a tabloid newspaper called The Globe, the front page says :was he drugged?? Also they claim that Terri got a "shocking makeover". Is this true? I don't have the newspaper or whatever so I dunno. Frankyboy5 23:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tabloids

It also said in the article by the Globe that they were going to dig Irwin up to do tests.

Its a fact that Steve stayed away from the grog. He was never tempted by a cold XXXX Castlemaine, a Cairns Draught, or for that matter a Darwin Stubby. He even eschewed the revered Bundaberg Rum . proserpine Nov 28 2006

[edit] Still Protected?

Should we unprotect the page now that it's been over a month since his death? Or will it still get vandalized by IPs? I dunno, I just think that it's been protected for a long time and that new users can make constructive edits sometimes, too... Comments? •The RSJ(Say What?!CCD) 05:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Every single time it was unprotected, the "flying dick" vandal arrived. Hopefully it'll be ok this time. dposse 02:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Grr! WikiVandals... Ah well, maybe September 4th, 2007 will be a good time to unprotect it (I it doesn't take that long...) The RSJ 300 million and still going strong! 01:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Could the flying dick vandal be Willy on Wheels? --Jrothwell (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move death to new article?

Since the sections on Irwin's death/funeral now makes up about 1/3 of the article, should the death/funeral section be created as a new article, with a short paragraph summarizing it and then a link saying "Main article: Steve Irwin's death"? Latitude0116 17:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, considering the death of Irwin caused such a stir, it should be moved to its own article... •The RSJ(Say What?!CCDGive Me Some Ideas!) 02:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely not. The section needs to be trimmed, not forked. At present, the section is excessive and disproportionate in a biographical sense. This article, however, will ultimately be revised to present a more encyclopædic documentation of Steve Irwin's life.--cj | talk 04:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Alternatively, if the ratio between the death/funeral section and the rest of the article really upsets you, just make the rest of the article longer. :D --DavidHOzAu 04:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
No need to split, his death isn't significant enough to deserve an article. The only reason it's been flooding this article is because it's a current event. THe article is long, all it means is the sections on his death need trimming. For example, do we really need a 100+ word paragraph on stingrays being killed? The fact that two stingrays turned up in brisbane and the other eight elsewhere is trivia --`/aksha 08:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
HERE HERE I move to third the motion not to split the article, all those in favour say I. I. Enlil Ninlil 10:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Please no. Once the dust settles this will be rewritten as a normal biography and a fork will just make that much harder. Give it a couple of months and trim out the trivia. -- Moondyne 11:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Leave it in article there's not enough real information to warrant a seperate article. If you read the complete article it is in dire need of a considered edit once you get to the section on his death there is so much duplicated information. Does every TV station, personality that paid tribute to Steve need to be mentioned. The subsection of critisims in the section on his death should be edited down and combined with the earlier section of critism. Gnangarra 12:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
The death section is perfectly fine where it is. dposse 02:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I tried to edit down the critcism section, but it was reversed. It is not needed at all. Indeed much of the reaction is not needed - positive or negative. 130.102.0.178 04:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm a big fan of Steve's and I don't think his death requires a seperate article. Dionyseus 04:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
The death section is too big and was too big before is was recently reduced. I agree that the reaction section should be smaller - even more than it is. And that means the criticism section as well.60.226.76.41 06:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
It's perfectly fine the way it is. dposse 22:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remove Great Glass Elevator Crocodile Tears Reference

I suggest that the reference to Great Glass Elevator's Crocodile Tears song be removed from the death portion of Steve Irwin's page. I recommend this because the page should be used to outline responses to Steve Irwin's death that are of historical significance. Since Great Glass Elevator is a virtually unknown band, one can conclude that the Wikipedia page is being used to promote their band, rather than to report on a well-known and historically significant event. I cannot make this change, since I do not yet have a Wikipedia account, but I ask that someone make that change since the use of this page for advertising is not in keeping with the site's purpose.

130.221.10.37 17:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Aimee

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

[edit] US Stingray attack

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

Article about it - http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/leaving-stingray-barb-in-saved-him/2006/10/20/1160851103853.html?from=rss --Mikecraig 03:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protect article?

time to protect article again? 21 of the edits in the last 24 hours were reverted for vandalism (counting from the history page). and from many different Ips too --`/aksha 12:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

If the vandalism continues, then go ahead. dposse 22:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irwin exposed in unpublished interview

Just came across this article which reveals Irwin contemplating the effect his death would have on his family. It should be incorporated into the article when the vandalism cools down. Jpe|ob 13:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems okay. The title is a bit misleading, seeing as it says that it was published in Readers Digest. If it were to be incorporated, it may be better to use the Readers Digest as a citation. Ansell 11:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rap lyrics?

Is it true that Steve Iriwn was rudely mentioned in rap lyrics recently, something to the effect of "You are Steve Irwin, I am the Stingray"?, I remember reading about it but not who the artist was. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.217.78.87 (talk) 05:59, 30 October 2006

Can you remember where you read it? --Jrothwell (talk) 17:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Here it is, I acctualy read it in the Daily Telegraph but it's easily found online, the Artist was Rass Kass, the article is here : http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=3&art_id=qw1161600480692B223

[edit] Backlash

I suggest the backlash section be removed. First the article is quite long. Second, this is not really about Steve Irwin. Third, it actually does not state facts but refers to "speculation" - which is insufficient for an encyclopedia.Alan Davidson 00:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. There are cites for both statements, and I think it is relevant. -- Mapetite526 18:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Feet is last film

I believe that the film Happy Feet should be mentioned since it is the last film Steve Irwin has appeared in.

68.69.88.240 04:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Chris Hammond, 11-04-06

[edit] Germaine Greer

Why did people remove it? That has been the most prominent criticism going on. Frankyboy5 00:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] American + British English

There seems to be a mixture of American and British English punctuation in this article. I suggest sticking with one, as it is more consistent. I believe Australians use British English, but I could be wrong.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by UBeR (talkcontribs) .

Australians use Australian English, which is similar to British English, but not exactly the same. This article is about an Australian man and according to the national varieties of English section of the MOS, Australian English should be used. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC) P.S. Please sign your posts! Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
The other issue in play is that there are some direct quotes from American sources in the article, and the quotes have preserved the exact wording of the sources. —C.Fred (talk) 16:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Information

As there is a reference from Snopes saying that 'rumours of Steve attending a church before his death appear to be urban legend' would anyone object to me putting in a quote from Terri Irwin about Steve Irwin's belief in God?I have full citation for it,and it seems a little strange if the article includes something from Snopes (denying that Steve Irwin went to church),but there is another source (Terri Irwin) saying that Steve did believe in God that wasn't included.Serenaacw 01:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Groan...the only reason I originally put in the mention of Irwin's religion at all was because of the claims that he started going to church just before he died. If you must, stick in a brief note after the church-going thing along the lines of, "Terri Irwin , however, stated that Irwin believed in God in a magazine interview" and add the citation. Irwin, whatever he privately believed, said virtually nothing on the topic. --Robert Merkel 05:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure...in fact,I would not have a problem if it didn't have either of those references,but if it only has one it is a little unbalanced.Serenaacw 06:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotes

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

Never mind,I worked out how to do it.It's in there now.Serenaacw 06:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] South Park

This should be an encyclopadia standard detailing with the life and contibution of a particular person. I think the reference to South Park sould simply state that there was a reference in South Park without the details and without the cartoon. This is more about South Park's standard and the viewers' standard (whether that be good or bad) than it is about Steve Irwin. It should be placed on the South Park page - if anywhere. Alan Davidson 12:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I find the south park episode humorous in the typical south park style but it hardly warrants a lengthy section on the Steve Irwin page. I find the whole controversial memorials section to be a very weak entry that actually brings down the quality of the article.--I already forgot 14:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it a good idea to have the cartoon image of Irwin with the Stingray Barb in his chest in the article? I note that it is stated above that Terri Irwin is concerned her children may see the episode of Southpark. Surely they are more likely to look up their dad in Wikipedia, and even if this was not in question, it seems inappropriate. User:Alexx16x 13:55 20 November 2006

Wikipedia is not censored and may contain offensive content. Readers use it at their own risk. Slac speak up! 03:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
It is not a question of censorship. Why are the vandals contributions removed - that is not a question of censorship either. This article should be an encyclopadia standard detailing with the life and contibution of a particular person. This should not be a place for South Park, but about a meaningful contribution. The fact that he was featured in South Park - which is a widely watched show - is a controversial memorial. The details and picture are not. Should we take this down? Alan Davidson 05:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Alan. My response was only directed at Alex's comments, not yours. I don't see that mentioning the South Park episode is irrelevant. If you feel that the image is not relevant, you are certainly within your rights to take it down, since nobody has objected as yet and I suspect they won't. But some reference to the episode I would say definitely has a place. Slac speak up! 05:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Will do. Alan Davidson 06:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

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


[edit] Computer game

There are a number of computer games circulating which parody Steve Irwin’s death. I believe the wiki should have at least some mention of these since they are just as much a part of popular culture as the Halloween costumes and episodes of South Park. They also show the reaction to his death in different forms of media and give us a clearer picture of the impact of his death in popular culture.

Most notably this one. [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PirateYakuza (talkcontribs).

I don't think so. — Moondyne 00:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I disagree, I believe it is relevant. Wesconianbee 11:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Just removed this from the "Criticism" section:

"Dan Mathews, vice-president of animal rights group, who happens to be a bummbling fool People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, said it was "no shock at all that Steve Irwin should die provoking a dangerous animal".

I removed the vandalism, but I think there might be more throughout the article. Nqnpipnr 02:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

well, he was right.--Kamikaze 11:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal tools