Talk:Steve Irwin/Archive10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Where is Steve buried

Does anyone know where he is buried?

I've heard that the exact location was kept secret by his family. 18.1.2006

You heard right. According to Terri, he had specifically requested that the location of his grave be kept secret from the general public, for the sake of privacy. Phoenix Flower 23:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Steve is buried at his Zoo- in the Irwin's house's backyard. Remember the zoo has grown around the house- since the early 1970's. His dog Sui is also buried there (see 'early days' segment on the australia zoo website). I visited the zoo last year and casually asked one of the staff, who confimed this for me. The house is no longer accessable from the zoo- it is surrounded by a 15ft brick fence and is guarded by securuty 24/7. Tall trees prevent aerial photography.However any visitor to the zoo will tell you that the Irwin's regard the zoo as their back yard and they are commonly seen entering and exiting the access gate to their house.

The brick fence has been there for about 3 years and was designed by Steve to allow privacy for hios family. But you are right- it now provides acces to his burial site.

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)

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

The Irwins have made it a point to keep the location of his grave a secret; I'm sure they wouldn't allow them to exhume him. Phoenix Flower 23:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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)

i wouldnt un block some people didnt like steve and could vandalise and his family might see it and sue wikipedia63.164.225.201 20:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)medayugiohman

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?!—CCD—Give 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)

HE DID NOT NEED TO DIE KILL RAYS KILL RAYS 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)

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)

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)

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)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.78.87 (talk) 05:59, 30 October 2006

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

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

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)

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

Will it really? He could appear in others, as in pictures and video footage, and animated references. - Thekittenofterra 10:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I would say if Happy Feet was the last film that Steve Irwin intentionally appeared in, then it is ok to include this information. 66.75.8.138 03:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it really neccessary? Spebi[cntrbs] 04:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

--Jack Upland 07:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)== Germaine Greer == Why did people remove it? That has been the most prominent criticism going on. Frankyboy5 00:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I have discussed with the user who removed it and have not received a reply so far for my last comment for two weeks. As this user is not away then I assume that he accepts my opinions on this subject, which was to include Germaine Greer's comment (though not as detailedly as before). Feel free to add it if you see the need. Aran|heru|nar 13:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The reasons for the omission are well documented and discussed. There are ample comments by people qualified in the field. Alan Davidson 00:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Please enlighten us. The Greer comment was a highly publicised reaction.--Jack Upland 04:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree that the Germaine Greer comment should be reinstated - that was the most commonly heard criticism. It received several angry replies in the "Letters to the editor" section of the newspaper.

Yoda921 05:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Yoda

Please read the ample previous discussion archived regarding the omission of Greer. Clearly there is disagreement about this - and a consensus is difficult to reach. Thus a NPOV is not possible. As for the current criticisms there is little disagreement and so we all agree that comments by experts in the field should be included. However, you must also note that there has been discussion about deleting the entire Criticism section and someone, a few weeks ago did just that. Comments by a well known person is not the criteria - it should be an encyclopaedia standard - otherwise comments by dozens of journalists, actors, academics, politicians etc could be included. We should include experts in the field. Alan Davidson 00:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yet there is reference to a South Park episode on Irwin. Your response clearly contains an inapposite rationale for removing it. Greer is an influential opinion columnist so is an expert in delivering opinions on current events. Are you suggesting that influential commentators should not be quoted unless they are experts on the subject of commentary? If so, you will need to slash huge portions of Wikipedia away for consistency's sake. That is not what is meant by being encyclopedic, particularly when discussing the social consequences of an event.
Citation of the Greer article is perfectly appropriate in the criticism sub-section as a citation of an influential opinionmaker's take on Irwin, his life and death.
It's also not correct to insist that removal was the only solution as an NPOV was not possible! Talk about begging the question -- removal was one of the points of view! Larry Dunn 21:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree or disagree, Greer's comment roused attention. How does it hurt to have a brief mention? How is it non-neutral to quote her and note that this excited controversy? Even saints have a devil's advocate.--Jack Upland 07:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

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 (talk • contribs) .

Australians use Australian English, which is similar to British English, but not exactly the same. This article is about an Australian man and according to the national varieties of English section of the MOS, Australian English should be used. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC) 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)

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)

The Irwin family does believe in God. This is one cause why Terri spoke out about Hell on Earth 2006. The only person confirmed in their family as Christian is Terri, but even her kids have mentioned things about Steve being in heaven, like a tree branch falling outside their house because of steve. Baby Bob was even poking a screwdriver at Steve's motorbike because he wanted him to ride it in heaven LOL!!!! Frankyboy5 22:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)


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] —Preceding unsigned comment added by PirateYakuza (talk • contribs)

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)

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".

Photograph taken right before Irwin's death

I've added Image:steve-irwin-death.jpg to the "Death" section. It is a photograph taken from the death video showing him behind the stingray, right before he got stabbed. I'm including it here because it perfectly illustrates the article. My question is, is it in the public domain? After all, it's in posession of the police, right? Wouldn't that make it public domain? Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 03:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's a flaw with the image, in that its page doesn't identify the source. As it exists now, you assert that you took the picture—in which case, there wouldn't be a question, would there? Because it's uploaded as licensed under GFDL, with the {{GFDL}} tag, yet because it's asserted that the image is "fair use" and "uncopyrighted," I'm recommending speedy deletion under criterion I7, invalid fair-use claim. —C.Fred (talk) 04:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I think the photo is fraudulent. It looks so fake. Fighting for Justice 04:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Its not real, its from a tabloid that I recall reading. They said right on the page that it was an artists rendering. ~Rangeley (talk) 04:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
You mean to say that he didn't dive with his khaki short-sleeved shirt on? ROFL. Deleting the image from the article. 75.35.77.22 04:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
If this image is from the original recording given to the police, they arent the copyright holder and wouldn't have the ability to publish such an image. Gnangarra 04:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
If it were authentic, even if it had been stolen, then a compelling fair-use claim could be made in the U.S. where it matters. However, it's an artist's rendition and an unconvincing one at that. Artists' renditions aren't necessarily unencyclopedic if they are realistic or otherwise informative, but there is no way a fair use claim can be made on them, unless the rendition itself becomes newsworthy for some reason. 75.35.77.22 04:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
The news reports that the footage was handed over to his wife and was not released to the public. Yahoo news. Enlil Ninlil 02:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

lock

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

Germaine Greer quote

Someone removed the Germaine Greer quote for no cited reason. The quote is directly from a piece Greer wrote, and the piece itself is linked directly and correctly. Greer is an internationally recognized feminist leader. I have replaced the quote:

Germaine Greer wrote, "The animal world has finally taken its revenge on Irwin, but probably not before a whole generation of kids in shorts seven sizes too small has learned to shout in the ears of animals with hearing 10 times more acute than theirs, determined to become millionaire animal-loving zoo-owners in their turn." [1]

I can think of no reason whatsoever for removing the info on Germaine Greer's comments and the responses to them. It was reported widely in the British and Australian press. What possible reason can there be for it not being here? --Krsont 13:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Read the comments above - under the previous GG heading. Then read the comments from the previous archives. These date back many months. There is a clear consensus that experts can be used and these have been inserted and sorted out. There is no consensus regarding GG. Many people have previously debated this. It is a dead issue. I can repeat these arguments, but they are already in place. Alan Davidson 13:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
It may have *been* a "dead issue", but let's just say i'm ressurecting it. There are two options here: either leave it in or remove it. No consensus was reached, as you admit, as to which option to go with, which means that removing the paragraph is against NPOV. And as for "expert" status, Germaine Greer may not be a biologist/naturalist, but she is definately a prominent writer on modern Australian culture. Most certainly relevent to the article. --Krsont 16:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
You are ignoring previous debate - I have read it again. There is no consensus. When there is consensus an addition should be made. This is an encylclopedia, we should add in things where there is no dispute. Here is one of many extracts from last year-

'The last discussion asked five questions. Q1 "Are saying that you don't even want Greer's comments mentioned in the Steve Irwin article?" Yes. This is an encyclopedia that should use authorities in the field (or perhaps elected officials which represent the people). Greer's comments may be news for the general media, but should not be in Wikipedia here. Q2 "Are you really saying that you don't think Greer's comments about Steve Irwin are notable enough to be mentioned?" Yes. For the same reasons. Q3 "Do you want to write the article like there was no negative comment following Steve's death?" Not at all. The point I stated above (in four places) was that an encyclopedia should use authorities. I said "I am simply saying that only a person with authority in the field should be quoted". Indeed there are others who have been quoted, like the son of Jacques Cousteau. Q4 "Among all the world reaction, there was this one lone, loud voice … Let's just give Greer's comments the space that their notability justifies (ie, a very little bit of space), and possibly note that her negative comments were overwhelmingly rejected by the public. Wouldn't that be appropriate?" No it is not. I disagree with your comment that she was "one lone, loud voice". There are others with the same view. Indeed a couple are included in the article – and provided they are in the field they should be there – not Greer. As you say, she is not a naturalist. Q5 "Thanks heaps. Who am I talking to, by the way?" On the point about Greer's past, you again use it to justify her inclusion. But if you argue that Greer's past is not important then neither should mine. Wikipedia accepts Anonymous use. You should be able to counter the arguments of an anonymous person. For this discussion page, tackle the ball, not the person. As for Greer I have not attacked her, she is entailed to her view, but her view should not be in the encyclopedia article. If you think Irwin should be criticised, then find comments by David Suzuki, David Attenborough, or any authority in the naturalist or veterinarian fields.' If you cannot find a person who is an authoriuty in the field, that says something. Even Dan Mathews is questionable. I urge you and others to read his political agenda. Finally, it cannot be a NPOV when there is so much disagreement. Alan Davidson 02:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

We can't have material put in and out. If there is no clear view it should ne by put in. I agree that experts in the area should be used - or maybe elected representatives. I know there are examples elsewhere in Wikipedia where other people are used, but I don't think that it desireable. Her comments were opportunistic in a regular newspaper column. Indeed if you read it, she generally praises Irwin for his work, and rather than criticise is really saying it should not be a surprise how he died. Her comments are also taken out of context.130.102.0.178 03:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Noted, but even if they were in context - should we include comments by Jay Leno, Larry King, The View, Barbara Walters, Ray Martin, etc, etc. There are many many more that could be quoted. Each has a different motivation. Which is better, which is important? Being "one lone voice" as one person suggets is wrong for two reasons - if it is such a minority it is clearly out of touch, but there were more - many more - so, secondly, use experts in the field. I agree that we could add elected representatives to this. Alan Davidson 03:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Greer is not just one random person who happened to criticise Irwin after his death. As I have already said, she may not be a biologist/naturalist, but she is definately a prominent writer in the field of modern Australian culture. Information on what she wrote and the responses to it are clearly relevent to the article. Tell me, where on earth did you actually get the idea that this article could only contain information on negative comments from naturalists? I can't think of any policy or guideline on any wikipedia policy page that could lead you to this odd conclusion. Infact looking at the article again, I see that the first quote in the criticism section is from Dan Mathews, the vice president of PETA. Not a naturalist, but an activist.--Krsont 03:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Do you think there is a clear POV on this issue? Others disagree. Was the way he did his work wrong? That is a professional question. I agree with you that Dan Mathews should not be there either. But he is in (on near) the field at least. I would support his deletion as well. Before reverting, can you address the disagreement issues raised above and from the previous archives? I think it ends up being some on one side of the fence, and some on the other. But let's err on the side of good encyclopedic practice and not insert disputed material. Alan Davidson 04:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I remember the original discussion. There was even a lengthy discussion about Greer calling "ordinary Australians" idiots. When asked whether she was out of touch with ordinary Australians on this issue, she said "I care what idiots think". But even the question that she is out of touch shows how wrong she was. She clearly should not be included. Chicago8 05:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
GG should be left out. And there is only one person in this discussion who thinks otherwise. 130.102.0.178 08:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see the argument here. People disagree with the sentiments that Greer expressed, therefore she should not be included? Her comments garnered a hell of a lot of press coverage. We don't refuse to cover acts of genocide in Wikipedia because they're unpopular. Slac speak up! 08:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
With respect I believe you do fail to see the point. Nobody has argued a cover up, or even that they it should be deleted because she is wrong. Clearly we all seem to agree that - the critcism by the experts still listed in the article - is fine. Experts in the field should be included. This, I believe remains the thrust of the arguments on this discussion page, and in the archieved discussion page. I would not want GG's comments about genocide in an article about genocide when we can include world experts. This should be an encyclopedia standard. Alan Davidson 08:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Valid criticism by wild life experts, like David Attenborough etc, must be permitted. I agree with Slac that we shouldn't leave out statements just because we disagree. But that is not what is happening. I think we should encourage criticism by experts in the area. But if you can't find it - that's it. 130.102.0.178 08:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Irwin was a celebrity who led a high-profile life. Greer's criticism is based partly, yes, on his wildlife-handling techniques, but it's mainly aimed at his celebrity/idol status. The enormous reaction that Greer's remarks generated make them noteworthy in themselves. It's not a question of wildlife-handling that is appropriately handled by experts; it's a question of fame and celebrity. Slac speak up! 10:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
You have still failed completely and utterly to adress my central point: Greer is a well known writer on (among other things) modern Australian culture. Irwin was not just a naturalist, he was also a celebrity and something of an Australian pop-culture icon. So, As Slac has pointed out, it was concerning this that Greer was writing. --Krsont 12:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the point is lost. There were dozens of well known commentators. There is nothing special about Germaine above many others. What everyone is pointing out is that the opinions of those qualified and experienced in the field matter, not Germaine. Also I note that someone else has recently taken it further by omitting positive quotes - because quotes should be elsewhere. An encyclopaedia is about facts. If her comments are important, put it on the Germaine page or in Wikiquotes. If people want to read her opinion, go to her page. As for Slac's comments - I thought Germaine directed her comments at his wildlife activities, not on how he handled fame. 60.226.76.41 15:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
As was mentioned in the archives, she was not just one of dozens; her comments reached the front page of many Australian newspapers. Her criticism was the most vocal and the most well known, and this is exactly why it should be mentioned. Her "loud voice" made her more notable than any other. And of course she is an expert in the field: that of Australian culture. And her criticism was directed at his wildlife activities in a sense, but she aproached them from the point of view of Australian culture: for example pointing out the similarities between his persona and larrikin culture. --Krsont 15:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Your first point is not true. She was one of dozens which commented. Hers were controversial so she achieved notoriety. It is a poor way to achieve notoriety – to comment on a person who just died. For this notoriety, put her quote on her page because it is more about her – or as was suggested put it in the Wikiquote section. She was "loud" beause so many disagreed - but she is entitled to her opinion, it just isn't what Wikipedia is about. If the comments are worth putting on a page a about a person's life they should be authoritative – and if you can’t find an expert in the field, that says something. If she makes a good point about culture, put it on a page about culture. However most seem to think it was not even a good point. I don't know - I just believe it is not Wikipedia. Perhaps you could put it on the larrikin page referred to. A comment about his wildlife activities should be made by an expert in the field - not an expert in any field. What do you think about the changes made by Astrokey44? Alan Davidson 16:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I decided to reread the Greer article. It is full of the poorest journalism. Look again. She writes in hyperbole. This style may make good reading for a throwaway paper, but what of this: Initially she uses expression like "A great Australian, an ambassador for wildlife, a global phenomenon, a superhuman". Then she states what she "imagines" Irwin may have said and then she criticises Irwin for her imagination! She says "You can just imagine Irwin yelling: 'Just look at these beauties! Crikey! With those barbs a stingray can kill a horse!'" (Yes, Steve, but a stingray doesn't want to kill a horse. It eats crustaceans, for God's sake.)" The part in brackets is her criticism against the words that Greer put in Irwin's mouth for the article. Blaspheming - "for God's sake" - about imagined conduct! I find that bizarre writing. Later she guesses that Irwin "may" have grappled with the stingray and states "Not much sympathy there then." But all accounts state there was no grappling – Greer just shouldn't make this up – and then about her own made up suggestion conclude there should be no sympathy. Before I believed she should not be included because she was not an expert in the field. Now I find she makes up facts to write a populist article for a newspaper. Alan Davidson 16:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I said she is not just one of dozens to comment. She among all of them was the most notable. Tbh as far as I can tell all you have against the inclusion is that you disagree with her, think her journalism is poor, and think the notoriety of what she wrote about Irwin is purely a result of how controversial it was. All these objections of course have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion. Your opinion on the article is irrelevent. Your opinion on the quality of her writing or the quality of The Guardian newspaper is irrelevent. The reason why her comments are notable are also irrelevent - the only relevent fact is that, as by your own admission, her comments achieved notability. Which is exactly my argument - they are notable enough, because of the controversy, to be on the page. --Krsont 17:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Now you are blatantly distorting what I have been saying. Attacking me does not improve your argument. Clearly, I have said many many times above we should use experts in the field - I state this many times. Only about 8 hours ago I read the article and made new comments about it - because there are more reasons. Now you are concluding that these new additional observations have been my foundation for my discussions since last Septemeber. Since September I have been included in discussions with several others and my point has been the same. I have always said it is not a matter of what she said but that we should use authorites - experts in the field. I have never stated that I disagree with her view; it is worthwhile if stated by an expert in the field. I reread the article to give you the benefit of the doubt - I then inserted my new observations. Please attack the content of what I have said and not me. Are the 2 points wrong about her article (1) that she imagined words that Irwin may have said and the commented "for God's sake" about these imagined words; (2) that she guesses that Steve grappled, when there is no report to support this and then comments that she has no sympathy for his death. My point is, even if she were 100% correct and wrote a good article without making things up, she should still not be included. Use an expert in the field who knows. It should be about Irwin, not greer. What do you think about the changes made by Astrokey44? Alan Davidson 00:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The two points you have raised above about her article are totally irrelevant. Without wanting to invoke Godwin's law, Hitler said that Jews were subhuman monsters. He was wrong about that, as well as blatantly inaccurate, but his comments caused a great deal of a stir. The same principle applies here: we objectively report the noteworthy comments on his life, especially those that are widely known and realayed. It's absurd that we disregard WP's customary notability criteria, under by which you have conceded that her comments are notable, and replace them with some ad hoc "expert in the field" criteria to satisfy our distaste at what she expressed. Slac speak up! 01:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
If you recognize completely that your opinions are irrelevent, why even mention them? I can't help but wonder if your desire to have the information removed is because of your own POV. I've already made clear that I think your original argument is also false - she is an expert. Not a naturalist, but an expert all the same. But essentially your insistence on "expert" opinions itself is another irrelevency. I agree with what Lacrimosus/Slac says above: you are inventing rules to satisfy your desire to remove this information. Notability is all that matters, and you yourself admit that Greer's comments have that. --Krsont 03:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
How can you say she is an expert. I have now read the article too. She made up stuff and then concludes nature takes its revenge. How can you want to quote that? Chicago8 04:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Because Wikipedia is a non-judgemental repository of information and record of events. It is undeniable that Greer made these comments and these comments, inaccurate or accurate, factual or non-factual, fair or unfair, are notable. Slac speak up! 04:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
On this point we agree. But it is a fact that she says she made them up. How can you use that? Chicago8 05:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I have never said her comments are notable. I said she gained notoriety. The notoriety was more about her than about Irwin – so put it on her page. She had fame with her comments with people like Peter Beattie calling her stupid and when asked why she was out of touch with ordinary Australian, she called them idiots. The notoriety was about her. You say "I've already made clear that I think your original argument is also false" so I again say – we disagree. I have no problem that we disagree. You say "she is an expert. Not a naturalist, but an expert all the same." That makes no sense. It presupposes that every expert in every field should be quoted. "Notability" is not the standard. I agree with Slac that "Wikipedia is a non-judgemental repository of information and record of events" but they must be by experts in the field – not any expert and not by a person who admits she imagines words in Irwin's mouth and the guesses what he did when he died. Let's keep Wikipedia credible. Alan Davidson 05:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
One point is clear from this. It is not certain that this material should be put in - or at least there a difference of opinion by Wikipedia contributors. There is no argument about the other people in the cricism area. For my part I wouldn't put it in. By until we agree leave it out. 130.102.0.178 07:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The field we are talking about is modern australian culture, as I said. And again, please stop attacking her writing as if it has any relevence to this argument. What you think about what she wrote is irrelevent. And as for credibility: the fact of the matter is that these statements *did* cause a lot of controversy and notoriety and that is what makes them notable. If there is going to be a criticism section on this page then it most certainly should include mention of Greer's comments as, because of the controversy, she is by far the most notable of those critics. --Krsont 13:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Some seem to be attacking her writing while others (well one) is adamant it should be experts only. There are several points of view here. For example she is not more notable than Mathews, Cousteau, or the politicians Beattie, Beazley and Howard or Larry King, or Barbara Walters, or Professor Franklin, George Bush, British wildlife author Nigel Marven. Why do you think she is the most notable? And with all those disagreeing, why are you so focused on this? 60.226.76.41 14:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Krost wants to quote her article, but states "please stop attacking her writing as if it has any relevence to this argument" ???? Chicago8 14:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I would add, that she did attain notoriety - but that's a statement about her not Irwin. Put it on her page, because it is about her. Chicago8 14:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
That's a good point. She used Irwin as a vehicle for contoversy, which I think is a better word than notoriety. 60.226.76.41 14:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
As I have said, she is obvbiously more notable because of how controversial what she said was. If we're going to have a criticism section in this article then ignoring the most well known example of said criticism is ridiculous. And yes, Chicago8, attacking her writing has nothing to do with this argument. Please explain why you think the quality of what she wrote in anyway negates how notable it has become. --Krsont 14:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
(a) You want to put in quote from her article - not me. (b) Slac says "Wikipedia is a non-judgemental repository of information and record of events". If Greer gets some fame by making a comment put it on her page - because the fame is not about Irwin. c) you want to put in a quote from an article where she made stuff up - please explain how that is not relevant. Chicago8 14:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not proposing using her article as a source for information about Irwin, I'm proposing putting it in it as an example - the most prominent and notable example - of someone who criticised Irwin after his death. Like I said, if we're going to have a criticism section on this page then what she said should obviously be mentioned in it. I for one had never heard about what Jean-Michel Cousteau or PETA vice president Dan Mathews had said about Irwin before I read this page, but I had definately heard about Germaine Greer's article and the controversy it caused. If the previous two people's comments are apparently well known enough to be notable, then I see no reason why the far more publicised and discussed article by Greer is not. --Krsont 15:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
But it should be about Steve Irwin - not about her attaining notoriety. The fact that she used Irwin to gain notoriety should not be put on Irwin's page. Criticism about Irwin should be about "criticism about Irwin" not other people's reaction to Greer. If she gains notoriety put it on her page. In fact I will do that now. Chicago8 01:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
It's not her notability that's the issue, it's *what she said*'s notability. See the distinction? What she said was about Irwin, so it deserves to be mentioned here, in the criticism section, as it is in no way different from the rest of the criticism mentioned (other than it being far more widely known about). It might also belong on her own page, sure, but that's beside the point. And, btw, Germaine Greer herself was already extremely well known and notable long before she wrote anything about Steve Irwin. --Krsont 02:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
The distinction should be between criticism appropriate for Wikipedia and criticism which in itself may be notorious. The comments may be worth something on her page, or about culture – but not Irwin. Chicago8 03:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean here. First: How is it not appropriate? wikipedia is not censored. Secondly: How are the two, "criticism appropriate for Wikipedia" and "criticism which in itself may be notorious" mutually exclusive? Third: Why include a criticism section here at all then, if recording/noting criticism is not appropriate? What is the point of a criticism section that completely fails to mention the most notable case of criticism after his death? --Krsont 04:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
To echo somewhat: how is it that a widely-relayed and much discussed sentiment, prominently expressed, on Irwin's life and cultural impact has no place in his article? Because we believe her comments have no value? Sorry, that's not for us to judge. Slac speak up! 04:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
To answer the questions "How is it not appropriate? wikipedia is not censored." Removing vandalism is not censorship. Vandalism is not appropriate. Many many edits in Wikipedia adjust content, that is not censorship. Astrokey44 recently removed material which he thought fit. That was not censoship, it is part of encyclopedic editing. "Secondly: How are the two, 'criticism appropriate for Wikipedia' and 'criticism which in itself may be notorious' mutually exclusive?" I didn't say they were, just different. "Third: Why include a criticism section here at all then, if recording/noting criticism is not appropriate?" We have never said that criticism is not appropriate. Alan Davidson has argued above that criticism by experts in the field is appropriate. Greer makes up words that Irwin says, and criticises him for this; it is not appropriate to criticise on stuff she made up. "What is the point of a criticism section that completely fails to mention the most notable case of criticism after his death?" Well we disagree on this point. I said above "she is not more notable than Mathews, Cousteau, or the politicians Beattie, Beazley and Howard or Larry King, or Barbara Walters, or Professor Franklin, George Bush, British wildlife author Nigel Marven." Chicago8 07:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Krsont said "It's not her notability that's the issue, it's *what she said*'s notability." Is Krsont saying that should a person say something so outrageous about subject X causing vehement reaction then it should be put on page X? Then anyone can make stuff up and gain notoriety for themselves. But wait … Greer did make stuff up, she comments on made up words and comments on her guess at his actions before he died. Is it any wonder people reacted. At least let the criticism be about what happened. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.102.0.178 (talk) 07:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC).
It seems there are two particular points of mine that aren't getting any traction. Firstly: it doesn't matter that we think that Greer's comments are unfair or inaccurate. It doesn't matter that she put words into his mouth, and whether we disagree with that or not. It's frankly, an unsophisticated reading of the article that views "making up things" as her primary occupation: she's not trying to construct an accurate picture of Irwin's last moments; she's expressing an opinion, and uses the technique to make a rhetorical point. And the second point is: if people take enough note of something, if it's important, it doesn't matter whether it's outrageous, timid, good bad or indifferent, it should form part of our treatment of the subject. It's information that should be included in an encyclopedia article. And as a tiny third point, as I pointed out months ago when this was first discussed: Greer is one of the single most notable English-speaking academics alive today. There. So what she thinks and expresses generally will carry some weight (in this case, her comments have attracted very wide attention). Slac speak up! 07:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Slac, you say, "it doesn't matter that we think that Greer's comments are unfair or inaccurate." But we don't say it, Greer says it herself. It is not even a matter of opinion. She clearly says "You can just imagine Irwin yelling: 'Just look at these beauties! Crikey! With those barbs a stingray can kill a horse!'" (Yes, Steve, but a stingray doesn't want to kill a horse. It eats crustaceans, for God's sake.)" Then she guesses that Irwin "may" have grappled with the stingray and states "Not much sympathy there then." But all accounts state there was no grappling – Greer just shouldn't make this up to make a comment and a conclusion. Her "for God's sake" comment expresses exasperation at what Irwin said, BUT she acknowledged he didn't even say it. You say "It doesn't matter that she put words into his mouth". But that is the basis of her comments, conclusion and the quote. On the second point, I agree with Chicago8, those others are more notable. On the third point, when I raise this issues with others (usually under 40) most have not even heard of Greer. But I disagree that you should raise her fame, it should be experts in the field. Alan Davidson 07:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
On Slac's third point. I believe she has retired as an academic. She is 68. Chicago8 08:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
To take the last point first, I define "academic" as "person who has an academic degree". And she is notable. She's extraordinarily influential, not only in academic circles, not only in newspapers, but also in this little thing called second wave feminism that has been around for the past 30 years.
Okay, let me see if I can rephrase my comments:
It doesn't matter that Greer's comments are unfair or inaccurate (although of course, it's not our job to prove or disprove them as such). She said them, they're notable. We should report them. It's that simple.
Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. You're still arguing that Greer's article is unfair, fabricated, and she "shouldn't" have written these things. None of these are valid grounds for objecting to the inclusion of notable material.
I am becoming quite frustrated here: our part is not to dissect the article's intellectual merit, and the more I point that out, the more you continue to do it in the belief that that will justify excluding notable content. The reason I have the position that I have is that it is in accordance with Wikipedia policy. It's the way we work here, simply. I'm also becoming frustrated because it's utterly silly and superficial to assume that the point of Greer's article is to accurately depict Irwin's death. That's simply not what she's trying to do. She's making a point about the cultural impact of Steve Irwin and his behaviour. John Howard's praise of how he enhanced the conservation movement is exactly the same thing: making a comment about the cultural impact of Steve Irwin and his behaviour. Slac speak up! 08:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Some editors have expressed that the Greer comments are better placed in the Germaine Greer article as that is the person who made the comments. They also argue that the comments are not notable enough to account for a large amount of space in the Steve Irwin article. The inclusionists want the quote reinstated as criticism to Steve Irwin. Would a possible way forward be to add the bulk of the information to the Germain Greer article and then link to the info there via a single or few sentences? Would this be a happy medium? - Parasite 10:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so, unfortunately. Putting the information on Greer's article makes no sense when it's about Irwin and his legacy. I believe that there's no need to compromise on this issue, as removing the material is a violation of policy. Slac speak up! 11:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Point taken, except for two things. First, clearly not every comment made (by people notable or otherwise - and many here disagree on the extent of notability) goes into Wikipedia. It would be way too long. There is a degree of editing. For example, what do you think of Astrokey44's edits, which removed material. Second, where a person expresses just an opinion, we should take it at face value as an opinion; however you and I are not saying she is basing it on false facts, she is. Alan Davidson 01:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
1) If we're going to have a criticism section here, she should definately be in it. She's probably the only person most people know about that criticised him. If criticism itself is notable, then Greer's criticism is also notable. 2)If you can find a notable source for them being false facts (presented as such and not just as a rhetorical device), then by all means mention it. If not however then I'm afraid your assertion counts as original research and is not relevent to this discussion. --Krsont 16:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
On your first point; it is not about who "most people know" otherwise comments by Madonna and Robbie Willims would rate first. But even if it was, many others are more notable. For an encyclopedia it should be Nobel prize winners, or Professors in zoology and the like - whether or not people have heard of them. Such a criticism is the standard - like those already quoted and not disputed. On the second point, I don't understand your point; the source is GG, she says "imagine" if he said this - that is she states she made it up; then she does not know his actions but says he "probably" was "grappling". Noone claims he grappled - she does; and she said it at a time when the police had not even seen the film. The source is GG. Chicago8 07:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
That's seems to be the whole point - we may disagree who is notable, but it shouldn't be based on popularity. 60.226.76.41 09:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I never said popularity, and I didn't mean that it's about the person who said it. The comments themselves are the best known, and were widely discussed in the media. Calling it "popularity" is just a way of dismissing the fact that they are the most well known, which is exactly what makes them notable. And as for the imagined/rhetorical devices she uses, you've confirmed that she did not make things up maliciously or represent them as truths - Greer says they are hypotheticals in the article. Give a source for her having made things up and not representing them as such: if you can, then I would certainly consider incorperating it into the paragraph on Germaine Greer's comments. --Krsont 14:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
There is a general consensus to leave it out. My view remains that it should be experts in the field. I thought the popularity comment above related to Krsont's words "person most people know", which relates the the Robbie Williams comment. But we all agree it should not be based on popularity. (Although I did not really understand the distiction to "the most well known". Movies stars are the most well known and we agree that would be absurd.) You really can't believe that because "they are the most well known, which is exactly what makes them notable", is the standard - it lets in a massive number of unqualified people's quotes. I like Chicago8's approach that a not well known "Nobel Prize winner" (at least in the field) or a "Professor in Zoology" would be encyclopedic standard. Making up facts or making up a hypothetical situation is the same thing. A quote of an opinion on real facts is one thing, but a quote of an opinion from a stated hypothetical position of imagined words and probably acts ... Alan Davidson 15:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I meant the most well known criticism, not the most well known person. If we have a criticism section it is absolutely absurd to leave out Greer's comments. --Krsont 15:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there's a consensus here. I suggest the filing of a request for comment. Slac speak up! 02:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
There are many criticisms - Greer is just one - and is one who is not an expert in the field. And several had suggested she is not the most notable. I agree with Slac. I have never wanted this to be personal - I am sure you will see I have maintained the "expert" veiw consistently - please do not call me prejudiced - we disagree, that is all; and others have expressed their opinions as well. Alan Davidson 11:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Nowhere in wikipedia policy is there a criteria for notability that states that criticism mentioned on a biography page has to be by people who shared the same profession as the person the article concerns. I have no idea where you got this idea from. --Krsont 13:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
In many articles editing choices must be made, otherwise they would be too long. There is no doubt that the choice should be the current people because of their position. I had a look at the editing by Astrokey44, which removed a fair bit. He refers to a file size; is there such a policy? Chicago8 22:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

As others have suggested, Greer's criticism was very widely reported and reacted to in Australia at least and also from the cites the UK and probably also the US judging fromt he vandalism of her article shortly thereafter. I find it very surprising that it has been removed from this article. It was certainly more notable criticism that Cousteau's even though he might be an "expert". Greer is a notable (perhaps even infamous) expatriate and Australians are very sensitive to expatriate criticism that fact might belong in her article, however that fact means it becomes notable critiism belonging here. I note google hit count of Greer and Irwin is 552,000 - the top hits are all relevant - it seems to be a notable factoid. As others have noted, wikipedia should not be censored. Greer's comments also hit a positive chord with many Australians - he was more popular in the US than in Australia, for example I am pretty sure his television show was not on before he died and his movie was not successful here.--Golden Wattle talk 23:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

As a control test I tried a few combinations for the number of Google hits. Greer Smith 1.4 million; Irwin Smith 1.35 million; Greer Bush 1.05 million; Greer Clinton 1.19 Million; Greer Howard 1.32 Million; Greer Germaine .943 million. I tried others and could not get as low as 552,000. Then I tried an Asian name Greer Huang 335,000. 130.102.0.178 04:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Whether or not you give any credence to Greer's pronouncements, the continued debate and the media coverage in Australia at the time shows they are relevant and should be included. If people want to move on, they should just remove their ridiculous censorship, allow a short paragraph on Greer, and close this issue.--Jack Upland 05:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Media coverage does not equal relevance. Neither does who is more well known out of the potential quoters. The original questioning that implied justification for inclusion (since I could see no other) is "Greer is an internationally recognized feminist leader.". Well, so what? I'm not being rude, I'm just not seeing what the relevance of a passing comment by Germaine Greer is, why being a recognised feminist is relevant to the subject matter or elevates the weight of her comment with regards to expertise and why it would be labelled encylopedic-worthy content. As a critique on Irwin's methodology it's very weak and almost entirely sarcastic, if there is to be a statement supporting that point of view a genuinely informative one would be preferable regardless of whether it's from the Queen of England or a prominent zoologist. Unless they have very strong connections to the subject, who they are is irrelevant. It's the contribution of their comments that counts. TygerTyger 15:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Many many edits in Wikipedia adjust content, that is not censorship. Astrokey44 removed material which he thought fit. That was not censoship, it is part of encyclopedic editing. Otherwise they would be too long. Chicago8 14:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Then you didn't read the points very carefully, did you TygerTyger. The argument was not that Germaine Greer is a recognised feminist (although she is), but that she is a recognised authority on the Australian culture, having published numerous books on the subject. Now, Steve Irwin was both a famous Australian, and was famous in Australia. Greer's comments centred around his cultural position, a point that is currently lacking in this article. She didn't only comment on his actions from a conservation standpoint, but from a cultural one. I think that a short paragraph on her comments fills a missing perspective on his death.

Let me state my opinion about including some mention of Greer's comments clearly. If you take issue with this opinion, please outline which section you disagree with, and why.

1. Germaine Greer is an authority on Australian culture. This is evident both from her work as an newspaper writer, and an academic (e.g., her recent book on the influence of Aboriginals on Australian culture: "Whitefella jump up").

2. Greer's comments on Irwin's death were partly from the perspective of his impact on Australian culture, and on the world's perception of Australia. These points are not currently covered in the article, and Greer's comments on them were the most widely publicised, at least in Australia. Which brings me to:

3. Greer's comments were widely covered by the Australian press. For example: 1, 2, 3, which are, in order, the three largest circulation australian newspapers.

4. Finally, many of the arguments about her comments have centred around the idea that to be included, a person has to be an "expert" on the subject in question. I'm not clear about how one would judge someone's "expertise", and I can't find this anywhere in the wikipedia rules. If you want to use this as a reason for keeping the quote out of this article, please cite the appropriate rule when you do so.

Furthermore, the omission of this critical commentary on Irwin smacks of censorship, which is quite clearly not allowed ([WP:NOT#CENSOR]). As pointed out earlier, given that the two points of view are 1. Include, and 2. Exclude, you can't pretend that leaving the quote out is the neutral choice. If the above points are not addressed in a few days, I will temporarily put a short note about Greers' comment in the article.

Finally, if your argument for the exclusion of this comment is : "read the past posts", don't bother. Yes, I've read them. No, I don't think the issue was appropriately dealt with. Yes, dealing with this issue will require you to do a little work, but hey - that's wikipedia for you. CnsBiol 02:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Steve Irwin Memorial Wiki

I've opened up a Steve Irwin memorial website on Wiki-Site. Should I include it in the external link section yet or not? Scott Gall 07:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No.--HamedogTalk|@ 07:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Clean Up

Half of this article is about his death.

I agree - much reads like news - I have remove a little. Alan Davidson 14:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
There is still way too much about his death in the article. The sub-sections of "Death" need to be merged or removed. The discussion of the media and publics reaction could also be greatly reduced. Xargon666x6 2007-03-24 19:27 (UTC)

Greer and Irwin again

The topic still has relevance in Australia as per today's SMH article (lead onthe SMH home page right now) http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/irwin-cover-up-nude-greer-goes/2007/02/15/1171405337542.html - portrait hanging in the Australian National Portrait Gallery is related back to those comments even if tendentiously.--Golden Wattle talk 00:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Just to clarify the significance, 5 months after the event, Greer's comments still feature on the front page of one of Australia's major newspapers - they should be in the article, they are notable.--Golden Wattle talk 00:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
An art gallery took down a painting and replaced it with another. They state that it was a coincidence. A journalist remembers a 5 month old story about these two... Chicago8 11:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
... and puts it as the lead on the home page of one of Australia's major newspapers. It was one of the most read (top 10) articles that day. Yet discussion above refers to the importance of comments by Greer being removed from the article. I support yet again their reinstatement. Perhaps non-Australians just don't get it but Irwin was an Australian and Greer was also (expat) and her comments matter. They should be in the article; her comments are still in the news 5 months later.--Golden Wattle talk 20:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Still on the Greer kick eh? Brings back memories? [2] :) I'm pretty old by the way. :( --I already forgot 07:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
No after he died there was a little greer and a lot of Irwin, and 5 month later a little more greer, not worth mentioning. Enlil Ninlil 06:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

See the discussion above. (And by the way, what's your real objection???)--Jack Upland 07:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Lampooning by TV shows etc

There is a section "Controversial Memorials". These are not memorials, but are lampooning. Many many celebrities and others are lampooned by comedic TV shows - some more sophisticated than others. Jay Leno, Conan O'Brien etc etc start off by lampooning such people - but this is not worthy of an encyclopedia. I suggest this section be deleted, but I would like a discussion. I am not critical of the lampooning - it is part of life - but in fact we would fill many articles over and over with such references. Alan Davidson 04:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the heading is wrong. However, Ihtink the subject material is worth keeping - not to say it can't be made slightly more concise or edited in some way but not removed entirely.--Golden Wattle talk 09:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The content is rubbish. Non sensensical shows making fun of a well known person dying and the way he died. It is not a memorial. It does not show that Irwin is a greater or lesser person. It does not add to the biography or life of Irwin. They cater to an audience who like irreverance. Delete it. 60.226.76.41 04:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

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

GA comment

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

GA review

The article is very well written and comprehensive. There are a couple of minor issues that prevent GA status. First, is the 'citation needed' tag under film. GA class articles should not have this issues. The 'early years' section, as well as a few areas under 'career' seem somewhat under-referenced as well.

The order of sections seems a little strange. It goes from 'early years' to 'career' to 'filmography' to 'personal life' and then 'death'. It seems to make sense having his career section early on, but I would move 'early years' to the first subsection under 'personal life', since it's a bit more related there. The 'filmography' section is just a list, and would be better moved to near the end of the content (before references). Also, why is the section containing inline citations called 'notes and references'. There are no 'notes' here, only inline citations. The section should be changed to simply 'references'.

The 'other personal trivia' section is just a listing of random bits of trivia. These sections are generally discouraged from articles (see WP:TRIVIA). While it's ok for start-class and B-class articles to have trivia sections, as it does help to gather information from multiple users, these sections should be removed prior to GA and FA status. Dr. Cash 21:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Seven days are up, and as far as I can see, none of Dr Cash's points have been addressed, so I'm failing this one. 4u1e 10:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"While" vs. "whilst"

The article uses the word "whilst" consistently. One instance was recently changed to "while", but this was reverted (a) to be consistent with the rest of the article and (b) to honour Australian spelling.

Consistency is fair enough, but I think that "while" would be much more commonly found in Australian lingo than "whilst", which is a little old-hat, imo. I'm considering changing all the "whilst"s to "while"s. Any objections? JackofOz 01:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no objections. I was going for consistency, and a previous editor had changed it, noting "whilst" to be the preferred form. A quick scan of abc.com.au turns up "while"—and in an article where "Centre" is used incorrectly! (The proper name in question is "Johnson Space Center"; the reporter used "Centre.") —C.Fred (talk) 01:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the standard is to prefer the dialect of wherever the subject comes from. So if "while" is more commonly used in Australia than "whilst", then they should be changed. --Mus Musculus (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, see User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a. Thanks. Sjones23 21:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Argh! "whilst" is *not* an Australian English convention! I'll find you my federal government style guide at work tomorrow to convince you. . . Slac speak up! 23:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
This very topic has been discussed numerous times before (trawl through the archives to see precisely how many, if you like). So long as the form is correct and consistent, no-one should be changing it.--cj | talk 13:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The point made here was, the form is not "correct" in the sense of proper modern usage. If it's stilted usage, I think that's a valid reason for change. If it's a recurrent problem in multiple articles, which it sounds like it may be, it should be addressed in a subpage of the WP:MOS. —C.Fred (talk) 23:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
That's incorrect; the form is legitimate. The problem is some folks simply don't like it, and would rather change the article to conform to their own preference than follow guidelines.--cj | talk 01:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks folks. I just went in to remove the whiles, but someone's beaten me to the punch. Not to be outdone, while I was there I changed "honoury" to "honorary".  :) JackofOz 23:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
It's really not legitimate. I'm looking at my Australian Government style guide (sixth edition), and while it mentions introductory clauses beginning with as since or while, but no use of whilst. Whilst doesn't even appear in the index, as opposed to while. Slac speak up! 03:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd argue that the AGSG does not mention every legitimate word in the English language. My dictionary says whilst = while. Whilst is indeed legitimate (= not incorrect), but outdated now. Very few people say "amongst", either - most prefer "among". Nothing to do with whether they're legitimate words - which they both are. JackofOz 09:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Whilst is not at all obsolete. It is very active in Australian English as a matter of fact. There have been several discussions like that which ended with "whilst" being the accepted form.--Kamikaze 14:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Grammar Girl, in her podcast #43 (transcript can be found at qdnow.com), notes that "whilst" is archaic in American but acceptable in British. While Although this doesn't specifically address Australian usage, it implies continued modern usage, so I'm now of the opinion that there is not evidence that "whilst" is archaic. —C.Fred (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I've never claimed it's either obsolete or archaic in Australia. I've said it's old-hat and outdated. It's certainly encountered, but very rarely from people of, for example, Steve Irwin's generation, or younger. In any case, this discussion seems to be a little academic now since the words in question have been replaced with "while" in the article. JackofOz 08:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
The point is that that should not have happened. It shouldn't need saying yet again, but being perceived as "old-hat and outdated" by some is not a valid reason to replace an existing, consistent, and correct form of language in an article.--cj | talk 13:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the old-hat/outdated reason wasn't sufficient, but the consistency reason was reason enough. Once the words were replaced for that (valid) reason, there's no point in continuing to debate whether any other reason may or may not have been valid. That's why I say this is now academic. It would be fine to continue this discussion on a more appropriate page that discusses the relative merits of "while" and "whilst" - but Steve Irwin's talk page is definitely no longer such a place. -- JackofOz 14:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
You're right. This discussion is needless as "whilst" is currently predominant in the article.--Kamikaze 19:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Protect

Could we please for God's sake (not to mention the sake of poor Mr. Irwin who is not around to refute all the tabloid rubbish) at least semi-protect this article, if not fully protect it? —  $PЯINGrαgђ  22:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Please request page protection at WP:RFPP. Spebi 23:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Infobox query

Could somebody please put Steve Irwin's name (which is above his image but outside the infobox) into the infobox, but still keep it in place above his image within the infobox. I have tried to fix this myself, but have been having problems because of the type of infobox being used for him.

Also, I'm wondering if the comment about 'the fatal stingray attack being captured on film' should be in the footnotes section of the infobox. Figaro 13:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I've removed the footnote. --Steve (Stephen) talk 05:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)