Talk:Stingray/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Question About The Barb

Can anybody answer this for me? According to reports, Steve Irwin took out the barb that was in his chest. I would like to know whether a) the stingray dies after losing its barb (indeed no report is known of whether the stingray survived or if it was killed after killing Steve) like a bee dying after stinging a person b) if no, can a stingray grow another barb? Thank you.

I think they live without their barb..not sure if it grows back. Xunflash 14:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This page seems to indicate that the barb does grow back, and is even shed if it isn't used for a while: [1] --IvyMike 01:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. That site should be added to the main page. Stingrays are fascinating creature...

Venom

4th paragraph: "It is coated with a toxic venom encased in a thin sheath of." Of what? Ortonmc 19:41, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't know, but as I can see your message has been here since March, i've taken the liberty of editing it out. "a thin sheath of ???" doesn't sound right :) Niffux 19:40, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'd add this myself but the page is locked down:

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,20349993-5001021,00.html

TV Icon Steve Irwin was recently killed by a stingray's venom. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.144.58.254 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No he wasn't. The stingray's barb stabbed him in the chest and he died from the trauma - venom had nothing to do with it. Just Darwin in action and a wound to the heart.Esquimo 09:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Skates

skates? it goes to a disambiguation page. And the order is no longer rajiforme but batoidea. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.90.162.57 (talk • contribs) .

Isn't it a bit premature to put that bit in about Steve Irwin? The guy just died yesterday for crying out loud. Have a heart for the family.

More often, the sting causes profuse bleeding and excruciating pain that can last for months, accompanied by large swellings. Large stingrays have enough force to break a wooden boat by lashing their tails. The trauma inflicted to the chest or abdomen can be fatal - but not from the venom.

Stingrays are not aggressive by nature. They lay on the sea bottom quite peacefully and only sting people who step on them. Most contact with stingrays can be avoided by shuffling your feet in the water. This will startle the stingrays and they will flee.

Pain

I removed 'Other possible pain remedies include meat tenderizer.'. It seemed a bit weird to be belting oneself about when already in pain. -- Longhair | Talk 08:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I put it there in the first place, and I've added it back, with some explanaton. You're not "belting oneself about" - it's a powder that you sprinkle on or make a paste from. From what I can find on the net it may or may not work for stingray venom, but is a standard home remedy for jellyfish stings. Enough for me to keep in my dive bag. --justfred 08:45, 9 August 2005 (PDT) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.234.130.232 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

reproduction?

anyone here have any idea how stingrays reproduce? I'd really like to know Robin Chen 21:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thought I'd add this to many who think they are 'experts', but fail to do their research. It's from a scientific article on the web, I can get the reference if you like,.

"Contrary to popular ``nature documentaries," it is extremely hazardous to swim directly over, or in close proximity to, a stingray. A flick of the tail is apt to pierce a person's body, and a serious, even potentially fatal, situation is in the offing." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.227.138.116 (talk • contribs) 10:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

...wolverines...

–was that above comment supposed to help me understand how sting ray reproduction works? Robin Chen 00:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I am curious; what is meant by "ineffective against[...]sharks"? If the stingray's titular method of self-defense was ineffective, it would not have evolved. If a shark successfully eats a stingray, then its weapon was ineffective, but isn't "ineffective against $predator" a truism? I'm not a contributor and I'm not sure how to advance the notion that such phrasing is misleading. --71.112.10.245 15:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Fins

in the food section, the term used is "fins", while it was established that fins is not the correct term. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.206.242.89 (talk • contribs) 09:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

food?

What do stingrays eat? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.186.221.53 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

well I believe manta rays scoop up plankton through their huge mouths but that's about all I know... Robin Chen 00:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Steve Comments

Breaking news for sure, but it certainly is unprofessional, and expresses personal opinions. Can registered users please clean it up? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.40.56.139 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it should not be put into the article. --Woohookitty^(meow) 05:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

To take a quote out of context from a seperate conflict about Hurricane Katrina, stingrays are important to the death of Steve Irwin, but Steve Irwin's death is not important to stingrays. Keep it out. – Ch acor 05:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

this is absolute nonsense! Do you really think that we're all reading this article today because of a sudden healthy interest in the diversity of marine life? If Steve Irwin doesn't get a brief mention in this article, it will be an absolute scandal.--New Thought 07:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's be sure and remove all references to Jesus from the article Crucifixion. After all, crucifixtion was important to Jesus, but Jesus wasn't important to crucifixtion. Bayou Banjo 06:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually I'd disagree. Jesus's crucifiction was very important to the history of crucifiction as a whole. Jacobcolbert 06:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

When can we add that the Croc Hunter was killed by a stingray? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.229.18.241 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm an Aussie, I think Steve Irwin's death is terrible and sad but I'm concerned of putting him in this article, as the addition of information of Irwin probably would not enhence this article. Also, if more famous people die in this fashion, touch wood, wouldn't this article be mostly consisting of celebrity names? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cacbm (talk • contribs) 02:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, there should be a section called "Threat to Humans" under the article; the section should mention Irwin and other examples, any why stingrays are dangerous to humans in certain situations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.229.230.113 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Irwin's death should not be added to this page - first of all, the cause of death is already mentioned in his page and linked to this one. I also agree that adding Irwin's death, however sad, would not enhance this page at all. Why not add the names of every celebrity who's ever died from lead poisoning under the lead page? Or everyone who's ever died by fire under the fire page? Etc., etc. The cause of death is already in Irwin's page, it links to this one, that's the way it should be, no more and no less. (R.I.P. Irwin) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.194.88.89 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

i disagree for the simple matter that I would not be looking at the stingray page on wikipedia if it were not for the relationship to Steve Irwin. The stingrays' association with Steve Irwin will do more for stingrays than anything else included in this article --216.69.223.249 07:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Although mentioning other Wikipedia articles as a reference is not canonical, after all this is a wiki, other animals that commonly kill people such as Bears, Crocodiles and Alligators have seperate articles for when they attack humans. [e.g. see Crocodile attacks] Perhaps this article should follow that convention? Coder Keitaro 07:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I would be satisfied with this resolution. This way you could have a clear path of hypertext from stingrays to Steve Irwin. Great idea Coder Keitaro --216.69.223.249 07:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Apparently many users of Wikipedia are unaware of why rules are the way they are, there is a certain pattern to information that must be maintained in order to keep Wikipedia from decending into unusable chaos. A printed Encyclopedia would no more mention Steve Irwin in the Stingray article in their next edition than we would on wikipedia, everything has its place. A link at the bottom of the Stingray article going to The Crocodile Hunters own page/article should be sufficient. I can assure you Steve Irwin himself would not want his death looking bad on stingrays because he messed up and got himself killed by one. He always knew the risks when he got so friendly with wild creatures and did it to help the animals by bringing people closer to them so that they would understand them better. he would not want anybody to think bad of any of the creatures he loved soo much. --Hurricanefloyd 08:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Apparently there are many who think that mentioning his name in here would do nothing to harm Stingrays. He would want the reference to warn people about the dangers so that we would look but not touch out of respect for the animal. Adding a sentence about a notable death is not descending into chaos. And a printed encylopedia may just include metions of famous deaths, stating that they wouldn't is just a POV, not to mention that "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia" of course. Ansell 09:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The low rate of Stingray deaths seems worth noting in the article. It's a property of the Stingray. According to the news I just saw, there have been 2 deaths by Stingray in more than 50 years, and the fact that this death happened to a celebrity has made it very famous in countries that didn't know the fish already.Dybdahl 20:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I was one of the first to edit it stating about Steve Irwins death and it was repeatedly removed as vandalism? I feel it is important to state it due to it being rare to die from stingrays to the person mentioning earlier about why dont we list every celebrity that died of lead poisioning is because this incident (stingray death) is more rare than a lead poisoning thanks

...Which would be why it would deserve even less mention in the article. If I died of a stingray attack, would I be mentioned in the article? The low rate of stingray deaths may be worth a mention, but not the fact that a specific person died from a stingray attack. Also, consider using proper punctuation. Thank you. There are enough "notable" deaths; they don't need to be recorded on Wikipedia. Irwin's death is a sad event, but it simply does not belong on this page. Some of you older and more regular Wikipedians, has this (people wanting to put deaths/near-deaths on pages about the cause of death) happened in the recent past? --V2Blast 22:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

According to Ben Cropp, the stingray "felt threatened because Steve was alongside and there was the cameraman ahead." Remember that Steve was invading the stingray's home, not just "was attacked". Some people always put on the human side of the conflict with animals. The stingray was only defending its life. Don't forget: the sea, even for proffesionals, is dangerous. And Steve knew it. Anyway, R.I.P. Steve. We won't forget youArchael Tzaraath 18:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Stingray attacks can be deadly

The most well-known fatal attack by a stingray happened on September 4, 2006 when famed naturalist Steve Irwin, a.k.a. The Crocodile Hunter, was killed after a stingray barb pierced his chest. The attack happened as Irwin was filming a documentary off Australia's Queensland Coast. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bradcnn1984 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I found this reference interesting, perhaps it can be used for a citation in the article. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11476200&dopt=Abstract

Currently the article suggests that the Steve Irwin incident was not treated correctly which there is no proof of.

Agreed, it appears he died of a puncture to the heart not poison.

"Fatal stings extremely rare, with only 17 recorded stingray deaths in Australia since 1969"

I found this on the web in an article on Stingrays: STINGRAY INJURIES, ENVENOMATION, AND MEDICAL MANAGEMENT at http://www.potamotrygon.de/fremdes/stingray%20article.htm

"In Colombia, health authorities register more than 2,000 cases of freshwater stingray incidents annually. Over a five year period in one small local hospital there were eight deaths, 23 amputations of lower limbs, and 114 other cases where victims were unable to work. Veterinarians should be aware of these facts." Posted by roger mcevilly.

Species that killed Irwin?

From a newspaper story:

Marine documentary maker Ben Cropp, who was also diving on the Great Barrier Reef yesterday, said the injury was inflicted by a bull ray. "In this case he was swimming alongside a bull ray, a big black ray" (...) "It baulked but didn't spook and go racing away, which would have been fine. It went into a defensive mode, stopped, turned around and lashed out with its tail, which has a considerable spike on it.

Could it be a Thorntail stingray, Dasyatis thetidis? We will soon find out: "Irwin's fatal encounter with the stingray is understood to have been captured on film. "Emmanuelm 17:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

What about Dasyatis longus? They have a barb 10-12 inches long and I have witnessed some 2.9m across.

I found this on the web in an article on Stingrays: STINGRAY INJURIES, ENVENOMATION, AND MEDICAL MANAGEMENT at http://www.potamotrygon.de/fremdes/stingray%20article.htm

Stingrays are actually known the world over for their ferocity and fighting spirit. I once encountered a stingray in the Barrier reef, once I locked eyes on him I thought I was a goner. Good thing for me I had my trusty bowie knife, if only Mr. Irwin had his...

Why Irwin death important

When a FAMOUS PERSON dies in an UNUSUAL MANNER it is customary to acknowledge that in the article about that cause. Bayou Banjo 05:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the fact that Irwin was an environmentalist and animal lover should also contribute to his possible place on the article. Ansell 05:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Deletions of pertinent info re Irwin are inappropriate, as his case exemplifies the described lethality of the Ray's venom. Moreover, the article contains (for one example) info on which aquariums will let visitors pet Rays, so the established focus of the article does extend beyond a narrow biological profile. ThaddeusFrye 05:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

His death should be cited parenthetically, perhaps. "Notably, well known environmentalist Steve Irwin was killed by a stingray." The date doesn't matter - that information can be found in Steve Irwin's article. MrKeith2317 05:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That information is a trivia. In example, almost entire soccer teams died in several air crashes (Munich air disaster killed 8 players out of 11 from Manchester United F.C., the full Zambia national team died in another crash, and the Superga air disaster killed all but a player from the Torino F.C.). However, they aren't listed in the Aircraft article. Sorry, but from my point of view, the information does not fit this article. -- ReyBrujo 05:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I mostly agree, except that it might be appropriate to have an extremely brief mention, where the article discusses the possibility of lethality. It's not really about Steve Irwin, but about the fact that stingrays can be lethal. It seems reasonable to mention a high profile example of a lethal stingray encounter. A half dozen words or so ought to be enough. Stingrays are important to Steve Irwin, but Steve Irwin is not that important to stingrays.--Srleffler 05:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not see why means of death for such a rare occurence is trivia. Comparing this to airline crashes is almost a straw man argument, it is not the aircraft that killed the players, it was the crash, in this case it was actually the animal that killed him. Ansell 05:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Did the sting or the poison killed this guy? Anyways, I think you got my point. A brief mention could be in order, see how Cerebral edema speaks about Bruce Lee's death. But in the example, we should not care about dates, just the fact of using his death as an example. -- ReyBrujo 05:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Guess we better remove all references to Lou Gehrig and Stephen Hawking from Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. After all, the disease was important to them, but they weren't important to the disease. (EDIT:RM uncivil comment) Bayou Banjo 05:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It was the sting that killed him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.68.31.11 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it goes to show the danger associated with stingrays - a high profile example of an animal expert being killed by one could serve to warn others to keep away. --Neonfreon 05:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Timothy Treadwell is mentioned in the Grizzly Bear article--CharlieP 05:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

As a trivia. -- ReyBrujo 05:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Wiki has no prohibitions against trivia, now does it? Bayou Banjo 05:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a "Famous Deaths" section or something could be added. I'm sure there are other well known people that have been killed by sting rays. --User:gpmidi 06:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Lets stop arguing about it and improve the article so that people can learn more about Stingrays. Thats what Steve would have wanted. Hypersonic 05:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: re-add Irwin's notable death (if the preliminary reports are correct), as well as any other deaths of notable individuals by this type of animal. Badagnani 06:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

As I stated above, check Cerebral edema: If left untreated, it can lead to death - Bruce Lee's death is a famous example. I propose a similar wording here: It is possible for ray stings to be fatal if they sever major arteries, are in the chest or pelvic region, or are improperly treated—Steve Irwin's death is a famous example. only after we get clear reports about how he died (poison? blood loss? heart damage? drown?). Breaking news go to Wikinews or current events per 7th information policy, thus we should wait until everything is clarified before inserting information to the article. -- ReyBrujo 06:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I am also of the opinion that it is relevant to mention the death of the guy (due to him bein a personality). Perhaps also mention could be made to how often attacks on humans take place and how many casualities do happen every year or whenever. Anagnorisis 06:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Steve Irwin's death has nothing to do with this article. Yes; he was killed by a stingray, but that does not require note in this article. People who get killed by sharks don't get mentions in the shark article. If Irwin was killed by a crocodile, his death wouldn't need to be mentioned in the article about crocodiles. His death is sad, yes, but it's not notable for an article about stingrays. Ryūlóng 06:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree per Ryūlón. His death is irrelevant to the stingray article. That would be like adding him to the automobile article is he was killed in a car accident. The only way it should be mentioned in the article is if there is evidence that other notable people have been killed by stingrays; in that case, there could be a section for it. By right now, it just seems like irrelevant trivia. —№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė ♫♪

Why are comparisons to other articles specifically relevant to this situation. None of the keep out editors have downplayed his significance as an environmentalist, and an expert in the area. There are many reasons that are not convincingly rebutted by straight statements that his death is not relevant to the article. Ansell 06:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Steve Irwin is famous enough, that his death-by-stingray helps to make stingrays more notable. In other words, from an encyclopedic point of view, Steve Irwin actually is important to stingrays. There are other wikipedia articles, such as Marfan_syndrome where famous people afflicted are listed. The point is not whether stingrays have greater fame than Irwin, but whether they became any more famous as a result. I believe a brief mention is appropriate, and it is inappropriate to remove such a brief metnion. Thesmothete 06:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The difference between someone being mentioned in a shark article for dying to shark attack and someone being mentioned in the stingray article is that *everyone knows sharks can kill you*. It's extremely rare for a stingray to a kill a person. That's why it's notable and relevant. User:rdbrady Whenever, 4 September 2006

who else is here because of Steve Irwin? How many visits to this page will his demise bring. Perhaps its not just about stingrays, perhaps its about croc's and snakes too. I think that sums up Steve's importance to stingrays. I probably wont ever try to pick one up now. I mean if it can get a guy that routinely got up close and personal to the most deadly animals on the planet, perhaps I should stay away. Absent Steve Irwin a stingray to me would just be another one of a multitude of sea creatures, a peculiar 'fish' if you will. Basically as far as I understand there is no good 'rule' or 'guideline' that says he shouldn't be mentioned. No rules against trivia, there is tons of it all over wikipedia. No rule against notable people, in fact the only people that should be anywhere on wikipedia are notable, shouldn't the thing they are notable for also mention them? Its not POV, and really I dont feel its contraversial except to the people that keep reverting any edits that mention Steve Irwin. The hurricane Katrina comment, taken out of context, isn't really valid. I'd like to see the context. If its in regards to mention of a specific disaster on the hurricane page, i'd disagree, i think any well known and well documented example would be relevant. Katrina *is* important to hurricanes. Steve Irwin *is* important to stingrays. any valid arguement for the removal needs to rebutt this point - how is steve irwin not important to stingrays --216.69.223.249 07:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree 100%. I bet the traffic to those page has multiplied immensely owing to Irwin’s death. And all those extra people coming to this page would surely find it weird that no mention was made of the one reason they came here. And even then, before anyone goes on about the shark / crocodile comparisons, can anyone actually name a celebrity shark or crocodile victim? I can’t. Bombot 15:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Steve Irwin is very important to stingrays. He wouldn't have wanted to be killed by a stingray but I am sure that he wouldn't want anybody else dying from stingray related deaths and people need to be educated so that will not happen. If there is anything good to come out of his death its that other people will not die. Thats what he would've wanted Fra 011 011 08:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Steve Irwin - Rebuttal -

The quote "Katrina is important to Hurricanes" - Katrina was a huricane (an extreme one) so therefore should be included in hurricanes.

Steve Irwin is not a stingray, therefore should not be included.

His death is already noted on his own page where it is relevant and where there are clickable links to the stingray page. Any relevance is merely through circumstance, which is not enough for a encylopedic entry.

Significantly, he is a Zoo keeper/conservationist/croc hunter, not an aquatic wildlife specialist of any kind. So his importance to stingrays is questionable in the sense he did not do anything for their benefit, like a lifelong zoologist may have.

Peoples views about stingrays will not be improved, peoples understanding of their behaviour and lifecycle will not be improved.

In that respect, Steve Irwin is not important to Stingrays, however Stingrays were important to Steve Irwin, i.e. they resulted in his death. If anything his work is important to crocs and changing the perceptions of people about them, so additions to the croc page are reasonable. Unless, supporting evidence can be found for real Stingray work an addition herer is irrelevant.

Much as it is tempting to add Steve Irwin for improving hits to this page, an inclusion of that nature is sensationalism and as such should not be part of encyclopedic entry. People who are interested about Steve Irwin can read about his life and death on his own page (where it belongs) and follow the clicky to the stingray page to read about stingrays not more Steve Irwin death info.

My tuppence worth! TheManStan 09:53, 4 September 2006 (GMT)

I think you misunderstand his achievements in aquatic areas. One of his most famous incidents was when he was told not to swim so close to animals as he was filming them. This was not his first aquatic endeavour.

I do not get why everyone keeps repeating the mantra that stingrays were important to steve irwin but apparently steve irwin was not important to sting rays. In light of the evidence for how many attacks happen each year, having a celebrity death, which is common with other disease type death pages, is relevant.

Patients for other diseases like Lou Gehrigs disease are not the disease, yet they are mentioned as famous patients. Why are places mentioned, they are not stingrays? If you get my point (hoping it doesn't sound like a counter to a straw man argument, that would be pointless)

The editors who want to include Steve Irwin are in no way thinking about "hits" to the page. Seriously, these pages come up in the top ten just because this is one of the highest traffic sites on the internet, not because we litter irrelevant articles with internal links to other articles. Ansell 09:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It would be good to put in something about Steve even if its just something like *although stingray related deaths are very low, well known T.V host Steve Irwin was killed filming a documentry north of Port Douglas, Australia.* Fra 011 011 09:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Upon finding out abut Steve Irwin's death this morning (RIP) I went on to check the article about sting rays and then checked what the talk pages would be saying. Predictably it would be debating about his mentioning. Well to put my 4.3 pence into the matter:

"Fatal ray stings, such as that which killed Australian environmentalist Steve Irwin, are rare but can occur if stings are improperly treated, sever major arteries, or are in the pelvic region or chest."

Personally I see this as good enough since it highlights and explains a case where the stingray's sting can be fatel and it cites a notable example. If anything, people often visit pages and expect a certain piece of info to be mentioned, or it's a nice piece of trivia that someone might of not known and will then go on to visit the page. Connections and all that. Well if in doubt, the traditional thing to do on wiki is to stuff it into a trivia section at the bottom lol. - Wai-Tung Leung 11:35, 4 September 2006 (BST) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.92.125.24 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Proof of Steve Irwin's Importance to the Stingray article is found right in front of you. The fact that it is being discussed shows that the amount of interest in Stingrays that his death caused. Therefore, his death warrants a mention on this page, but only a mention within a paragraph on the dangers of Stingrays. Crabsoneyes 14:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It is even more relevant when one finds that there have been only 17 reported deaths from stingrays. EVER. The other 16 people were not celebrities. Even less celebrities that worked with animals, and died while performing their jobs (not recreational bathers). Irwing died while working with the animal. Oh, and I am one of those who ended here in this article following the death of the guy. Anagnorisis 15:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Irwin's demise was not important to stringrays the way the movie "Jaws" had nothing to do with the welfare of shark populatons. I came here today because my very expensive and handsome set of Britanicas did not magically update itself last night. I came here to find out the causal nature of the fatal wound. It would have never occurred to me to check the Steve Irwin page, a person for whom I had little respect. ("Crikey! Look at the size of that croc. I'm going to jump on its back because that really annoys them and always produces bankable footage." That is neither research nor environmentalism. It is "Jackass" level entertainment.) The inclusion was appropriate and important in that it reduces the chance of human over reaction and the resulting decimation of ray populations. Those that feel that they, as a committee of one, have the right to vandalize the original contributor's work, can be most charitably characterized as authoritarian meddlers, more concerned with form than function. Thomas52 19:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

In response to this statement:

I have to disagree. Obviously Irwin wouldn't want anyone else to die from Stingray related deaths. However, it seems clear to me that Irwin would have wanted the public to be properly educated on the subject of stingrays. The simple fact is that stingray deaths are very rare.

Also, comparing this incident to other articles citing famous persons who died from this disease or was afflicted with that condition (such as Bruce Lee or Marfan Syndrome) you are citing things that generally afflict and/or kill humans. This is not the case with stingrays. Steve Irwin's death was a freak accident, which is why I don't think it's necessary to include it. Consider that Christopher Reeve was paralized after getting thrown from a horse at an equestrian competition, but he isn't mentioned in either the horse article or the Equestrianism article. -- Fogelmatrix 16:29, 5 September 2006 (EST)

Here's a suggestion to put this matter to rest. Question: was the subject of stingray attacks and/or fatalities mentioned in the article before Steve Irwin's death? If it was, then I would consider it to be a relavant subject under the topic of stingrays, and therefore mentioning Steve Irwin makes sense. If the inclusion of all stingray attack-related material is has been added soley as a reaction to Irwin's tragic death, then i think we ought to step back and wait a few weeks until this story as cooled down and allow calmer heads to prevail. -- Fogelmatrix 16:49, 5 September 2006 (EST)

3 REVERT RULE

I guess it doesn't apply to Rory096. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bayou Banjo (talk • contribs) 03:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocks are prevenatative not punitive (sp). He's since stopped. – Ch acor 06:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

However, you have not, and hence I will have to think about reporting it. It is unfair to the many editors who do have good reason to want it there. Ansell 06:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Count it - how many reverts have I made? Sheesh. Read - consensus is for keeping it out. – Ch acor 06:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

How many people want it out compared to in? There are more serial reverters for keeping it out compared to in, which must show that they are edit warring against consensus. Sorry, I can only count three for you, which means you are on the borderline then. Consensus is not defined by those who yell the loudest. Ansell 06:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I also notice quite a few repeat revisions for keeping Irwin out. As the evolving consensus seems (to me) to have shifted towards mentioning Irwin's death, perhaps it would be good to find a way to include the Irwin fact as unobtrusive and useful information, as an illustration of one of the three ways in which ray stings are (rarely) fatal. Obviously it should only be mentioned very briefly. Perhaps those disturbed by mentioning a celebrity in this article on the stingray could usefully shift their focus towards keeping the mention of Irwin brief and unobtrusive, so that it adds a little to the article and is not too distracting. ThaddeusFrye 06:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Coder Keitaro's comment above regarding a 'Stingray Attacks' page, similar to other animal attack pages. --216.69.223.249 07:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, though other ray attacks may be hard to come by. ( I did find one 1989 article on line about a 12 year old boy). In any case I did attempt one more "compromise" revision that includes only a very brief mention of Irwin. People can keep, revise, or revert this as they see fit--I'll leave this article alone from now on. ThaddeusFrye 07:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The whole thing is stupid. Let's be serious for a moment. (1) in 5 years no one will care that one person died from a freak accident, EXCEPT those reading the page for that person; (2) any mention of 'sting ray attacks' would give the impression that sting rays actually attack: the best figures I can see do not support this as a feature of sting rays. It was a freak accident; (3) What is all this 'Irwin would want...' stuff? Is that really what we should be worried about?

I am not an editor, I am a reader and a supporter of Wikipedia in general and I think it would demonstrate terrible judment if those overseeing the article let the spotlight of the day overpower their better judgment. Keep it out.

I don't get it, did the sharp thingie killed him or the venom? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blakut (talk • contribs) 04:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably both. Fra 011 011 08:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Image of stinger?

I think it would be good for the article to include a close-up image of the stingray's stinger, especially since somone famous was killed by it. I can't find any images that wouldn't be deleted on Wikipedia though, anyone else have better luck? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Planetary (talk • contribs) 03:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, there's a good one up now.--Planetary 17:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, it's gone.--Planetary 19:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - After all, this is an article about a STINGray, a close up of a sting is sorely needed! --Thenickdude 08:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Warnings in line

here is a link to an image of a stingrays barb. I have found many pictures of these showing the difference in size they can grow to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingray

Ryulong:

[2]
[3] (also not vandalism, it was made in good faith and hence cannot be vandalism)
[4]
[5] (although partly vandalism related, it had the intention of reverting the information addition)

Chacor

Rory096

[9] (and for not assuming good faith by saying that a specific person "made a good edit)
[10] (using revert button in edit war against admin guidelines)
[11] (again revert button)
[12]
[13]
[14]

If preventing the above happening is punitive than I am reading it wrong. I call it POV pushing myself. Ansell 06:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you've heard of edit conflicts. Also, Rory is not an admin, his revert was likely based on .js. – Ch acor 07:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

- I disagree that edit conflicts are the reason why people are repeatedly reverting the addition of the material. And using .js to automatically revert should come with the same obligations as using the admin tool IMO, so no, I do not make a distinction for Rory. Ansell 07:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

ADNghiem501

[15]
[16]
[17]
[18] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ansell (talk • contribs) 04:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ansell (talk • contribs) 04:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:CIV. This section violates Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked. – Ch acor 07:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

How is pointing out the serial reverters against the civility policy? Should I make it a subpage of my own.Ansell 07:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

A derivative of the section "# Calling for bans or blocks". – Ch acor 07:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not calling for blocks or bans on anyone. WP:3RR states that you cannot revert more than 3 times in 24 hours. IMO I am doing them a favour by making it known. If someone reported them, quite validly in some cases, then they would not fall under that section. Keep in mind that I am doing this in good faith that people will stop edit warring on both sides and figure out their differences on here. Ansell 07:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This section doesn't belong to this article's talk page. However, you should report these warnings to WP:AN/3RR in the future. -- ADNghiem501 08:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought this was more constructive, but I was wrong. I do not want bans or blocks because of this. :( Ansell 08:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone object if I removed this section? It seems very pointless now! :( Ansell 09:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

stinger

http://www.stingraycity.org/studio/images/barb.JPG

I think this is a good picture, but I don't know how to upload this image.

(Text: This is the "barb" or stinger of a male stingray. You can see that it lays about half way down the tail, against the tail, and does not protrude from the end. This is what gives them the name Stingray.)

(Source: http://www.stingraycity.org/studio/catalog.0.html.0.html) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.250.60.230 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia

this is why wikipedia becomes less and less valuable to me. certainly irwin, a zoo director, is important to stingrays. after all its these people that educate and provide the research that you people lift for your holier than thou wikipedia. go take a walk if you feel heated about this, its said somewhere below and i agree, the fact that this keeps being reverted shows that people feel it should be here. I think Bayou makes a good point. Also lets not forget this is hypertext. I think steve irwin is notable enough to get a link from the page about the animal that killed him. I think it serves the greater good. This isn't a pile of dead trees, its a living breathing document with tangents. How would one ever get from one page to the other without the link. You would come here to learn one thing and never have any of the side adventures that make wikipedia great and different from those smelly racks of stale knowledge you this place seeks to replace 216.69.223.249 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.69.223.249 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If it is so important...

... to the stingray, it can wait until some one can add it in a well written, clearly contextualised paragraph, that doesn't look like some one got excited and tacked it on to the article. - BalthCat 07:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Err ... why wait? This is a wiki, chisled in cheese, not carved in stone. It can be tidied, contextualised, and editted into complete meaninglessness later, but it's news _now_ so why not add it now?[user: new at this - one of you editors can sort out the syntax if it's important enough to you] 13:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, though I do think the prevalence of stingray fatalities may be worth mentioning, and in that context mentioning any famous fatalities would make sense. Is it a one-person-every-10-years things or what? --Delirium 07:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

A cursory search turns up rather little, though [19] seems to indicate that there's 1-2 deaths per year from it in Colombia. I'm going to keep looking. --Xanzzibar 08:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone should write something because even someone very experienced with animals had suffered such a fate. -Iopq 08:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Apparently there are only three recorded deaths in Australia resulting from a stingray's barb (including Irwin's). More info at [20]. Due to its rarity (given that stingrays are not normally aggressive creatures) mention of the common features and dates of this small number of cases would add value to the article.Bezapt 13:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

i just want to compliment the author of the edit detailing the number human fatalities. It's a nice way to maintain the focus of the article, and also to include the recent events that some have suggested merit inclusion in this articlue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.81.36.47 (talk • contribs)

Jeez. WP:LAME.

Jeez. – Ch acor 07:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Totally.--Folksong 07:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You've hit the nail on the head. Personally I think it is worth mentioning, but it's no big deal if it is not mentioned. Pobbie Rarr 22:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Petting zoo?

Are there really places you can go to touch stingrays? Given the dangers of the sting, this seems surprising. Have the stingrays in these places been treated in some way to make them safe? -- The Anome

I couldn't give you the specifics, but I remember visiting, back in the day, the Camden Aquarium (or the NJ State Aquarium, or the Adventure Aquarium, or whatever else they feel like calling themselves at the moment. They had a petting tank with sharks and stingrays. It's not a particularly in-depth link about it, but here's a link all the same: [21] --Xanzzibar 09:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been to a place called Touch the Sea near Nelson, NZ where you could touch Sharks, eels, stingrays and fish. On tv a marine person said this was the third stingray death she knew of in Aussie. Fra 011 011 09:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That was earlier this year. Fra 011 011 09:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

There are touch pools at SeaWorld San Diego with stingrays whose stingers have been removed. --Fsotrain₀₉ 17:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

There are places in the Caribbean where you can put on a swimsuit and a snorkel and jump into a shallow bay area to swim with, pet, and feed sting rays, under the supervision of an expert or three. I've been there, it's quite fun. The sting rays there have become used to human interaction. Robin Chen 00:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The Monterey Bay aquarium has a stingray tank where you can pet manta rays.

The Tennessee Aquarium in Chattanooga has a stingray touch tank where visitors can "pet" rays and small sharks. Show divers routinely dive and hand feed rays in the giant saltwater exhibits there. For diver and visitor safety the barbs on the rays are snipped off with a pair of pliers. The tip of the barb is then presented as a harmless stub that can't penetrate the skin of visitors or divers who routinely handle the docile rays.

It still seems to me like this paragraph sounds like advertising. I won't delete it of course because I very well may be the only person to hold this opinion. "Small rays and other fishes can be petted in a "tactile tank" at Nausicaä, a large aquarium park in Boulogne-sur-Mer, on the English Channel coast in northern France. One ray has been known to be so friendly it tried to expose its entire ventral surface, ending up toppling over backward." Thats's my opinoin. RealFerrari 21:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Clairfication

I know this maybe against wikipedia's original research policy, but in light of the recent events I thought I'd add some information about stingrays and let you decide.

Let me preface what I am about to say with this: I have spent entire life (35 years) playing and fishing in the saltwater lagoons on Florida's east I born and raised on a house with a bedroom not 20 feet from an isolated stretch of lagoon marsh. I believe my lifelong fishing activities in these lagoons have provided me more than passing familiarity with stingrays.

Stingrays are very common in Florida's saltwater lagoons. They enjoy burying themselves in the silt and mud of the shallows, and sit for hours on end buried underneath a layer of camouflage.

On any given day near the shoreline leading to my home, anyone can walk 50' through knee deep water and be guaranteed to see at least one stingray. It doesn't take much of a trained eye to spot a buried stingray. When you are within 6-8 feet of a ray, you can usually make out a hump, two eyes, and a tail when looking carefully as wade through the water.

A stingray's behavior in shallow lagoons is to find a shallow sandy area, and rest on the bottom. As they come to rest they use their wings to kick up the silty bottom, covering their bodies with a layer of camouflage. In these lagoons, the chances are the 19/20 times you encounter a stingray; he is hiding under the silty dirt.

This is a stingray's prime "ready to be stepped on" position. If you are unlucky enough not to see the ray, and not shuffling your feet, there good chance you may step right on the ray. When this happens, the ray's stinger raises straight up perpendicular to his body, and he will flail his tail about. If you are really unlucky, you might step right onto his barb, sending it straight into your foot. A stingray's stinging barb is razor sharp with a double sided serrated edge, and it's poisonous to boot.

When wading, if you happen to see a ray, it would be wise to walk around it. On the other hand, if you are planning to be active/fishing in the area, you should chase the ray off. Keep this in mind though, when buried, a stingray will not swim away from you if you merely get close. They won't move away you unless you poke or disturb them. Because of this, and the fact that you may not see a stingray, it's a very good idea to shuffle your feet when walking in marshy water. This means kicking your feet, as opposed to stepping down.

In these shallow lagoons, stingrays are neither curious nor active. They sit around idly or swim around trying to find a good place to bury themselves. Stingrays do not chase other fish, and will not bite at fishing hooks with baits or lures. They feed on small crabs, worms, and other small creatures they uncover from the silty lagoon bed. Sysrpl 11:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Steve Irwin

The famous Australian wildlife personality has been killed by a stingray while shooting for a documentary. It happened in Port Douglas, Northern Queensland, Australia, on the 4th September 2006 at approximately 11 a.m. Can the regulators please add this little piece of trivia up into the mainpage? It is good information that stingrays can be fatal!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.84.11.77 (talk • contribs) 08:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I am rewording "Dasyatids do not attack aggressively, or even actively defend themselves, unless it's against Steve Irwin". Doesnt anyone feel it has a sort of mocking tone to it, thus POV? --soum^সৌমোyasch 11:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic, let alone mocking. Reword away. -Fsotrain₀₉ 16:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Stop with the Steve Irwin-oriented tribute/vandalism edits to the article. If you feel the need to write about it, try here:

http://blogs.smh.com.au/newsblog/archives/your_say/006154.html

or here:

The Australian News tribute page

72.82.189.110 16:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The link provided to the story of Irwin's death at the bottom of the article is sufficient enough. A detailed explaination of Irwin's death is far more logical on Steve Irwin's page, not on the stingray page. The information is not pertinent to the stingray and clutters up wikipedia more. I would hazard to say that no further addition of this tragedy be included here, but rather the efforts be refocused to including a proper description on the Irwin page. Regards to all, Shazbot85^Talk 17:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply to above: There's about a 75% chance that a user on 4chan (with an anonymous IP) will probably make references to him and vandalize this article. I just talked to a college instructor and my friends about this, and told the instructor that vandals will most likely vandalize this page now that the notable Australian is gone...

...or it could be punk and goth kids sent by Jeff Hardy or Bam Margera that are making frivolous references to the wildlife expert in the stingray article in which they don't belong, in which THAT, TOO is also considered vandalism. Maybe we could block the very next person that vandalizes this page by making references to him? (Sorry for my southern accent, I really need to stop talking like a cop.) --D.F. Williams 18:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that a Steve Irwin refence is comletely out of place. The Article on Hemlock has a section on the death of Socrates. In my mind, it seems somewhat similar to having a section about Irwin here.--Blackmagicfish 06:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Block new/unregistered users?

Perhaps the Admins should do this, there seems to be as much vandalism as there was on the Steve Irwin article starting to appear.Bisected8 12:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It's linked from the main page, and the admins' views tend to be that articles linked from the main page are not protected, even if they are heavily vandalised.--Konstable 12:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The Irwin article was also linked to the main page, and that was blockedBisected8 12:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, Oregon is Idaho's Portugal.

Sprotecting again

I've temporarily sprotected this article: there appears to be a concerted and unproductive revert-war going on, from a variety of IP addresses. This is occuring at the same time as concerted vandalism to the Steve Irwin article. Please feel free to unprotect at your discretion. -- The Anome 12:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. It's very well needed. There are too many vandals writing/editing out their frustration against the stingray (because of the recent death of Steve Irwin). ResurgamII 16:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If you check the history of this page, this rarely edited/viewed page had a massive increase in edits since that unfortunate incident, it's beter if this page was protected to prevent further vandalism for a few more days LG-犬夜叉 17:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks The Anome. I did one rev. edit of a total deletion and while I was doing it a host of edits happened the space of seconds. So, I have just made my views known via the discussion pages in hopes that the Admins would make the right call. Thank you for being vigilant in regards to this matter. It would be most unfortunate for young minds to come upon these pages in the state of vadalism.LogicUser 18:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Stingrays in the infobox

Okay, so since my edit got reverted, could somebody please tell me why stingray is plural in the infobox? Other articles I've checked have singular animal names in the infobox. _{J Di}^talk 17:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a family of animals. See for instance Mammal or Chordate. RexNL 17:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, okay. _{J Di}^talk 17:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Sprotected

I've sprotected the article again - seemed to be a lot of vandalism (e.g. old-days GWB style). Bastard animals. The Land 17:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Stingray

Can a registered user please take the penises off of the stingray listing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.154.225.170 (talk • contribs) .

Remove

could somebody take out the text about "seawater entering the wound" - that is absolute rubbish! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.251.220.64 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

You are missing the point though. It should be included as he is an actor in a major drama that has been running for 20 years. It is not some privately owned boat etc. If the encyclopedia is detailed enough to include a page about Scott Timmins then he should get a mention on the stingray page Dean randall 19:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I dispute the inclusion of the 'trivia' section in this article by Dean randall. There are countless references to the word 'stingray' everywhere, as this google search demonstrates. Many of them are just as notable as this one character's nickname being 'Stingray'. This content is not relevant to the article and should be removed (as I have tried to do twice). Diagonalfish 19:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Look let's a get a third opinion from some admins? Until then leave the section standing Dean randall 19:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree it is nothing to do with the animal. Could be put on the disambiguation page though. --Alex ^{(talk here)} 19:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay I didn't look at the edit summary of the previous edit that requested that any proposed deletions be discussed first, so sorry about that. I don't think the section should be included as this article is about the fish, as is clearly stated in the first paragraph. Also, Scott Timmins, from an Australian soap, should be treated no differently to the other, I'm sure more high-profile, references and uses in television and other places. Any references should be included on the disambiguation page, as it keeps what is probably a lot of information not directly related to the article's subject out of the article; that is what it's for after all. _{J Di}^talk 19:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Clearly ludicrous to include a Neighbours character as "trivia" in a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not..., oh, blimey, anything that would do so. Desmond Tutu was mentioned in an episode of Friends. That doesn't make Friends a trivia item on Desmond Tutu or Desmond Tutu a trivia item on Friends. A little perspective here would be opportune. ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Sting Mechanics?

How do they use their tail to sting? Do they bring it up over their head like a scorpion? Or underneith? Or sideways? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.49.196.155 (talk • contribs) 20:36, September 4, 2006 (UTC).

The stinger is at the base of the tail and instictively raises straight up, perpendiclar to the body, when they ray is threatened. Threats include being stepped on, and coming down on a ray from above. This is why you should approach them from the side or underneath, but never the top. Sysrpl 05:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Please add a note of doubt or a source on the statement that the stinger reacts mechanically. The first meaning of mechanical (as in involving mechanical parts - no muscle intervention) is contradicted by this article: (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20361931-2702,00.html). The child that died could have not stepped on the animal. A second meaning ("without brain intervention") needs sourcing or clarification. (68.23.115.22 01:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC) Andy Rosa).

The newest revision is good.

It mentions the death without making it a major focus of the article. Nicely done. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wge (talk • contribs) 17:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I had been initially opposed to mentioning Steve Irwin, but the way it was put in the article works really well. --Vter4life 20:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree too. -- ReyBrujo 20:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Me too. Looking good.--Planetary 22:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Me too.--Moonlight Mile 00:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds great! Shazbot85^Talk 02:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree -- w00t!?! intelligent inclusionism FTW!!!216.9.250.6 07:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I can agree to this current revision with the mention being secondary to the lethality of the sting. ju66l3r 18:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

i do not agree with this current version.The 89 guy 17:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk Page Protection? Do we need to do this? Since when did immaturity garner positive attention other than the solo back patting one gives themself after such pointless additions? Shazbot85^Talk 02:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

this talk page is not protected. pschemp | talk 02:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Rays vs. Stingrays

If I understand correctly, not all Rays are Stingrays. The "Viewing" section in particular seems to present some confusion between the two. Do these "touch tanks" actually have stingrays with barbs, poison, etc., or are they just various "safe" species of ray? Can anyone clear this up? Ruyn 12:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

On further reading, I see that some other non-Dasyatidae rays also have stingers (though not all), which helps confuse matters. Dasyatidae redirects to Stingray, so the article seems like it should be limited to that scope, so I ask again, can we clarify what types of rays are referred to, and which article(s) the information belongs in? Ruyn 13:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Melbourne Aquarium image caption

Does "Stingrays are a large part of the Melbourne Aquarium" sound a bit wrong to anyone else? Could this be improved somehow? Tug201 15:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Aggression

Also, since "Dasyatids generally do not attack aggressively, or even actively defend themselves" could we change the title of this section to something less misleading such as Stinging reflex? Tug201 16:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I see no need to mention Steve Irwin's incident here. The article should be merely about the stingray not to describe the circumstances of Irwin's death.The 89 guy 16:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

May I point out that I made no mention of including a reference to recent events. Tug201 01:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Why mention Steve Irwin at all in the main article?

Of course it is sad that Steve Irwin died. But why mention his name at all in the main article? It is supposed to be an article about stingrays. There is even a warning at the top of this talk page to not leave tributes to him, further suggesting that Steve Irwin is unrelated to the topic of stingrays. It does not make sense to me that his name should be in the article whatsoever, desipite being a rare occurance. - Abscissa 16:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right.The 89 guy

Agreed. Is it in the article? --Alex ^{(talk here)} 16:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope, removed. --Alex ^{(talk here)} 16:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

some one put it back.The 89 guy 16:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

A concensus may have to reached on it... :( --Alex ^{(talk here)} 16:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, i consider that this brief mention is completely irrelevant. It is totally not worth mentioning. The bottom note should be enough for those who want to introduce the Irwin problem here tooThe 89 guy 16:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Consensus was reached. See #The newest revision is good., where several editors agreed that this revision, with the brief mentioning, was good enough, similar to Cerebral edema mentioning Bruce Lee briefly. I suggest restoring to that mentioning. -- ReyBrujo 17:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Then, I would advise users who would like the mentioning excluded to express their disagreement at #The newest revision is good.. The 89 guy 17:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with the current revision. Irwin is mentioned only in passing as an example of a rare stingray fatality. He's not even the focus of the sentence that he's in. The mention of his death helps illustrate the point that stingray stings can be fatal and cause even those with experience with dangerous animals and medical staff nearby to experience a sudden death. Wge 19:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Wge- I agree with you, I like the current wording. It illustrates the fact that despite a high-profile death such as Irwin's, stingray-related deaths are extremely rare, to the point of being freak accidents. However I do disagree with your assertion that these are "dangerous animals." Given that the article states that as of 1996, there have only been 17 fatal incidents worldwide, and the fact that these animals tend to flee from danger more often than they confront it, I don't consider them to be dangerous. -- Fogelmatrix 16:00, 5 September 2006 (EST)

- I didn't mean that stingrays were dangerous animals. I meant that Steve Irwin had experience in dealing with dangerous animals, and thus was probably not only more attuned to noticing animals in hiding but more experienced in handling injuries from animal attacks. My point was more along the lines of the old warning, "It happens to the best of us," and not implying that stingrays were an aggressive animal. Wge 21:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems worth mentioning it passing to me, if fatalities are rare but there's been a high-profile one. --Delirium 19:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Note that I was against mentioning it at first (reverted back mention since I thought it was not worth), but then accepted it. The current wording is pretty much how it should be handled in this article. -- ReyBrujo 20:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps eventually Steve Irwan's name can be completely removed form this article, but right now and for at least a few years it is necessary he is mentioned. I don't suppose 50 years from now it'll be as important. As for right now and the immediate future, there should be no doubt about it. Just my opinion. RealFerrari 20:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Fins vs. Wings

I'm a little confused about the terminology between here and the manta ray page. Here, it says:

Dasyatids swim with a "flying" motion, propelled by motion of their large pectoral wings (commonly mistaken as "fins").

...while the manta page says:

across its pectoral fins (or "wings")

...and the page on rays in general mentions the pectoral fins. Is the bit on this page meant to be the other way around (pectoral fins mistaken for wings)? That makes more sense to me but I don't want to change it since I don't know.

interwiki

hello everyone,

please add the interwiki to the hebrew wikipedia - he:טריגוניים. thanks. 88.152.202.166 19:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No trouble. Jefffire 19:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"Viewing" section

The number of places (aquariums and zoos) where stingrays may be viewed and/or handled is extensive, and it seems that editors keep adding more and more of them. Can we just remove all the specific places and just say something like "many aquariums and zoos around the world"? Badagnani 23:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. The handful of places where it's common to swim with them in the wild are worth mentioning, but since so many zoos and aquariums let you handle them it doesn't really seem worth compiling a list. --Delirium 02:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

stingray treatment

As a doctor in a beachside town in Australia for seven years (my house was also on the beachfront) I treated many stingray stings. The pain is excruciating; one young Chilean tourist begged me to cut his leg off! Wounds are commonest round the ankle. The tip of the bard often breaks off in the wound but not always. The ray grows another when it loses a barb. I developed the following protocol which was highly effective. Immediate treatment consisted of lying the patient down and applying a compress of very hot water; this was while I was drawing up about 2cc of lignocaine with adrenalin. This would then be injected in and around the wound. Within seconds the patient is completely relieved of pain. I would then also give 50 - 100mg pethidine IM for longer term pain relief, as the local wears off in about an hour! Then I would explore the wound to see if there was any foreign body / barb. The barb material is quite crumbly, almost crystalline, and similar to but tougher than a sea urchin spine. This necessitates great care when handling the piece with forceps, otherwise it will break into several smaller fragments. Luckily it is darker than human tissue. Once the fragments have been removed I stitch if confident of total clearing of foreign bodies or allow to heal by second intention. I dress with magnesium sulphate in the latter case. All cases get five days of oral cephalexin, as infections are almost inevitable otherwise given the nature of the wound and the site of injury. Sequelae are rare; usually everything heals up fine. I have recevied many gifts from grateful patients! While it is very rare for the barb to penetrate a vital organ, where it penetrates the heart death is usually very quick, due to the heart muscle going into immediate fibrillation or failing due to myocardial anoxia secondary to blood loss; or the blood's leaking rapidly into the pericardium causing a death by cardiac tamponade or by indirect brain anoxia. Lgh 05:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Protected

is this article protected? If so should there be a notice. Also I think this page can do with some archiving. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.152.239.63 (talk • contribs) .

Yes, it is still protected. I will add the template. As for the archiving, it is hard because most topics in this talk page are still actively used. -- ReyBrujo 18:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow,even here? Vandals have been having a field day since Monday.Heh. --The jazz musician 02:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Archive This

Someone who knows how needs to archive this current discussion, at 78KB it's HUGE. Indiawilliams 04:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

An archive is "A place for storing earlier, and often historical, material. An archive usually contains documents (letters, records, newspapers, etc.) or other types of media kept for historical interest."

The discussion here still largely less than a week old, and active. Most of the discussion is fall-out from the death of the late animal tormentor, Steve Irwin. Archival is not yet appropriate. Cain Mosni 20:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The discussions may be current but there's still a lot of them and it's getting hard to navigate through what everyone's saying. The |Steve Irwin talkpage has been archived several times since his death, so I don't think age of the discussion is a concern. Indiawilliams 05:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

He he

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

Categories: Talk archives