Talk:Oscar Pistorius

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Oscar Pistorius has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
March 26, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

T44 vs T43[edit]

Is it known why he competes in T44 (Single amputee) vs T43 (Double)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiore (talkcontribs) 14 August 2012 (UTC)

He competes as a T43 competitor in combined T43/T44 events (they may be called 'T44' events on an Athletics program, but they're technically not). The same goes for all T43 competitors. So far, the classes have always been combined internationally due to relatively small numbers of T43 athletes. That may change in the future, of course. Sportygeek (talk) 00:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
According to Jerome Singleton on Twitter, the classes will be separated for Rio. Pkeets (talk) 04:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

If there's a reliable source it could be a useful addition to the article. Kiore (talk) 04:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

AIUI it's simply because he can beat them. He's faster than practically all other T43s and just as fast as the fastest T44s. We need to check which rule allows athletes to compete in a higher class than the one they are actually in. Note that some events are actually multi-class events. Roger (talk) 07:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
T43 vs T44 is not really "competing up a class" - some advantages to having bilateral blades vs single. In the 200 metre 'T44' final in London, the medalists were all T43s. Arnu Fourie broke the T44 world record, but came 4th overall. Sportygeek (talk) 00:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Pistorius, Oscar (2012). Blade runner. London: Virgin. p. 145. ISBN 9780753540855. OCLC 782993965.  says " He took issue with the fact that during the Athens Paralympics I competed against the T44 athletes but, as I have stated, I made this choice precisely because there were no T43 athletes with qualifying times anywhere close to mine." --LauraHale (talk) 08:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
"There were no T43 athletes with qualifying times anywhere close to mine" - accurate statement at the time. But if he wanted to compete at the Paralympics, at the IPC Athletics World Championships, or similar, he had to run with T44 athletes. There were no separate T43 events. Separate T43 and T44 world records, but so far only combined T43/T44 races in international competition (usually called 'T44', but T43 athletes now tend to dominate the 200 and 400 meter distances) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportygeek (talkcontribs) 01:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
That's what I remembered, he chose to compete in T44, but which rule permits it? Roger (talk) 08:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
It will be found some place in this. I've been slowly working on some of the classification articles as I have time, but the highly technical nature of some of them makes it difficult. : / I know you can compete in a more abled class than you are because I have been told that. (I think by a classifier actually.) --LauraHale (talk) 09:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately I don't really have time to do the research this week - my schedule is full! Roger (talk) 09:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I have a stack of books with the hope of improving some articles this weekend before I head to London. : / I do have a copy of Pistorius's autobiography and checked out about 10 different books about the Paralympics and classification today. Trying to get articles on Australian Paralympians done first. Would love to have articles about every classification at the Paralympics before the Games but not sure it is feasible. --LauraHale (talk) 09:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
@LauraHale - I have a draft in my Sandbox that basically summarises the classification system in each of the sports - some sections are just about complete others still need work. Unfortunately I'm right in the middle of a very busy time in my academic calendar right now, so you're welcome to come play in my sandbox. Roger (talk) 10:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
@ Dodger67: Ditto. I've got User:LauraHale/Classification where I have started working on some articles. Beyond that, Category:Disability sport classifications has a number of articles. I've got additional specific drafts sitting around on Wikiversity. We had a classification workshop with a sport librarian, a Paralympic classifier, an academic and some one looking to get a job in the Australian sport sector and two Wikipedians facilitated by the Australian Paralympic Committee about three weeks ago. If you want to start playing in any of those articles, either existing ones or the drafts I've got, that would be helpful. Some of the individual classification articles are getting a hundred plus views a month and will be really important so people can clearly delineate what the difference is between T43 (classification) and T44 (classification). (or an uncopyrighted version thereof) --LauraHale (talk) 10:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
(aside) shouldn't there be a T41 (classification) (presumably double above the knee amputation or equivalent loss of use) ? I see from the classification articles, it goes from T40 to T42, skipping T41.
IPC has proposed splitting the current T40 (disproportionate short stature) classification into new T40 (tighter eligibility criteria) and T41 (minimum disability) classes. But it's bizarre - double above knee amputee runners like Richard Whitehead (athlete) or Rudy Garcia-Tolson are currently classified T42, same as single above-knee runners. I suspect it didn't occur to the IPC that elite double above knee amputee runners exist, assuming double AK athletes compete as wheelchair racers instead. Sportygeek (talk) 00:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
It also might be good to add one of those anatomical charts used by police to indicate injuries on a person, to indicate what limbs are considered disabled/lost for each of the classifications T42(T41)-T46. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 10:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────There is a standard "chart" system used in the classification system. There's no need to adopt a different system that is less suitable than the existing one. A double above knee amputation is functionally similar to low level paraplegia so they are grouped together in the same class. Roger (talk) 11:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Double leg amputees essentially have a choice of classifications: they can compete in wheelchair racing and sitting throws (where they'll be classified with paraplegics), or they can run with prosthetics and compete in standing throws (different classification - double above knee amputees classified with single above knee amputees, because the logical separate classification doesn't currently exist). Many athletes with cerebral palsy spastic diplegia get the same sort of choice - wheelchair racing/sitting throws in T/F34 or running/standing throws in T/F35. See the IPC Athletics Classification Rules and Regs (p49-50). Sportygeek (talk) 00:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
And that is not illustrated. So there is no chart system used in the articles, I don't see why we wouldn't illustrate what functional disability is used to classify the athletes. What's wrong with illustrating it? -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 06:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Nobody said there's anything wrong with illustrating the classifications - it just takes time to get things done. We are volunteers, not staff! What are you doing to improve Wikipedia? Roger (talk) 06:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
You stated that there is a standard chart system. I stated that no standard charts are in our articles. So, if you have the standard charts, then you could scan them if they're not copyrighted or add a FUR as well if they are. Since I don't have access to this "chart system" that you say exists, I can't do that. My suggestion was to use anatomical charts to illustrate the articles, which you say is the invention of a new system. So, if we illustrate it with the chart system you say already exists, I cannot do it, since I don't have it. That has nothing to do with being staff or volunteers, staff wouldn't necessarily have access to this "standard" chart system either. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 07:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
It's going to take me a while to find it, I saw it only once several months ago. Roger (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I found it, yay! It's on pages 30-31 of the Equestrian classification manual. I hope we can use it. Roger (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
That looks complex enough to be copyrightable. You'll have to get someone to redraw the table with different symbols, I think. (Or write to the FEI and ask them to license it to the Commons.) — Cheers, JackLee talk 21:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if those athlete profiles originated with the FEI. Exactly the same profiles currently used in paratriathlon classification (see p20-21). Half-remember seeing them used in other sports too.

Since it may get buried above, I'll add this here, too. According to Jerome Singleton on Twitter, the T43 and T44 classes will be separated for Rio. We can presume this is because of the complaints about blade lengths and results in London. Pkeets (talk) 04:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Height[edit]

Pistorius' management issued a statement during the recent blades controversy that said he was always 1.84 meters tall, regardless of prostheses. I see there is some disagreement, and article currently says 1.86. Should we do more research on this? Pkeets (talk) 03:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think a one centimetre variation is worth fussing over - a change of shoes will easily vary anyone's height by that much - or in the case of his running blades just replacing worn out "spike pad" could make that much difference. BTW I saw a mention somewhere that Nike makes custom "spike pads" for him. Any person's height varies by that much during a day anyway, depending on hydration and the lennth of time spent upright the thickness of the cushions in the spinal joints vary. Roger (talk) 07:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Correct on the spike pads--I read that one, too. They analyzed his running action and designed the pad to match. That way they're always the same.Pkeets (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
If there's a reliable reference to the statement from Pistorius's management, though, we could update the article. At the moment, the height in the infobox is based on the statement in a US news article that Pistorius is 6 feet 1.25 inches tall (the height in metres was arrived at by conversion). — Cheers, JackLee talk 08:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
In that case, the statement is a better source, Pkeets, if you can find it, please update the article. Roger (talk) 09:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
A quick Google located it in a number of articles, but one of them is already cited at #93. I'll add this to the box. Pkeets (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Okay, it's fixed. It's an interesting statement, and leaves me wondering how they measure the blades. In 2004 Brian Frasure thought they were too long. They look like he's walking on tip-toe, but they also look proportional and he's not overly tall in them. The long-legged American and Jamaican runners tower over him on the track. Pkeets (talk) 16:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
The blades cannot make you any taller than 10% of the height you would be if you had both legs. (That is, they allow a 10% variance.) I don't know where the source is for that, but there should be one some place as this came up during an IPC press conference regarding the South African Paralympic Committee filing an accusation of cheating. --LauraHale (talk) 02:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
"The overall standing height of the Athlete with their competitive prostheses on must be less than or equal to the mean estimated height plus 2.5%". Source: IPC Athletics Classification Rules and Regs (p44-47). Sportygeek (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I know. Arcane formula. They have to estimate what height you would be, but now there's discussion about whether the 10% is appropriate. Pkeets (talk) 02:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I once worked out my "estimated maximum height" using the formula. It's dramatically shorter than my actual standing height (183cm / 6ft). No prosthetics involved, only slightly odd body proportions. I'm female, very long in the trunk relative to my legs, with a negative ape index. Sportygeek (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Shooting[edit]

Don't have time to add it to the article, but this story is breaking: http://www.theage.com.au/sport/oscar-pistorius-shot-girlfriend-report-20130214-2efj6.html

I suspect we might be moving a bit fast on this - every reference used in the article states that police have not released the identity of the shooter, so at this point in time there is a lot of rumour floating around and little that has been confirmed. I think we need to proceed very carefully until the police make a clearer statement as to what happened. - Bilby (talk) 10:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Additional coverage with photos at the telegraph --NJR_ZA (talk) 11:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
He's been charged with murder. Bang bang. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
The police weren't going to release his name until he was charged, so that clarifies a lot of the reports. However, I note that they have also raised doubts on the accidental shooting reports. - Bilby (talk) 12:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

As always I urge everyone adding information on this to keep WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CEE in mind. If in doubt, hold back Jebus989 14:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I trimmed the story from the lead, it's premature to be adding such (largely speculative) detail to the lead. Keep WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE in mind when editing and keep it in the subsection under "Personal life" at least until we have more clarity from impeccable sources. Roger (talk) 14:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
It should be briefly mentioned in the lead as it is a major event in his life. Reliable sources have reported that he shot her dead, has been charged with murder and says he mistook her for an intruder. Jim Michael (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
A sentence in the lead is acceptable but the "intruder" story is not appropriate in the lead and has been refuted (e.g. police deny making claims that he had thought she was an intruder - source); he hasn't made an official press release or public statement at the time of writing Jebus989 17:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
The paragraph in the lead would benefit from being reworded, but there should be a mention in the lead of the murder and of him being charged with it. Jim Michael (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The gun allegedly used in the shooting and recovered by the police is a Ruger model(seen on the following picture: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2278970/Oscar-Pistorius-breaks-tears-charged-count-murder-Reeva-Steenkamp.html) In addition with the information that it is a 9mm, its likely a Ruger LC9 (http://www.ruger.com/products/lc9/models.html). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxeanguard (talkcontribs) 11:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC) He will take a plea agreement, and serve 20 years, per the New York Daily Post published 25 Feb 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.144.133.148 (talk) 06:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Further reading section[edit]

It is far too long. Someone who is familiar with this article should trim it down to a more reasonable size. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree and have removed a few, I'd guess there's probably some overlap with references too. I think nearly all (if not all) the "News reports" could go Jebus989 16:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I removed the News Reports. I think much of the rest of the Further reading should go as well. It should just be a short and concise list. It's kind of ridiculous that an athlete can have a Further Reading section so long, but Big Bang theory has one so much smaller. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Is this REALLY a "Good" article?[edit]

Personally I think this article is both too long and a bit of a mess. You couldn't pay me to read the whole thing.

I think it ought to be de-listed from the 'good article' nomination list. thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiculalinguae (talkcontribs) 17:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Go for it. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I was directed here by a message left on my talk page. If the article is to be nominated for GA delisting, I'd like to see the nominator's detailed reasons. "Too long and a bit of a mess" is rather non-specific. — Cheers, JackLee talk 10:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Personally I think that prose-wise, the article is relatively not that long as compared to the GA Tiger Woods. And it pretty much meets the GA guidelines. Yes, you should be giving a more argumentative and detailed reasoning as to why it should be delisted. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Intro[edit]

I hope someone is planning to expand the intro because right now it looks like he is a criminal who murdered his girlfriend and who happened to have participated in a few Olympics by he way. Hope to see changes soon.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The lead was long and detailed, but User:Spiculalinguae deleted it all. I've now restored it - Spic, if you have such a problem with it please at least rewrite a decent one instead of leaving one pathetic sentence. Probably 100,000+ people are looking at the article today, it's embarrassing to just have one sentence in the lead.
And I'm not sure what you meant by "none of this content 'covers the entire article'. they are NOT summarizing fact but facts that belong in the body". If you look down the article, all of the facts in the lead seem to be covered in more detail in the relevant subsections. What is the good in placing them again at the top of the "Sporting career" section?? --Lobo (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Intro is too long and too detailed. Can be condensed. Paragraphs combined. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Reeva Steenkamp into Oscar Pistorius#Shooting incident[edit]

NO ACTION:

WP:SNOW - Consensus is clearly against a merger here. Of those that opposed, most seem to think she is notable on her own, while others think her article should be deleted. This debate is not going to end in a merger, and someone can take it to AfD if they wish, but a delete outcome would seem unlikely given the sentiment here. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 08:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Looks like Reeva Steenkamp is not really notable in her own right, so I propose that any relevant information from her article be merged into Oscar Pistorius#Shooting incident. Kaldari (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The Independent article describes her as a "national celebrity". I suggest we give editors a few days to source her notability before making the decision. -- 99of9 (talk) 04:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
The shooting makes her notable. Leave her article as it is. Pkeets (talk) 04:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Clearly notable, no need to merge. --Hydao (talk) 05:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Notable: She was on the cover of FHM magazine in December 2011 in South Africa [1]. While she may not have been well known in the USA before her death, and while her murder will certainly overshadow other coverage of her life, she met the guidelines for notability prior to her death. Netrogeractor (talk) 06:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Notable: although I might be less convinced of her notability than many of my countrymen, putting aside her death, she certainly seems to pass the notability test that gets minor celebrities in the US to become notable. I think it is more a sign of how few Wikipedians there are writing about South Africans than her note worthiness that is the cause of the small number of articles about minor notables in South Africa and this very debate. Discott (talk) 06:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Merge I am South African and I had never heard of her, although I don't read You Magazine. I don't think she is notable in her own right. HelenOnline (talk) 09:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Not notable? I think she is notable enough to have an own article. There are so many amateur soccer-players from small villages and even hamlets in the Netherlands who have their own article on Wikipedia, but women tend to be highly underrepresented.--OPolkruikenz (talk) 13:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. She appears to meet the test of notability. Her murder cannot take that away. Moonraker (talk) 06:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. The BBC describes her as a "celebrity" in South Africa. Aridd (talk) 08:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Support merge - I get the impression that her celebrity status was largely based on being Pistorius' girlfriend - otherwise she's just another model. I'm South African with a reasonable exposure to a variety of media although I don't usually seek out celeb news as such. Her independent notability is marginal at best. Roger (talk) 08:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
You may well be right. Libération says she was "not well known" in South Africa ("peu connue en Afrique du sud"), and that she was hoping her career would soon pick up. We have contradictory reports on whether she was notable. On that basis, I don't know enough to say. Aridd (talk) 08:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep her article. While the circumstances of her death will probably overshadow anything she did in her life, her modelling career appears to meet the test of notability. Canuck89 (chat with me) 08:57, February 15, 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak keep she appears notable as a model and TV celebrity, so WP:BLP1E doesn't apply. Widefox; talk 09:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge There are sourced notability claims with reliable sources on her article. She is not only notable for this one event. This request should be closed ASAP to remove the banner from the page heading, it's not what 40 odd thousand pageviews need to see Jebus989 09:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC) edit: I've moved the template to the relevant section Jebus989 09:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge If she were only notable for the manner of her death, I'd support the merge, but that doesn't appear to be the case here; there are independent articles readily available from before her death that are primarily about her. The fact that it took her death for the article to be created is not relevant. Given rapidly emerging consensus to not merge, and Jebus989's observation about having the banner at the top of some very topical subjects, I propose closing this discussion now per WP:SNOW. —me_and 09:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose merge As I said before although I might be less convinced of her notability than many other South Africans(putting aside her death) she seems to pass the notability test that gets minor celebrities in the US to become notable. I think that this discussion is as much a sign of how few Wikipedians there are writing about South Africans than her note worthiness. If there were more South African focused Wikipedians then we would likely have many more articles about minor notables like most of the people on the List of Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue cover models. Discott (talk) 12:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I gather they were considered a "celebrity couple" in SA and that suggests a level of notability in keeping with our criteria. Deb (talk) 14:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Comment - That is actually an argument for the merger. If, as you argue, her notability is based on her relationship with Pistoruis then she does not have sufficient notability for a separate article.
  • Oppose. Was known well before this murder. Murder does not discredit her fame prior. Srsrox (talk) 14:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. per notability. Racklever (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - notability established already before she was shot.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Comment - That's not true, the article didn't even exist before her death. Roger (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Notability and article is not the same thing. You misread my post.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Merge as per Kaldari and HelenOnline rationales. Quis separabit? 16:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I think a separate article is clearly justified in this case, although it's open to question whether it should be titled after Steenkamp or the shooting incident. Robofish (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • NOT MERGE BUT SPEEDY DELETE - I am sorry but are you all being absolutely rediculous - 3 years ago I tried to start an article about an MIT Professor emeritus of Mechanical Engineering and it got speedy deleted - it took me literally begging an administrator to get it resurrected from the trash bin - let me be clear this person is of absolutely no notability to any encyclopedia before her death - she was the girlfriend of someone notable - period - her only place in wiki is as "the death of Reeva" etc. - shame on all of you for attempting to make her out as the next mother teresa postmortum - "quote" "unquote" rock stars like this person are the bane of wiki by engineering fictious notablity from thin air

--68.231.15.56 (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

  • delete or merge or rename to Death of Reeva Steenkamp - in that order. 1) there is zero evidence of any coverage of her before her death to exist as a stand alone article. 2) she is now only talked about in relation to Pistorius - however that is likely to be WP:UNDUE and WP:CRIME violations 3) her death has recieved coverage, but there is no indication there is lasting coverage WP:NOTNEWS -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Have you looked at the article? Three of the sources were published before the shooting Jebus989 23:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose as merge is not a workable option. There would be too much material in the Pistorius article about someone who isn't Pistorius. The issue is accordingly keep or delete the Reeva article, and on that count the argument for deletion isn't strong enough.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge as her death is turning into a notable incident in its own right, justifying its own article, although there may be a case for moving her to "Death of Reeva Steenkamp" following some similar cases. PatGallacher (talk) 12:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - If a person is famous for more than just being victim (so, certainly known by at least a lot of people before she died), the article should keep to exist. In Wikipedia, there are so many articles of even less known amateur soccer players etc. This is also important to notice, because women are still underrepresented on Wikipedia. --OPolkruikenz (talk) 13:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Hold at present - having as I do at these times just re-read WP:BIO again, I can't conclude that Reeva Steenkamp passes WP:NOTAB. I can't see that "significant contribution" is met by being No.45 in FHM in your home country, or shooting some singular local campaigns for some global brands. However, the timing of this debate seems very, very poor. Apart from the grief of her family, these also appear to be some details that we don't have access to/confirmed re the incident, or re Mr Pistorius. So diverting her article here seems premature, currently. Until the proposed court case takes place, and more details appear in multiple sources, leave the Reeva Steenkamp article up to collect more information on her, hence allowing a better decision. I also doubt if we deleted/meged that article at present, that someone wouldn't recreate it rather quickly in the present media storm. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Snow close?[edit]

I've removed the banner per discussion above. There will be enough eyes on this talk page for the discussion to continue if anyone still supports the merger. --99of9 (talk) 10:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm reverting the removal - only a proper formal closure of this proposal can remove it. Roger (talk) 12:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
What do you suggest, waiting a week? We usually don't go through due process for the sake of it per WP:IAR and WP:SNOW. If you mean just adding the template and closing the discussion please feel free to do those things. This is a time-sensitive issue given the current visibility of this page Jebus989 13:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
If you want to close it per SNOW be my guest - but please do it properly. Your "time sensitive" argument holds no water at all, we are building an encyclopedia, not a news service. See WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. Making articles "pretty" just because readership stats are up is not an argument at all. Any reader who comes to WP looking for news is an idiot. Roger (talk) 13:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
As an involved editor it's not my place to close the proposal. We are, as is often the case, top 3 google pagerank for the article's subject, many viewers aren't here for the latest details but a overview of his life (also see my comment higher up the page highlighting NOTNEWS). I'm not trying to make the article pretty, but there's consensus not to merge so leaving a "merge proposal" banner on what will be a heavily trafficked article for the next few days serves no purpose; while high readership itself isn't an argument, I was using it as a proxy for WP:COMMONSENSE Jebus989 14:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
A similar discussion has been started at the talk page of Reeva Steenkamp. Is that really necessary and if so isnt it a bit misleading?--BabbaQ (talk) 11:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
This is getting messy; the renaming discussion assumes the outcome of this is 'no merge', IMO a fair assumption but I agree poorly timed Jebus989 13:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Improperly skewed article[edit]

The beginning of this article simply has far too much detail on his career.

It also, compared to all other athletes with a similar large criminal case against them, has a very small section on the murder of his girlfriend.

The page needs to be balanced to emphasize his girlfriends' murder in comparison to his athletic accomplishments.

I will make some of these edits. Feel free to modify them, but please keep the intent in mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.221.94 (talk) 09:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Nobody has been convicted of murder yet, so please refrain from implying otherwise for the time being. HelenOnline (talk) 10:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I disagree that this article should be "balanced" to emphasize his girlfriend's murder. Because this article is already so long and well-developed, the better solution would be to summarize in the section already established, and then start a new article on the subject of the murder. I believe this is normally how scandals are handled. I'll be happy to establish the new article now if others are in agreement. I think the coverage of the murder trial should be moved fairly soon, as it is already beginning to get very detailed in this article. I don't know about South Africa, but in the US, this could go on for several years. Pkeets (talk) 13:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The subject of this article has been notable for several years as an atlete, to overemphasise the events of the past few days in this article which covers his entire life, is not acceptable. There is currently a discussion about a proposal to move Reeva Steenkamp to Death of Reeva Steenkamp as we normally do for people whose notability is based on a single event (such as their death). Use of the word "murder" is highly irresponsible at this stage and also a clear violation of the BLP rules. Roger (talk) 13:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a very early stage in the proceedings. The trial has not even started. However there are several articles on famous people who have become involved in high profile criminal trials, which give an indication of the usual weighting given. See Dominique Strauss-Kahn and Phil Spector, for example. Paul B (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Gotta think that the initial comment was meant as a wind-up? If so, it seems to have succeeded. Deb (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with all the responses to the original comment so far. Pistorius has had an established athletic career up to now. It would be inappropriate and unbalanced to remove information relating to this from the lead section and devote, say, half of the lead to the events of the past two weeks. The current lead is fine. — Cheers, JackLee talk 16:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Nickname[edit]

Different media in different countries are calling Oscar Pistorius: Blade Gunner. See for instance here, here, here and here. So can we say that this is a new nickname for him? Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 15:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist". All of the sources you mentioned are sensationalist reports relating to a very specific controversial incident. HelenOnline (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Blade gunner is also a specific media reference in response to the death he is associated with, based on an advertisement he did in South Africa. He is better nicknamed Blade Runner, which is also the title of his biography and the media materials put out at the London Paralympics and Olympics. Sensationalis or not, it is not the nickname he uses for himself. --LauraHale (talk) 07:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
It's just an obvious pun on his sporting nickname of Blade Runner. I agree with HelenOnline that it's inappropriate for the article at this time Jebus989 11:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Bail[edit]

He's been granted bail. We should add that when a reliable source confirms that it's true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.137.78 (talk) 14:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

115k = you walk away ... and yes it rhymes--68.231.15.56 (talk) 03:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Plus a four day fight over it. Pkeets (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Photo from the bail hearing[edit]

This photo looks very much like a crop from one at AFP which is a copyrighted image.Pkeets (talk) 04:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Carl Pistorius manslaughter charge[edit]

"On 24 February it became known that Oscar Pistorius's brother, Carl Pistorius, faces a culpable homicide charge, as he was involved in the death of a female motorcyclist in 2010."

Shouldn't it be mentioned when two brothers are involved in the deaths of two women - it surely is relevant and has nothing to do with "smearing by association". Hard, bold facts - nothing else. --IIIraute (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The two cases are not related and it is off-topic for the OP article, especially the OP murder charge section. I agree it is "smearing by association" and sensationalist reporting in the current media frenzy. Also note WP:BLPCRIME: "For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." HelenOnline (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree. — Cheers, JackLee talk 22:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
For the talk page record, CP was acquitted today. Helen (talk) 13:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Split death to new article[edit]

Please add this split banner to the article

{{move portions|Death of Reeva Steenkamp}}

Not sure what portions you want to be moved as it fits in quite nicely here at the moment and no matter how it ends up it will be a major part of his biography. Will leave you to make the case at Talk:Death of Reeva Steenkamp. AIRcorn (talk) 02:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 02:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Per some suggestions in the recently closed requested move at Reeva Steenkamp, I suggest the death be split off to a separate article. For the discussion see talk:Death of Reeva Steenkamp -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Reeva Portrait.jpg nominated for deletion[edit]

File:Reeva Portrait.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

and now renominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Spelling of name[edit]

At the moment the section Early years and education refers to Francois Vanderwatt. The spelling of his name should be Francois van der Watt, if South African spelling is to be used (as it should be in this case). Also, the section makes it seem as though Oscar Pistorius played rugby for Pretoria Boys High School while he was aged 11 to 13. This is a bit difficult, since high school in South Africa starts the year that you turn 14. Perhaps the wording of the sentence should be changed to remove the confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.49.162.11 (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2013‎

Redirect?[edit]

Has anybody considered redirecting "The Blade Runner" to O.P's page? Drakon467 (talk) 18:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

There is already a Blade Runner page for the movie and The Bladerunner page for the book which was also published as The Blade Runner, and the disambiguation page linked there includes OP. Helen (talk) 19:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Accuracy of wording in relation to the shooting incident[edit]

The following wording is inaccurate:

"Murder Charge" This should be "Suspicion of Murder". He was arrested on suspicion of murder and released on bail pending investigations.


"he was formally charged with Steenkamp's murder in a Pretoria court on 15 February" He was not. The offence of which he is suspected (pre-meditated murder) was read to him. He was remanded in custody to return and submit his application for bail and remained in custody until his subsequent release on bail. A bail hearing is not the time for the state to formally lay any charges (serve indictments). The state planned to do this at the return hearing on 4 June but was unable to and requested a further two months to continue investigation and, if appropriate, serve a full list of indictments (charges) then. If the state is unable to do so again on 19 August, it will ask to return again. Therefore, as yet, Pistorius has not been charged (informally, let alone formally) with anything - whether pre-meditated murder, murder or culpable homicide. As yet, Pistorius remains a suspect, not an accused.


Amelie Garcia 03/07/2013

"The "offence" of which he is suspected...". Killing a person is not an "offence" - it is a "crime"!! --77.10.17.167 (talk) 17:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I am fairly sure you need to be charged with a crime before you have a bail hearing. I don't think the degree of charge has been decided yet (premeditated or not). Regardless, we cannot do anything without reliable sources and there are plenty saying he was charged. Helen (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
His own affidavit read during his bail hearing states "I fail to understand how I could be charged with murder", "I have been informed I have been accused of murder", and "I want to deal with these allegations". Helen (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Can the phrase "whom he had fatally shot at his home in the early hours of that morning" be changed to "whom he is accused of fatally shooting" or some other verbage, to indicate he has not yet been convicted? (neutrality, etc..) 68.62.5.27 (talk) 08:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

No, he has admitted to fatally shooting her in his bail hearing and in his opening statement in the trial. He has not been convicted of murder, which is why we cannot say he murdered her. HelenOnline 15:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Inaccurate Sources[edit]

In the sidebar (and table of events) his personal best is listed as 21.3 for the 200m. The sidebar links to a guardian article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/sep/01/oscar-pistorius-paralympics) which does not have 21.3 mentioned in it at all. 131.217.33.146 (talk) 00:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The Guardian source cited says "Pistorius beat his own T43 world record of 21.58sec, set in 2007, when he finished the third heat in 20.30sec." I guess they made a typo. I will add another source. HelenOnline 07:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Fixed thanks. HelenOnline 13:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Presumptuous Language[edit]

"In the early morning of Thursday, 14 February 2013, Pistorius' girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp was shot and killed by Pistorius at his Pretoria home."

He has not been convicted. It should be noted this is what the officials claim until he is convicted (if he even is convicted). Oops. Nevermind. Should have read on. I had to research elsewhere to find that he admitted to killing someone. Perhaps that should be noted in this section. 71.14.114.224 (talk) 10:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done I have added his affidavit to the sources for that sentence. HelenOnline 11:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2014[edit]

The following paragraph "On 14 February 2013, Pistorius was charged with the murder of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp, whom he had fatally shot at his home in the early hours of that morning." clearly says that he fatally shot his girlfriend. I believe it should be allegedly shot his girlfriend, as the trial has not concluded as of yet. Poor writing!! 165.212.191.187 (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not doneI don't think that Pistorius denies shooting his girlfriend - as I understand it the question is, was it deliberate, or accidental? - Arjayay (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Pistorius has admitted to shooting her in an affidavit cited in the article. Adding "allegedly" would suggest we doubt the fact and we have no reason to do that. HelenOnline 07:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I did find one instance where we needed to add "alleged" (where the word "murder" was used without any qualification). HelenOnline 07:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Murder trial[edit]

Should the trial have a separate page? Or stay as a sub-section of this page? Thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

It has been proposed before and there was no consensus for it (see Talk:Death of Reeva Steenkamp). In order to create a new fork, one would probably need to go through that process again which requires some effort on the nominator's part. HelenOnline 18:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I think the article is inevitable. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I too agree that it is only a matter of time before the article is created, we may as well do it very soon. Whatever may have applied a few months ago does not necessarily apply now. We managed to have an article on the trial of a well known public figure while the trial was taking place before and hold it together: HM Advocate v Sheridan and Sheridan. Unless there are serious objections I propose to be bold and do it in the next few days. PatGallacher (talk) 22:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I strongly support your proposal. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
This will eventually have to be changed to past tense, of course. Pkeets (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Murder and it's definition[edit]

"Pistorius was taken into police custody and was formally charged with Steenkamp's murder in a Pretoria court on 15 February."

This statement is not well put and could be misleading in re of South African law and how it defines murder.

"Pistorius was taken into police custody and was formally charged with murder in regards to the death of Steenkamp in a Pretoria court on 15 February." is a better way of putting it that doesn't come off as misleading and takes into account how South African law defines murder.

In view of South African law, Steenkamp was not murdered unless the court finds so. Intention must still be shown before one can call it a murder. The initial statement comes off as if it is certain that it is murder. It is not certain and certainty depends on the outcome of the trial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ByrnesFamily (talkcontribs) 11:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

yellow tickY Partly Done I removed "Steenkamp's" from two sentences. HelenOnline 14:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Links[edit]

>> Pistorius trial examines restaurant shooting(Lihaas (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)).