Talk:Trial of Oscar Pistorius

Title

Why is the article's title in italics? Is there some reason for this? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The Template:Infobox court case used automatically italicizes the article title, suggesting the name of the article should be the official name of the case (The State vs Oscar Pistorius). Otherwise, add "|italic title=no" to the list of infobox parameters. HelenOnline 07:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Done. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Image

Administrator User:Ronhjones has marked for deletion the image of Oscar Pistorius arriving at court the first day of the trial on the grounds it can reasonably be expected to available as a free image. I contest that on his Talk page, specifically asking him why he thinks a free replacement can reasonably be expected to be available. Meanwhile I have placed a template on this page requesting such an image on the off chance that one of us ordinary citizens managed to get anywhere near Pistorius that day. Thoughts welcome. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 13:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The image was deleted by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise on the grounds that the use of non-free images from press agencies is not permitted when the image itself is not the subject of critical commentary. Since commenting on the image necessarily involves entering POV territory ("nervously biting his lip" etc.), we will have to wait the 120 years whatever for the image to come out of copyright. Note that the grounds for deletion was not User:Ronhjones's inventive anti-heraclitian grounds. I have updated non-free content guidance to clarify the issue and I've changed the image request above to one for an image of Reeva Steenkamp.

Reeva's article has an infobox reducing her to a collection of statistics, the colour of her hair, of her eyes, her height to the nearest half inch, even the coordinates to the nearest second of arc of the location where she met her death, but no image, a situation which ordinary people of normal sensibility must surely deplore. A number of other projects, such as the Russian Wikipedia, which carries an image ru:Файл:Reeva-Steenkamp.jpg uploaded by ru:Участник:Odessey on 15 February 2013 from David Smith's 14 February Guardian piece, allow an image while acknowledging the image as non-free use, nevertheless an outright assault on Getty Image's commercial interests of course. How fortunate we all are that the careful and assiduous attentions (if sometimes rather deep and opaque to mere mortals of limited time spans) of master editors such as User:Ronhjones make that unlikely on the US wiki.

Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality of the article?

The entire article is written as a slanted bias that Pistorius had, in fact, murdered his girlfriend. This trial is still on going, and Pistorius has not yet been found guilty of these crimes. For instance, the first paragraph that OPENS THE ARTICLE to discussion reads as follows: "In the early morning of Thursday, 14 February 2013, Steenkamp was shot and killed by Pistorius at his Pretoria home." it is immediately followed by a source ( http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/19/world/africa/south-africa-pistorius-affadavit/index.html ), which is, in fact, opposite of this view, and is Postorius' affidavit affirming His innocence, and request for bail.

Can this article please be reviewed and corrected for neutrality? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.5.27 (talk) 08:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Pistorius has admitted to shooting and killing Steenkamp in his affidavit and in his trial. Nowhere in the article does it state he murdered her which is what the trial is meant to establish. HelenOnline 08:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

If we were to ignore the known fact that Pistorius admitted to killing her (implying it could have been someone else altogether), this article would not only be biased it would be extremely misleading. HelenOnline 08:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course Helen is quite right. Pistorius said in his affidavit he had killed Reeva. The trial is about his culpability in that event, whether he was guilty of premeditated murder.

For myself I plan to keep an eye on what's added here. Basically I just want to archive all citations (as the French do). I don't really want to add content to ongoing developments, not really believing we should be doing this. But if there's anything plainly POV I shall certainly intervene, as I'm sure Helen will as well. For example I intervened to change "heard a woman's screams" to "heard what were described as a woman's screams". But I should warn you that it is sometimes very difficult to control POV in ongoing events. You can be sure that there will be experienced editors here doing their best. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I myself am steering clear of the day by day accounts but felt the gist of the opening statements needed to be included for context. Ultimately we will need a summary of important evidence, possibly noted in the final judgement. HelenOnline 12:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, agree. However if editors do make good faith day by day edits they ought to be kept, at least until a WP:BOLD rewrite, which incidentally I'm very happy for you to provide if you're volunteering. I shall concentrate on citations. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

We'll see, that could be far off still. :) HelenOnline 16:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Name of court case

The official name of this court case is The State vs Oscar Leonard Carl Pistorius. See this PDF of a court filing here: www.pod702.co.za/Eyewitnessnews/docs/130219oscar_papers.pdf. (This is a PDF file, so I do not know how to make it appear as a "link" that actually "links".) It is merely common everyday convenience, simplification, and abbreviation to refer to this case as "State vs Pistorius". I made this change to the introduction, and someone changed it back. So, if we want to use the term "officially known as", we need to use the official name of The State vs Oscar Leonard Carl Pistorius. If we want to use the name "State vs Pistorius", we need to describe it with some word other than "official" (perhaps, "commonly known as"). Any thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

See this Wikipedia article, for a similar example: O. J. Simpson murder case. It states: "The O. J. Simpson murder case (officially the People of the State of California vs. Orenthal James Simpson) was a criminal trial held at the Superior Court in Los Angeles County, California, ... ". It does not state that the official name is "State vs. Simpson" (which is what it would commonly be referred to as). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The court "roll" presented in the lead as a reference ([1] does not state that the official name of the case is "State vs Pistorius". That court roll itself is also using an abbreviated form of the official name for convenience and simplification. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

We don't need to use a different word, we can just leave it out. HelenOnline 18:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. However, I think that putting an administrative case number is silly; that is trivial information of no import – or interest – whatsoever. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Linking to day-by-day media coverage without necessarily adding content?

First of all I am premising that media coverage of the trial is itself a topic worthy of encyclopaedic coverage. The article has been exemplary I think in providing this, Helen's recent edit on a piece by Anton Harber especially valuable.

I posit this scenario: in years to come readers may be curious to see how contemporary media recorded the events at the time. This of course is something that we can expect academic departments at universities, amongst others, to engage in. But not everyone of course has access to the specialist databases of academia and the like. Wikipedia can provide a valuable role here, especially because its citation models support archiving (using, for example, WebCite or Wayback).

I've been trying to think of a way of recording this even when there is no content added for a particular day (and in any case even when content is added the number of citations that can be added is limited to perhaps three or four if the tail of citations is not going to intrude on legibility). In my sandboxes linked here I have been experimenting with a table, but that doesn't really strike me as very successful.

Ideas welcome. Recording social media a huge topic I would like to see someone with the requisite programming skills initiate on Wikipedia as well. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 02:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Opening sentence

The opening sentence of this article currently states: "The trial of Oscar Pistorius for the murder of Reeva Steenkamp (The State vs Oscar Pistorius) ... ". However, I don't think that the trial is simply for the murder alone. I thought that they (the authorities) had aggregated several other charges all into one trial (some gun charges, etc.). No? If so, perhaps the intro sentence can be reworded? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The trial is just for the murder, though, per South African law, they may find him guilty of a lesser offence if it is decided that he is not guilty of the murder. Does this help?123.2.223.96 (talk) 09:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand the trial is for four separate charges, although murder is the main one. HelenOnline 10:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Joseph is right, but I personally don't think it necessary to add the other counts into the opening sentence, or indeed in the lead. They're mentioned in the opening sentences of the "Trial" section. However if Joseph wants to mention them in the lead, I shan't quibble. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 10:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. But, actually, I was thinking the exact opposite. I am not saying that we should add the other four (minor) charges into the lead. I am saying that we should remove the murder charge from the lead. The words "the trial for the murder of Reeva Steenkamp" – when they are in the lead ... and in the very first sentence, no less – gives the reader a false impression that this is "just" a murder trial. Clearly, murder is the most important charge. But, it is really not a trial "for the murder of RS". In actuality, it is a trial for the commission of several crimes (including the murder of RS). I just think the present wording – especially within the very first sentence – is quite misleading to the reader. Thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Another thought. If all of the (alleged) crimes occurred on the same date within one incident (i.e., while in the commission of the murder), then I don't think it would be much of an issue. The commission of any crime typically involves several lesser ancillary crimes. For example, if I break into someone's house and murder them, that one incident involves many crimes: murder, burglary, gun charges, assault, robbery, etc. But, in the Oscar Pistorius case, I believe that they are talking about several different incidents that occurred over the course of several weeks (months?) that had nothing whatsoever to do with the night of the murder. For example, several weeks before the murder, he (allegedly) discharged a gun in the middle of some restaurant. That is a totally separate incident, in time and place, having no relation whatsoever to the murder incident. I believe there are other separate incidents as well. So, in essence, the State is saying: he committed such and such crime in Incident #1; a few days later, he committed several different crimes in Incident #2; and then on February 14, he committed a separate Incident #3, which was a murder. I don't think it's correct (or fair to the readers) to clump four different crimes in four different incidents all under the umbrella of "the murder of RS". And certainly not in the lead; much less, in the article's very first introductory words. Thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I think we have to say what the trial is for in the lead. I was ok with just including murder but I think you have a point. We should probably add gun-related charges. If he is found not guilty of murder (or culpable homicide) and found guilty of other gun-related charges then the article would make more sense retrospectively. HelenOnline 16:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Any clarification is helpful. Even if it's a very generic statement along the lines of "trial for the murder of RS and several gun-related offenses" (or whatever). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I concur with this change. For reference, the charges are listed in full here.--Carwil (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The change looks good. Thanks to the editor who made the change. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Good faith WP:BOLD "Event of Killing" section

This was a verbatim transcript of Pistorius' testimony relating to the killing itself. I've blanked it. It may well have a place in an after the event WP:BOLD rewrite of the "Trial" section, but not for now for multiple reasons including WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOTNEWS. For the same reasons we didn't allow a verbatim quote of Pistorius' bail application, and the same holds now. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Paddy Power

There was a Paddy Power advert involving betting on the Oscar Pistorius trial - it is currently the most complained about advert in history. It has been included on the Paddy Power page; would it be relevant to include it here? I see there is already a section on the trial's coverage in media: would it perhaps fit there? Bilorv (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't see why not. I saw it, but didn't know it had become the most complained advert in history (that's what makes it notable, so be sure to add a citation). Go ahead. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 22:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bilorv again. I've just been looking at your links. Warmly support your idea. If you don't, I will. I'll give you a few days to get your edit in. What an amazing story! Thanks for bringing it up. I'll archive your sources for you if you don't know how to do that. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree it should be included in the media section and will do it when I have the time if nobody else has done it by then. HelenOnline 08:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I have added a summary in my own words. HelenOnline 15:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Helen. Bilorv (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Nathan121212 diff

I was really hoping we wouldn't have to deal with edits like this. It's plainly partisan and I have reverted it on neutral point of view grounds, but now another editor User:Dodger67 has restored it with the edit comment looks like a neutral description, the writer doesn't comment at all. But editors commenting is another issue altogether (original research), what is at stake here is the bias of the edit and it's clear it's total fail on that ( at the least we need "Death" Nel's cross examination of Botha and Pistorius)

I'm going to revert again, and after that recuse myself. I volunteered my time here, but it was on the understanding that I wouldn't involve myself with edit wars and the like. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 23:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm new to this article, actually been trying to avoid it. I don't understand how an edit that consists only of "A said this then B said that" backed by solid sources, is not neutral. I'm outta here, I was somehow hoping this article might not be toxic, but I must have been really naive. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Somebody is going to have to update this article on the progress of the trial. Unfortunately this will not be me. Nathan121212 (talk) 06:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT, WP:BALANCE and WP:IMPARTIAL would be good places to start understanding. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 10:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how Nathan121212's edit is partisan. Their cross examination came later, and presumably that is why it has not been included yet. That is one problem with daily news-like updates which I am steering clear of unless I see an obvious error or omission. All the evidence ultimately needs to be pulled together in a sensible way which can only be done after the judge has delivered their verdict. I expect the closing statements and the final judgement to highlight the most important points for us. HelenOnline 08:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

No, Helen. Ducks quack and I don't know what partisans do (part?) but it was parting all right. Pistorius began his testimony after Botha was cross-examined and media all reported that Botha made significant concessions. Moreover the edit should have indicated that the other state pathologist concurred with the testifying state pathologist, and that Botha was working only from photographs and was not present at the original autopsy. Finally, while I don't think we should be doing news edits here, we can at least insist that such good faith edits that do find their way here should be up to date.

But yes, I entirely agree with the rest of it. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 10:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

One way to avoid such problems would be to ban articles about ongoing trials, i.e. WP only has articles about trials that are over and done with. Short of such a ban, editors should try to be more exact and not say POV when they actually meant UNDUE -the difference really does matter. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Endlessly discussed many places elsewhere, Roger. WP:UNDUE is part of WP:NPOV (what I quoted), so what's your problem with quoting NPOV? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the assumption of bad faith ("WP:NPOV. Plainly partisan.") is uncalled for here. It has also discouraged a relatively new African editor, something Wikipedia is in very short supply of. If you feel the section is unbalanced, then balance it or tag it or discuss it on the talk page. Repeatedly removing the whole edit on supposed NPOV grounds is not the best way to improve the article which now has no coverage of the defence's evidence whatsoever. HelenOnline 13:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Your assumption "bad faith" Helen. I just chose not to call it "good faith". But it's not an assumption that the edit was plainly partisan. It was, and in a minor case I would indeed have made a correcting edit as I have done before. But this needed a major rewrite I wasn't prepared to supply, especially because as you know I don't support these kind of news edits. Reverting on NPOV ground is a standard way of dealing with WP:BOLD edits like these. Discussion on Talk pages like this is the second step. After looking at my remarks, the editor is welcome to present a revised version which addresses the issues I raise. If this is a newbie (from South Africa wherever) then it's ambitious is it not to weigh into an ongoing BLP issue? She will have to up her game quite a lot to meet par, won't she? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

In response to the above post, I have re-written the disputed edit regarding 7 April in the Oscar trial. I hope you find it more balanced. If not, revert it and we can keep it at three lines per day in court, offering vague but balanced pieces of information. Nathan121212 (talk) 20:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I am recusing myself here. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 22:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

{{Unbalanced section}} template "Progress of Trial"

I don't really think this is an appropriate template. The trial itself is not a "controversial" issue (any more than the murder charge is an "alleged" charge as an editor earlier would have had it).

Merely because what has been recorded so far is mainly the prosecution case doesn't mean that the coverage is unbalanced. Indeed I've taken some care to see the coverage here is neutral. For example here (on my IP), where I edited to outline the nature of the defence's case, and here, where I edited to include that ninety percent (the media's figure at the time) of the text messages between the couple were normal.

So the template is something of a personal affront as well as a vexing misrepresentation of the situation. Needless to say if there's anything there that misses NPOV I shall be happy to correct were the complaining editor unable for some reason to fix it herself.

I've made it clear that I don't support edits describing the ongoing progress of the trial. However when good faith edits do appear that comply with Wikipedia standards we should keep them. That wasn't the case with Nathan121212's edit. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 13:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Prosthetic legs

I understand it is now common cause (undisputed in court) that Pistorius was not wearing his prosthetic legs when the shooting took place, contrary to what was presented by the prosecution in the bail hearing which is covered in the article. This is not currently mentioned in the article rendering it somewhat misleading. At some point we need to address this. HelenOnline 07:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

What is the basis of that "understanding" (speaking loosely ...) please? The trial coverage here looks fan based to me. 31.6.15.218 (talk) 05:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

It is based on the testimony of state ballistics expert Captain Mangena, which is not currently covered in the article. I personally would be happy to remove the news-like trial progress section as it is by its nature incomplete, unbalanced and is furthermore not being kept up-to-date. HelenOnline 06:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

No. Captain Mangena was the prosecution's ballistic expert but the prosecution is not bound by his evidence. In a similar way the defence witness Jan Botha testified that the four shots were fired as two "double-taps", but after this was challenged by the prosecution the defence made haste to clarify it was not part of the defence's case that the shots were in fact double-taps (ibid).

You are quite wrong to assert that the question of "stumps" is common cause and you should strike it, and in general refrain from adding your personal opinions on the case to the Talk page.

Regarding the question of the ongoing progress of the trial, the days when Wikipedia was a welcome refuge for bloggers wishing to sound off about current events at the slightest push of a mouse have been largely superseded by Twitter. But there will remain editors of a possibly more serious mien (perhaps more literate, even to the extent of even been able to spell correctly the South African way), who will wish to contribute, and your only task should be to see that their edits conforms to the encyclopaedic standards Wikipedia professes. You plainly did not nothing of the sort at your protegé Nathan121212's newbie edit complained of by User:Coat of Many Colours. In that case the defence witness Jan Botha's evidence that Steenkamp would not have had time to scream was closely quoted without referring to the subsequent cross examination, while at the same time the prosecution's own witness such as Mangena testifying that she would have had time had not previously been quoted in the article. Of course that was hopelessly unbalanced, yet you could find (speaking loosely again ...) no cause with it.

I frankly think you lack the expertise to function here. You should revert the section to its state before Nathan contributed, and at the very least exercise more caution in overseeing the section. If indeed you have at any point been involved with Pistorius' fan base you should not be commenting here at all, don't you think? 207.207.28.217 (talk) 12:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Please read the article I linked above, especially this part: "Last year prosecutors alleged that Pistorius was wearing his prostheses when he fired through the door, claiming that the time he took to put them on was evidence of premeditated murder. In his statement, Pistorius claimed he was in a panic and ran to the bathroom on his stumps. The prosecution has since accepted this version." If you believe I have a conflict of interest, please address it with evidence at the appropriate noticeboard per WP:NPA. It would also be great if you could log in before you edit. HelenOnline 13:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Fine by me, User:207.207.28.217, remove my edits, I'll refrain from editing trial articles.Nathan121212 (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

No Helen, you're tailoring your position (where have I heard that complaint before)? Either it's Mangena's testimony or it's the Guardian journalist's assertion. Which is it? I agree if you had made a good faith edit in the article asserting common cause citing the Guardian, that would have been acceptable. I would have reverted it at once pointing out that the Guardian was simply mistaken. But that was not what you did.

This issue of social media (Wikipedia is first and foremost a social media site) commenting on the trial is a matter to take seriously. I haven't looked at today's proceedings, but I gather an issue arose today regarding Facebook. If it is ever shown that editors supporting one or other of the parties, perhaps closely associated with them, are editing here to cast their party's case in a favourable light, then that is a matter that could potentially impinge on the trial and damage Wikipedia. That is why it is so important to see that edits here are meticulous in respect of impartiality. That was what I was doing and I recused myself precisely because you have let standards slip. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

@HelenOnline: Well, I see your update. The fact is you're wrong on a point of law. I have no idea where this will end (a bit like Harry Potter is dit nie), but I do know you are quite wrong. Good luck. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no interest in pursuing a discussion with someone who does not understand WP:NPA. If you have any issue with me or my edits please address it with evidence at the relevant noticeboard. HelenOnline 06:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Long before that you made it quite clear you're not interested in discussing the issues here. To point out you're wrong and to challenge you on the issue is a personal attack? I shall return here to summarise the judgment. I'm very sorry indeed to see the "Progress of the trial" section degenerate into shambolic juvenilia (our new editors not even concerned to maintain continuity with the existing text so anxious are they make their points) under your stewardship. There was no need for that, and it is entirely your fault. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

@Nathan. I suggest you remove your edits if indeed you have any liability in the directions suggested. Otherwise you only need to do that if community consensus is against you, and clearly it isn't. But you might on reflection consider the objections I raise are valid. A quick fix would be remove them. Or you can continue your program of edits. Since you've discussed Jan Botha's evidence you should also go back and cover the corresponding evidence from the prosecution. And then of course you need to get the thing up to date. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality "Progress of trial" section

At present defence testimony that Reeva Steenkamp did not have time to scream is presented, whereas the prosecution testimony that she would have had time to scream and that it would have been abnormal for her not to is not presented. No significant mention is made of Pistorius' testimony (but his apology is quoted, and his biographical details and "vulnerability" mentioned), and nothing of his cross-examination lasting five days nor media reaction to it. It's not merely that the section is outdated, it's plainly unbalanced and fails Wikipedia standards.

These issues simply have to be addressed. As set out above, I have recused myself from contributing. Presently there is an adjournment until May 5 and I suggest contributing editors get their act together in the meantime (they may also like to address the question of continuity of text when they make their edits). I'm astonished that editors interested in adding material here can be content with the present situation. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 09:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

After taking a look at the Wikipedia guideline pages to linked to and considering the reasoning you have provided, I have decided that I lack the experience to contribute to articles of this nature. Thanks for your help and co-ordination of this article.Nathan121212 (talk) 04:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I should have thought that indeed pretty clear. Helen apparently differing, although she argues the section is inherently unbalanced; again where we differ, I think a section like this can be valuable if it records ongoing media response for example.

Drunk gets on bus. Sits down and pukes into lap of neighbour. Neighbour remonstrates. Drunk apologises gracefully. Explains he is too drunk to clean up mess. Everyone on bus agrees that's fine with them.

It still needs sorting. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 09:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I've contacted contributing editors about this. In my view two things at least are needed:

• A balancing edit to record that expert witness for the prosecution testified that Reeva Steenkamp would have had time to scream and that it would have been abnormal for her not to.

• A balancing edit for Pistorius' apology. Perhaps recording Reeva Steenkamp's mother's response in the press following?

An alternative (which I prefer) would be to strike the edit I originally reverted, so that the concluding paragraph would look like this:

On 28 March, the trial was postponed until 7 April as one of the assessors fell ill. On 7 April, Pistorius began testifying in his own defence at the trial. The cross examination of Pistorius lasted for five days, and ended on April 15th.

If come May 5 this still hasn't been fixed, then I'll edit per my second preferred suggestion the evening before. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 10:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Added: I have reverted a WP:OR (also WP:UNDUE and in fact both inaccurate and inconsequential) edit of the first paragraph of the section, the editor not responding to a request for clarification their Talk page.

Unless there is a prior good faith attempt by contributing editors to address the issues I indicate above, I shall edit tomorrow evening as indicated my preference. I don't see how that edit can be allowed to stand as is. At the same time I shall take the not inconsiderable trouble to cite and archive the Daily Maverick's write-up of Oscar Pistorius' evidence. This would be my best good faith attempt at clearing up here. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 07:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey, look who got kicked off of Wikipedia. Nathan121212 (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Roger Dixon

No mention of Roger Dixon's testimony? Roger Dixon was the third defence witness after Oscar Pistorius testified himself in the trial and he continued testifying on the 16th and 17th of April before the adjournment until the 5th may. Sure, Gerrie Nel ripped him apart because he testified in areas outside his field of expertise and was called as expert witness but I think that he ought to still be mentioned in the "progress of trial" section. 41.135.20.69 (talk) 20:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi IP. I'm going to be editing here tomorrow, unless some else cares to before me(which indeed I encourage, I'm only seeking to redress what I consider is an imbalance). I shan't be referencing Roger Dixon's testimony, though I certainly think his testimony should be included in any rewrite after the judgment is in. On the whole contributors here haven't concentrated on the minutiae of witness testimony, but of course you're welcome to make a contribution. Someone might well like to add an edit about his Facebook remark in the Social Media section. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Minor correction

Hi, I've just made a minor correction. The name of the estate manager who testified at the trial on monday 5 May was Johan Stander, not John Stander. I think that the mistake stems from a typo in the cited news article. Here's another one that gives his correct name:

http://citizen.co.za/170322/pistorius-broken-neighbour/ 41.132.50.137 (talk) 21:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, IP. Thanks for that. I shifted this down to the end BTW. Nothing significant in that, we just expect new contributions to be tagged at the end. Thanks for your help. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 05:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Evaluation and "simple fact incident took place at night"

An IP is persistently entering her opinion that the evaluation should be on a in-patient basis (i.e. including observation at night) because the incident took place at night. I allowed her to cite newspaper speculation that the evaluation should be on an in-patient basis, indeed a useful edit and I archived her citation for her, but the newspaper in question did not raise the issue of the incident taking place at night, nor am I aware of any newspaper reports that have (I follow several).

Wikipedia is not a repository of personal opinion or original research. If IP can provide a newspaper or other reliable source raising this point , then she may make the edit. But unless she can she should stop making this edit. 128.90.102.23 (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC) (CoMC abroad)

Incidentally I am presently unable to edit here effectively (because I am abroad and for privacy related issues unable to access my account) and it's likely this will extend beyond the end of the trial. So I propose to recuse myself from overseeing here. No doubt others here will be well able to take on the task. Thank you. 128.90.103.152 (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC) (CoMC abroad)

Re: "21:55, 29 May 2014‎ 128.90.102.23 (talk)‎ . . (69,925 bytes) (-110)‎ . . (→‎Progress of the trial: No. WP:OR. This is your judgement. Please provide a reliable source. See Talk page and please stop doing this without RS (CoMC))"

It's not a matter of individual or personal judgement - the incident occurred at night, fact. The judge chose to decree that evaluation is undertaken during day time, obviously there is certain cause for criticism of the judge for her inability to rationalise the fact the incident occurred at night and the resultant need for observation and evaluation of the defendant in the same circumstances. That potential for criticism of Masipa tallies with, and highlights, the arguably surprising difference between her actions and the opinions of medical experts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.202.143.128 (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

If you want to include criticism of the judge, you will need to find such criticism in a reliable source and attribute it to someone in particular. You cannot even join up different sources to suggest criticism like this, that is synthesis, i.e. original research not allowed on Wikipedia which is an encyclopedia not a primary source of information. HelenOnline 15:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Wiki primitive, much? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.202.143.127 (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. Support Helen. Just in transit here. I really don't expect to be editing here rest of the trial. I'm sure Helen and the rest will do a good job. Might write up the eventual judgment some time if it's not written up already, or more likely a colleague will. I know there are some new points in law Judge Masipa will have to address and it will be an interesting judgment. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 00:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced edits

Per WP:BLPREMOVE and WP:BLPCRIME I removed an unsourced edit by 123.2.223.96 yesterday and again today because it involves living persons and alleged crimes and because I have concerns about its accuracy. It is my understanding that Pistorius has not formally changed his plea on any charges. I have notified the IP on their talk page yesterday and today. HelenOnline 12:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Source:

• Kobedi, Palesa (8 August 2014). "Pistorius defence team pleads for leniency". SABC News. Archived from the original on 9 August 2014. Retrieved 9 August 2014. Pistorius is also charged with three contraventions of the Firearms Control Act, one of illegal possession of ammunition and two of discharging a firearm in public. He has pleaded not guilty to these charges as well. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help) HelenOnline 12:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The Telegraph describes a change in the defence's approach to one of the gun charges but it does not represent a change in the accused's plea per se:

• Conway-Smith, Erin (8 August 2014). "Oscar Pistorius to learn fate on September 11". The Telegraph. Archived from the original on 9 August 2014. Retrieved 9 August 2014. In an about-turn, Mr Roux said in his closing argument that Pistorius was guilty of negligence for discharging a gun in a crowded Johannesburg restaurant, an incident which took place just a month before Ms Steenkamp's death. Pistorius had previously pleaded not guilty to the charge. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help) HelenOnline 12:35, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

eNCA explains what led to Roux's concession:

• Gifford, Gill (9 August 2014). "Oscar Trial: Roux blames state for Pistorius's court behavior". eNCA. Retrieved 9 August 2014. Judge Masipa asked Roux what he thought the court should rule, with regard to the incident, prompting Roux to say that Pistorius had been wrong to ask for Fresco's firearm and had been wrong to take hold of it. HelenOnline 13:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

He most definitely did change his plea, per the televised court trial, which was documented online in video. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/oscar-pistorius-trial-recap-updates-4022881#.U-ZdM_mSxIE I am not sure why they chose not to document that in the transcripts, but it was most definitely spoken that he had changed his plea. Perhaps there are legal reasons, because how he changed his plea was a bit strange. He was admitting to the lesser charge, and only in the case of the restaurant. With the others, he was still pleading not guilty. All that he was admitting to was that he handled a loaded firearm in the restaurant - he maintains that he did not fire it. But since you obviously didn't follow the trial, and are disputing it so heavily, I will leave it out. But please do not accuse me of making it up, when I most certainly was not! Thank you! 123.2.223.96 (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Wait on, your source above proves that he DID change his plea. LOL. Why the hell did you delete it? Improve, don't abuse! 123.2.223.96 (talk) 17:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I have re-added everything, but more closely quoting from the newspapers. As proven, everything I said before was 100% accurate. Please be more respectful in the future. If you feel it is unimportant that he changed his plea, or that his lawyer saying that he changed his plea and the judge accepting it not being what it means, then you can of course edit it. I added the plea bit word for word from what you wrote above. How odd that you say the same thing as me but pretend that you are proving me opposite. Very strange thing to do. You aren't a politician by any chance, are you? 123.2.223.96 (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I am only complying with Wikipedia's BLP policy, which is not negotiable. As I have stated above, the defence's concession in their closing statement does not represent a formal change in the accused's plea per se. This article is about living people involved in alleged crimes so we do need to be careful. Incidentally, your newspaper quote/close paraphrasing is WP:COPYVIO. HelenOnline 21:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

No, you made errors, and you fixed things that were accurate the first time, changing from right to wrong. If you are going to do that, don't go around saying that you are a wonderful perfect person. It is probably better to stay out of things if you aren't interested in publishing the truth. I can't believe that Wikipedia policy could be to publish falsehoods. Also, of note, you allowed a lot of inaccurate information in this article, but I have fixed that now. Next time, check your facts. Thanks. 123.2.223.96 (talk) 03:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

If you have any genuine concerns about me or my edits, please raise them at WP:ANI with supporting evidence. HelenOnline 14:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I removed the unresolved copyvio yesterday. The IP reworded it and added it back. I have removed it again as it does not reflect what is written in the source cited. The IP seems intent on distinguishing between "discharging" and "handling" the gun, even in the copyvio version, a distinction which is not made in the source cited. HelenOnline 14:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Fixed a number of errors

There were a number of errors in the article, where, in spite of linking to articles, whoever wrote it misquoted the article and published things that were quite simply false. I corrected them, giving the article a more neutral and more accurate tone. You can see my changes in the history. There shouldn't be any need for more edits until the decision is made on 11 September, unless we want to get more detailed. 123.2.223.96 (talk) 03:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for HelenOnline to cease editing this article

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.

---

I am going to request that HelenOnline stay out of this article. Per above, I note that she has caused many problems in trying to control this article. It is better if others who are more neutral and accurate take control. Thanks. Helen, I am requesting that you voluntarily watch from the sidelines here. 123.2.223.96 (talk) 03:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see her trying to control the article, she made a few reverts based on valid policy concerns. Phrases like "shouldn't be any need for more edits" may seem like you dictating the terms and trying to control the article. Expecting someone to stay out of editing an article is counterproductive in a collaborative encyclopedia especially if the other user is concerned about policies like WP:BLP. That being said, if you disagree with any of her edits, engage on the talk page like you've been doing already, argue your case and gain a consensus if the changes are controversial. Regards,  NQ  talk 07:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Per the talk page, HelenOnline has been a major disruption for the article's neutrality. I call for her to voluntarily stop editing this page. Her latest edits, in addition to her earlier edits, have been very destructive to this page. 123.2.223.96 (talk) 09:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Any more unfounded requests like this will be treated as harassment. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with User:NeilN, the edits by User:HelenOnline are in line with the BLP policy, whereas some edits by User:123.2.223.96 have not been within policy. Further, per WP:OWN the IP editor has no right to dictate to other editors. It is particularly distasteful to attack the integrity of an editor with a well established track record of excellent contribution to the project. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, per WP:OWN, HelenOnline is doing the wrong thing by Wikipedia. She is controlling this article. I have only edited for a day or two, I am not trying to control things. I just want her to stop destroying the article, adding in things that are wrong. Check it out. She was 100% wrong with every single thing she said. 123.2.223.96 (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2014 (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.

BLP Noticeboard Discussion

Sorry I didn't get around to adding this here yesterday. Adding it now for the talk page record. HelenOnline 08:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Saw you at the noticeboard. You were quite right to revert the IP's edit, which was OR commentary from start to finish. You are also correct on a point of law concerning a concession made by the defense. I shall watch this page. RR 2014 (talk) 11:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate more eyes on the page. HelenOnline 14:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Related discussions archived here, here and here. HelenOnline 11:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

wow, some haters on here

he was found not guilty of murder, yet that keeps getting removed because the haters dont like it. We can wait for the full verdict, but its a fact he was innocent of the charge of murder, and that really should be stated on here?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.28.57 (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that you didn't cite a reliable source. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability for more information. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, sources for the verdict The Guardian South African judge says insufficient evidence for murder verdict but manslaughter charge still pending, The Telegraph Oscar Pistorius cleared of murder charges: as it happened, Independent Judge Thokozile Masipa has said that Oscar Pistorius is not guilty of murdering his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp and adjourns the verdict until Friday., Daily Mail Oscar Pistorius verdict: Athlete found NOT guilty of Reeva Steenkamp's murder but must wait to hear if he will be charged with manslaughter, HuffPo With the premeditated murder charge off the table, Pistorius can still face a charge of culpable homicide, which means he may spend 5 years in prison rather than 25 years. He is also facing three unrelated weapons charges: two counts of unlawfully firing a gun in public and one count of illegal possession of ammunition., LA Times Oscar Pistorius verdict: 'Negligent' but not guilty of murder. So I'll add a section now. SPACKlick (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The verdict is still being delivered, please wait for the judge to finish tomorrow. Nothing is official at this stage and we shouldn't be speculating about that here even if the media does. HelenOnline 15:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

i dont see why we have to wait Helen? If he was found guilty I think you would be the 1st one on here plastring it all over every article you could find!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.28.57 (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2014

User:86.162.28.57 I would recommend removing the second half of that comment as it could be construed as a [attack] which is against one of the [of our community]SPACKlick (talk) 16:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Verdict

I disagree with having to wait for the entire verdict. This article specifically deals with the trial so all notable trial developments should probably be added as they are reported. Being found not guilty of murder is notable. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

She did declare that the state had not met the burden of proof on the charge of Premeditated murder The state clearly has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of premeditated murder...Viewed in its totality, the evidence failed to establish that the accused had the requisite intention to kill the deceased, let alone with premeditation...The accused therefore cannot be found guilty of murder. . I was considering adding a section along the lines of the below.

Verdict

On 11 September Judge Masipia began to deliver the verdict. She found Pistorius not guilty of premeditated murder. [1] She also began summing up the decision relating to culpable homicide before adjourning until the following day.[2]

I was planning on using the independent as reference [1] and I think the guardian for reference [2]. SPACKlick (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support That can be expanded tomorrow, keeping the 11 September text. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

This seems premature. No verdict has been delivered. It would have been better to wait until October, when he is sentenced to include the verdict. What we know now is what he has been found not guilty of, not what he has been found guilty of. It is supposition to assume that he has been found guilty of culpable homicide. He hasn't been. Not yet anyway. Totorotroll (talk) 17:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Seriously?! Where have you been hiding the last two days? It's now the evening of the 13th, the full verdict was delivered yesterday. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Totorotroll, you've misunderstood the situation. Here you can see the judge reading the verdict: "[...] on count 1, murder [...], the accused is found not guilty and is discharged; instead he is found guilty of culpable homicide." - htonl (talk) 19:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

"Current" Tag

So someone removed the current tag. I have re-instated because 1) 16 users have made 31 edits today and the slow down is because it's night in the area where the event is occuring but it will be restarting in 8 hours, and "many editors in a day" is defined as "a dozen or more" on the template page which also specifies "breaking news". 2) It's the second event in the Current Events portal. SPACKlick (talk) 20:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd recommend removing this tag today, maybe in an hour once statements have been made.SPACKlick (talk) 11:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Unanimous verdict

I was confused by the use of the term "unanimous" in relation to the verdict only to find it in several sources. Is there a specific meaning here, because you can't have a unanimity of one. SPACKlick (talk) 09:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not a unanimity of one, the verdict was arrived at by the judge and two assessors. HelenOnline 09:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the "unanimity" related to three different people (the judge and her two assessors) coming to agreement. However, I do not think that the article makes this clear. The article states: On 11 September Judge Masipa began to deliver the court's unanimous verdict. It should offer some clarification as to what "unanimous" means in this context and that the verdict was decided by three people. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Firearms charge

Please read the article source I added, which is a far better source than a live running commentary from court. Discharging a firearm in public describes the incident not the crime/charge. HelenOnline 09:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Detailed verdict

Are we agreed on the following?

1. Premeditated murder - Not guilty
2. Culpable homicide - Guilty
3. Intentional unlawful discharge of a firearm (car incident) - Not guilty
4. Negligent/Reckless? discharge of a firearm (restaurant incident) - Guilty
5. Illegal possession of ammunition - Not guilty

Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, I changed your bullets to numbers for easier discussion. It is your 4th statement that I am unsure on. The quotes I have seen suggest that that charge was identical to the third but none of them are solid. It'll become clearer when we get better sources.SPACKlick (talk) 09:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I would leave out "premeditated", as he was also cleared of other types of murder. I don't agree 100% with the terminology relating to the firearms charges, looking for the exact wording now. HelenOnline 09:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

We should really try to find the exact wording of the relevant sections of the Firearms Control Act (2000). In general I'm not entirely comfortable with citing foreign sources - articles written by non-South Africans who have no real grounding in the South African legal system. I have been watching a BBC World News journalist struggling with some of the concepts over the last two days. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I am sure I saw full list of the exact charges with alternatives somewhere and now I can't find it. Grrr HelenOnline 09:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I have a copy of the act but I'm not sure which offense he was guilty of, The original charge was FIREARMS CONTROL ACT 60 OF 2000 Ch16SS120(7)It is an offence to discharge a firearm, an antique firearm or an airgun in a built up area or any public place, without good reason to do so. but the sentence could have been for something else, although I can't find the crime if it was. SPACKlick (talk) 09:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Found it. She found him guilty of the second alternative, CONTRAVENTION OF SECTION 120(3)(B) OF THE FCA - reckless endangerment. HelenOnline 09:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

SPACKlick, please stop edit warring. I have a reliable source for my edit. You can lawfully discharge a firearm in public if you have a good reason to do so. HelenOnline 09:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

[2] The original indictement lists the 4 counts as

1. Murder-section 51(1) Act 105 1997
2. Contraventions of section 120(7) of the Firearms Control Act
   1. Alternative Contravention 120(3)(b) of the Firearms Control Act
3. Contraventions of section 120(7) of the Firearms Control Act
   1. Alternative Contraventions of 120(3)(a) of the Firearms control Act
   2. Alternative Contraventions of 120(4)(a) of the Firearms control Act
4. Contravention of Section 90 of the Firearms control Act

The count being discussed is Count 3. So it's either discharge of a firearm in a public place, causing damage to property of any person by negligently using a firearm or handling a firearm while under the influence of a substance which has an intoxicating or a narcotic effect. 3(b) wasn't an option for charge 3. It needs a clear source otherwise use the quotes in the sources. SPACKlick (talk) 09:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The indictment contradicts itself, please see page 4. HelenOnline 09:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for the deleted edit, it didn't show up on the edit conflict pageSPACKlick (talk) 10:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

To Quote your source Helen Count 3 was contravening the provisions of Section 120(7) read with Sections 1, 103, 120(1)(a), Section 121 read with Schedule 4 and Section 151 of the FCA - DISCHARGE OF A FIREARM IN A BUILT UP AREA OR ANY PUBLIC PLACE. (emphasis original) The alternatives were contravening the provisions of Section 120(3)(a) read with Sections 1, 103, 120(1)(a), Section 121 read with Schedule 4 and Section 151 of the FCA - NEGLIGENT DAMAGE TO PROPERTY. and contravening the provisions of Section 120(3)(b) read with Sections 1, 103, 120(1)(a), Section 121 read with Schedule 4 and Section 151 of the FCA - RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT. I can find no source claiming Reckless Endangerment, no source claiming negligent damage to property and several using phrases along the lines of Discharge of a firearm in a public place.SPACKlick (talk) 10:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Per the source I added: "Oscar Pistorius has been found guilty of culpable homicide and negligent handling of a firearm ... The judge insisted that during the incident at the restaurant, Pistorius had shown a reckless disregard for the safety of the patrons, as he had chosen to handle a firearm in a public space." I recall her saying he was guilty of the second alternative, although I have not looked or found a source for that yet. HelenOnline 10:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not denying that in deliberations the judge emphasised the reckless nature of the incident however I distinctly remember her saying something like source "He may not have intentionally pulled the trigger but that does not absolve him." I would have expected a reference to a lower count at that time. Also could you point to what you feel is a contradiction in the indictment? SPACKlick (talk) 10:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The detailed section on page 4 of the indictment gives a different section of the act for the second alternative of count 3, as per the source I added for the exact charges. HelenOnline 10:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Good spot, I also just found this Which gives the guilty as 120(3)(b) Discharge or Handling of a firearm in a manner likely to endager safety or property of any person with reckless disregard for safety or property of any person. Point now sourced and conceded. So how would you like to word it? SPACKlick (talk) 10:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Also [3] is a video of the verdict being delivered, I can't watch it right now but it will give us the wording the judge used. SPACKlick (talk) 10:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I think we should spell it out so that there is no confusion, i.e. cite the section of the act verbatim which we are allowed to do as there is no copyright in SA legislation. HelenOnline 10:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I made a pro tem edit to remove my inaccuracy in the article. So would a wording like " guilty of contravening Section 120(3)(b) of the Firearms Control Act having handled a firearm in a manner likely to endanger the safety or property of persons with reckless disregard for said safety or property "? It's a bit wordy but maybe you can improve it.SPACKlick (talk) 10:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I would prefer to leave your pro tem edit as is and add both detailed offences for which he was convicted verbatim separately. There really isn't a good general understanding of exactly what the offences are. HelenOnline 10:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I think giving specific details and directly quoting the relevant sections is the most responsible thing to do in terms of the requirements of BLP - the "wordiness" is necessary to ensure accuracy. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I would like to point out for sake of transparency my sentence above is not a direct quote but a heavily edited precis which could (technically) be considered synthesis, the full text of the provision is very wordy It is an offence to discharge or otherwise handle a firearm, an antique firearm or an airgun in a manner likely to injure or endanger the safety or property of any person or with reckless disregard for the safety or property of any person SPACKlick (talk) 10:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Understood, hence my request to rather quote the text verbatim. HelenOnline 10:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hot off the press - Court adjourned, bail extended and the sentencing hearing to commence on 13 October. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

How's that? HelenOnline 13:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you've nailed it! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Prosecutorial appeal?

Not being familiar with South African law, does the Prosecution have an avenue to appeal or charge him on "civil rights" before a higher court? I don't have access to any S. African books on law here . . . but if an RS could be quickly summarized, it would be an interesting note for the article.HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I read that the prosecution will decide whether or not they will appeal after the sentencing takes place. Therefore, it seems that they do have the ability to appeal. Here is one source: Watch the moment Oscar Pistorius is found guilty of culpable homicide but not murder. This article states, in the very first paragraph: "Prosecutors said they were disappointed by the ruling but would decide on whether to appeal only after sentencing". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I edited on dolus eventualis in the Verdict section and linked to this interesting Guardian piece http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/12/pistorius-verdict-questioned-as-state-prepares-appeal on the subject of appeal by one Ulruch Roux, a SA barrister (don't know whether related to Barry Roux). I would say it could reasonably form part of an edit on reaction to the verdict but don't wish to initiate such an edit myself, preferring to follow Helen's example in staying away from on-going reporting of the trial.

(Added) This http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/12/reeva-steenkamp-family-outrage-oscar-pistorius-verdict also perhaps of interest to contributing editors

Incidentally I removed an editorialism suggesting that culpable homicide was a "lesser offence". It's true that in general manslaughter is regarded as as a lesser offence compared to murder, but in this context where Pistorius faces a custodial sentence of up to 15 years I can't see that's a helpful observation. RR 2014 (talk) 04:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

@HammerFilmFan: The prosecution can only appeal on a point of law, i.e. if they believe the court misinterpreted the law.

@RR 2014: I added "lesser offence" as that is the literal meaning of "competent verdict" which I had to look up myself not being a lawyer. I didn't think a source was necessary but there are plenty so I will re-add it with a source. Please don't call it editorialism, I was quite puzzled by your edit summary. HelenOnline 06:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

No. A competent verdict is merely an alternative permissible verdict. I recorded Judge Masipa's actual term. "Lesser offence" is your OR explanation. I call that editorialism and judge it unhelpful. My comment stands in this sensitive issue which goes to the heart of what was always going to be a difficult and likely to be misunderstood judgment. Reinstate "lesser offence" if you feel entitled. I didn't need (nor require) instruction as to the circumstances in which the prosecution may appeal. RR 2014 (talk) 06:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

You don't feel that him being found guilty of a lesser offense than murder is pertinent to the article? Really?? HammerFilmFan (talk) 06:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

What is pertinent to the article is that P was found not guilty of murder but of culpable homicide. What I (or you or your armchair) feel about that is indeed not pertinent to the article. Really. RR 2014 (talk) 07:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

There's no reason to be purposely obtuse - as you know that's not what I was saying at all. Helen's edit to the effect that it is a lesser charge than murder is important - the sentence will be much less. Your style of writing is very similar to an IP that was recently blocked - I hope I am wrong, but . . . HammerFilmFan (talk) 07:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not your IP and I was supportive of Helen over that affair. The whole thrust of my remarks here is that I don't think it's helpful to cast culpable homicide as a lesser offence, though I don't doubt that is how it is generally perceived. The reader (you and I and your literate armchair) is entitled to form their own opinion about the matter. I question whether it's helpful for the article to make that judgment. Helen has the option of making an edit somewhere explaining what a "competent verdict" is and link to it, as she indeed did with the definition of culpable homicide. Probably there should be a "Reaction" section, but I'm not prepared to make major ongoing edits here myself. RR 2014 (talk) 09:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The fact that culpable homicide is a lesser offence than murder, or that a competent verdict is a lesser offence (albeit slightly more complicated than that), is not anyone's POV here, it is well-sourced. We can add even more sources if necessary. HelenOnline 10:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

We? At the outset I conceded that culpable homicide (manslaughter) is generally regarded as a less serious offence. What I questioned was whether it was worth emphasizing it in the article, given that a custodial sentence of up to 15 years was possible (and unspoken given also the widespread POV that P had "got off"). As I say I have no more to contribute here. Regarding the subsequent editing indulged by your editors, I would say that the relevant section is now both ungrammatical and incomprehensible, as well as betraying a thoroughgoing misunderstanding of Judge Masipa's judgment. RR 2014 (talk) 11:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of my edit was to explain the meaning of the term for the layman, as WP is not a legal journal. I am not adding my personal opinion or feelings about it and have added a reliable source, so calling it editorialism or OR is unwarranted and uncivil. Perhaps it can be worded better, but I stand by my edit. If you want more sources, I will add more but do we really need them? HelenOnline 07:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but you did not (perhaps because you are not a lawyer) explain the essential character of a competent verdict, which is not essentially that it's a lesser offence but rather that it's an alternative permissible verdict that can be relied upon. I see you or another editor has substantially amended my original edit in a way I would not have and I feel I have nothing more to contribute here. RR 2014 (talk) 09:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I have tried. HelenOnline 10:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Turns out there is a wikilink for that anyway. HelenOnline 10:33, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

(outdent) - Helen, your edit was fine, and the section is both grammatical and well-done. I have the suspicion this discussion is with a crank, and will be pointless to continue. HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The passage I complain of is as follows:

"On 11 September Judge Masipa said the state had not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Pistorius was guilty of premeditated murder, and dolus eventualis (common-law murder with indirect intent) was also ruled out, accepting that "he did not subjectively foresee this as a possibility". However, Judge Masipa said a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have and his actions were clearly negligent and culpable homicide was thus a competent verdict, i.e. a lesser offence that is a possible alternative verdict."

It is ungrammatical because the pronoun "this" in the quotation (which should be sourced) doesn't refer to any plausible antecedent and the passage is thus incomprehensible. It betrays a misunderstanding of the judgment because the reasonable man test referred to P's actions (for example whether a reasonable man would have fired four shots through the door) and not to any issue involving premeditated murder or dolus evantualis or whatever it is that we are to take the "this" as referring to, that is to say Judge Masipa had moved on from those issues and was addressing whether P acted reasonably given that he genuinely supposed there was an intruder in the toilet. RR 2014 (talk) 14:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, I have expanded on that. It was already sourced but I added a quote to the citation. His subjective foresight of killing someone relates to dolus eventualis, the objective reasonable person foresight thereof to culpable homicide. I though it important to make that distinction. HelenOnline 16:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I only listened to Judge Masipa's verdict and haven't studied it and in any case would not wish to comment on it here. It's certainly true that the subjective element is the test in dolus eventualis and all that is covered in the rather admirable Wikipedia article I found to link to. I suspect some of the negative criticism I have seen of the verdict misunderstands that. If I may say so, I think you're being unnecessarily competitive about a perfectly uncontroversial edit by me. It is not that I am entering into an edit war over whether "lesser charge" should be included in the text. Needless to say I am more than slightly miffed to be labelled a crank by one of your circle. I should hope for a more constructive response should I ever return. On a point of accuracy (correcting myself) I note that in fact P faces a potentially 20 year custodial sentence on the two charges he was found guilty of. RR 2014 (talk) 17:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

My comment re circumstances in which the prosecution may appeal were intended for the OP, I am sorry if that was unclear or I misunderstood their question. HelenOnline 06:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, see that after your @s. Apologies for being short. RR 2014 (talk) 07:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Reaction to the verdict

Contributing editors might care to look at Professor James Grant of the University of the Witwatersrand's blog today on Judge Masipa's interpretation of dolus eventualis here http://criminallawza.net/2014/09/13/pistorius-remains-in-jeopardy-of-a-murder-conviction/. RR 2014 (crank it!) 23:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

erm ... for the record I happen to support Judge Masipa's interpretation on common-sense grounds. I do think culpable homicide is the correct verdict here. Naturally I wouldn't seek to use Wikipedia as a platform for my own views. RR 2014 (crank it!) 23:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

More opinions: HelenOnline 10:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• "Experts differ on Oscar verdict". IOL. SAPA. 11 September 2014. Archived from the original on 18 September 2014. Retrieved 18 September 2014. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• Roux, Ulrich (12 September 2014). "Pistorius verdict: judgment seemed to support charge of 'dolus eventualis'". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 13 September 2014. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• Burchell, Jonathan (17 September 2014). "Masipa's decision to acquit Oscar of murder justified". Business Day. Archived from the original on 19 September 2014. Retrieved 19 September 2014. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• Hawkey, Kim (18 September 2014). "Masipa got Pistorius judgment right – on the law". Business Day. Archived from the original on 18 September 2014. Retrieved 18 September 2014. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• The verdict: Pistorius was lucky, criminal lawyers say - a UK view from The Times. Opinion evenly split whether the verdict would have been likely in the British jury system. Dynamic IP from Chicago (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oscar trial verdict [Part One]: A twist, but problematic and Oscar trial verdict [Part Two]: Guilty of culpable homicide but what about justice? - Gushwell Brooks at The Daily Maverick (SA). Contains a good account of the verdict and implications for sentencing. Part 3 will discuss the sentence. Dynamic IP from Chicago (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Reasonable foresight

There are two aspects of reasonable foresight of killing someone the judge had to assess, the accused's subjective foresight which relates to a dolus eventualis verdict and the reasonable person's foresight which relates to a culpable homicide verdict. She came to different conclusions in each case, so clearly they are not the same thing. I think it is important to mention both. Sure, we can add other things the judge said in her verdict (e.g. Pistorius acted too hastily and used excessive force) but I don't think we should overwrite the foresight part. One can be negligent without any foresight of killing someone [i.e. neither the accused nor a reasonable person could have foreseen it], that would not amount to culpable homicide. Instead of discussing it on the article talk page like I asked them to, a dynamic IP from Chicago has decided to edit war over it instead ([4][5]). HelenOnline 17:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I am the IP you refer to.

I changed "However, Judge Masipa said a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have foreseen this. In light of this, his actions were clearly negligent... " to "However, Judge Masipa said his actions were clearly negligent (for example in failing to alert security) ... ". You aked me for a source and I provided one here http://dw.de/p/1DB3P (David Dadic at Deutsche Welle): "The foreseeability test applies to eventualis, and not to culpable homicide".

The court transcript is not available yet, so we must rely on the eNCA feed day 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V48R6dHwlmU and day 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSSBfM9y-m4. At 5:07 day 1 Masipa J commences considering culpable homicide and the question of negligence. She stresses that although the test is objective, there are subjective elements involved. We must consider the circumstances of the case from Pistorius's perspective (5:10). At 5:13 she first identifies details such as failing to alert security that Pistorius was negligent in. She then returns to the objective tests in law as they relate to the circumstances and asserts around 5:16 that he was negligent in not foreseeing the posibility that he might kill the person behind the door. However in the case of Reeva Steenkamp, the person Pistorius was charged with murdering, she had already ruled (dealing with individualis) that he did not foresee she might be in the toilet. On day 2 around 1:02 she reprised her judgment on the first count in the same terms.

In your editor's copy the relevant citations say first: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/12/world/africa/oscar-pistorius-verdict/ "But in grabbing his gun and heading toward the supposed threat, Pistorius "acted too hastily and used excessive force," Masipa ruled Thursday. His conduct was negligent "and not what a reasonable man would do in the circumstances -- not even a disabled one, she said.", and second: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-29143540 Judge Thokozile Masipa said prosecutors had not proved he meant to kill his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp, prompting tears from the Olympic sprinter. But she said he acted hastily and had been negligent. Mr Pistorius says he thought an intruder was in the toilet. Adjourning the trial, the judge said a reasonable person would not have fired." Neither in fact says Pistorius was negligent in not foreseeing the possibility he would kill the person behind the door (the implication of your editor's copy), and in fact Masipa J had already ruled (dolus individualis) that Pistorius did not intend to kill the person behind the door.

I don't think you're right to assert Masipa J came to two different conclusions.

I hope this helps. I do think you ought to try and enlist the help of an expert here. 128.90.93.207 (talk) 20:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I see that Wikipedia administrator User:Mike V has protected the article from IP edits in line with Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. I am not very familiar with Wikipedia policy and was not aware that one should open an account to edit on biographies of living persons. I have opened one now. I would be happy to assist with clearing up misconceptions in this article, of which I have noticed there are a number. Perhaps Mike V could help by confirming my account as I still can't edit the article until that takes place. Dynamic IP from Chicago (talk) 04:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

If you are not familiar with Wikipedia policy, why are you in such a hurry to edit an article of such a serious nature? You can still help by commenting on the talk page, something you decided against when you thought edit warring on an article involving living people was a good idea. HelenOnline 07:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Reviewing my copy, I think it worth making two further points. Firstly that Masipa J reserved the form of words "clearly negligent" for Pistorius's actions (in ot calling security etc.) and not his foresight. Secondly, what I did not notice at first, is that the editor is flat out wrong to assert "One can be negligent without any foresight of killing someone, that would not amount to culpable homicide". The test for culpable homicide is that one ought to have foreseen the possibility of killing someone (in, say, firing a gun), whereas if it were must have forseen then the case would go to murder. In her reprise on day 2, Masipa J explicitly warned against the tendency of advancing from "ought" to "must" (the basis of her emphasis on subjectivity). Dynamic IP from Chicago (talk) 06:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I realised afterwards "without any foresight" could be misinterpreted. By that I meant neither the accused nor a reasonable person could have foreseen that someone would be killed. I have amended my post. HelenOnline 07:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

(ec)

I am going to break my response down.

1. Several editors have worked on the article. I think copy edits by various editors have corrupted the meaning of the sentence. [Judge Masipa] "said a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have and his actions were clearly negligent and culpable homicide thus a competent verdict" became "Judge Masipa said a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have foreseen this. In light of this, his actions were clearly negligent and culpable homicide was thus a competent verdict". I agree that wording is misleading, as reasonable foresight and his negligent actions have been conflated.
2. We can use the eNCA videos for verbatim quotes but we may not interpret what the judge said, reliable sources must do that for us and there are enough.
3. The David Dadic article is essentially an opinion piece, and can therefore only be used to source his opinion. Dadic (who I have never even heard of and I have followed this trial closely on multiple local and international TV channels) has disagreed with the judge's interpretation of the law, in a somewhat different respect to other local legal experts I might add. We have to present the judge's actual reasoning in the verdict section, not what one legal expert thought it should have been. If there is a section on reactions or appeal, we can include the legal opinions of all the experts disputing the judge's interpretation of the law, with attribution, there. It does not belong in the verdict section.
4. The BBC source clearly supports two different conclusions by the judge (emphasis mine): "'Clearly he did not subjectively foresee this as a possibility, that he would kill the person behind the door, let alone the deceased as he thought she was in the bedroom at the time.' .... 'Would a reasonable person in the same circumstances as the accused have foreseen the possibility that if he fired four shots whoever was behind the toilet might be struck and die as a result? She said the answer was yes. 'I am of the view that the accused acted too hastily and used excessive force. In the circumstances, it is clear that his conduct was negligent'" HelenOnline 07:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Re your suggestion to enlist the help of an expert here, that is a very bad idea. They don't necessarily agree with the judge or each other for that matter and the last thing we need is a self-proclaimed expert pushing their POV here. HelenOnline 07:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand that in fact it was you who requested the article be protected from IP edits. Dynamic IP from Chicago (talk) 08:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

That is not a secret. What is your point? HelenOnline 08:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

That in the circumstances I am not prepared to continue here. Dynamic IP from Chicago (talk) 08:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I see that nevertheless you have made a substantial series of edits incorporating the objections I raised. Perhaps you could now ask adminsitrator User:Mike V to unprotect the article. Dynamic IP from Chicago (talk) 11:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

That is how WP:BRD works. I have considered your comments very carefully and made some changes I thought would help address valid issues you have raised. I am in no hurry to let anyone who doesn't understand Wikipedia rules loose on the article. By edit warring via a dynamic IP, you left me no choice as we cannot block a dynamic IP. I have no reason to believe you won't do it again. I have also had the Oscar Pistorius article re-protected, as there were BLP violations on both articles after the initial 48 hours semi-protection lapsed. HelenOnline 11:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Do what exactly again? Make an edit? Provide a citation? I made a sensible edit. You reverted it on the grounds it wan't sourced. I restored it with a source (not an 'opinion' piece incidentally but a Deutsche Welle interview with a noted SA litigation lawyer). You responded by asking administrator User:Mike V to protect the page. This is what Wikipedia, the encyclopaedia anyone can edit, calls edit-warring? And to add insult to injury you then make a long series of verbose edits which essentially address what you concede are the valid issues I raised. I shall await the publication of the verdict and for sentencing and possible appeals to take their course, and then return with a closer edit on the verdict. Dynamic IP from Chicago (talk) 14:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I have explained the difference between edit warring and WP:BRD on your talk page and opened a RSN discussion about the source. HelenOnline 13:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on HelenOnline's point 4 above: The judge's finding that Pistorius did "not subjectively foresee" that he would kill the person behind the door, is the reason why he was found not guilty of murder. The judge's finding that "a reasonable person" could have foreseen that shooting through the door might cause the death of the person behind it, is the reason why he was found guilty of culpable homicide. AIUI, this is the core of the judge's reasoning for the verdict on the murder charge. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Per the full judgement:

"That however, is not the end of the matter, as culpable homicide is a competent verdict. I now deal with negligence in culpable homicide cases. In terms of Section 258 of the CPA, culpable homicide is a competent verdict to a charge of murder. In determining whether the accused was negligent in causing the death of the deceased, this court has to use the test of the reasonable man. In Burchell & Hunt, Principles of Criminal Law, 4th Ed. the test to be applied to prove negligence is set out as follows:

'(a) Would a reasonable person in the same circumstances as the accused have foreseen the reasonable possibility of the occurrence of the consequence or the existence of the circumstance in question, including its unlawfulness.

(b) Would a reasonable person have taken steps to guard against that possibility and

(c) Did the accused fail to take the steps which he or she reasonably would have taken to guard against it.'

Only if these requirements above have been met, would the accused be guilty of negligence." HelenOnline 13:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but the point of my edit was that Judge Masipa did not say Pistorius was "clearly" negligent in not foreseeing that he might kill the person behind the door. Objectively he was negligent in not foreseeing that, but there were subjective elements to consider as well. I'm not sure, but I suspect Judge Masipa's dilemma was that having released Pistorius from the charge of common murder of Reeva Steenkamp because he genuinely did not foresee she might behind the door, it then seems a stretch to convict him of her culpable homicide for not foreseeing he might kill her by shooting through the door. At any rate Judge Masipa was at pains to point out other aspects of his actions which were negligent, and it was these aspects she described as "clearly" negligent: "I am of the view that the accused acted too hasily and used excessive force. In the circumstances it is clear his conduct was negligent." This distiction was carefully observed in the two sources your edit cited, nevertheless your editor felt justified to adjust the emphasis in the way they did, that Pisorius was "clearly" negligent in not foreseeing that he might kill the person behind the door - but that's not what Masipa J said. Dynamic IP from Chicago (talk) 22:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I don't get your point. I have already agreed with you that the wording was misleading as it had been corrupted by copy editing (see my point 1 above) and have addressed it in the article. That does not mean we should remove the part about reasonable foresight. His subjective foresight of killing someone and a reasonable person's are not the same thing and the different conclusions the judge reached about them are critical to her judgment. HelenOnline 06:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed the wording was misleading, for whatever reason. My edit was intended to correct that. You reported me for edit-warring and then corrected it yourself in what were essentially the same terms, though rather verbose and poorly expressed in my opinion. I'm not really prepared to comment on the intracies of the verdict before all process is completed. I haven't seen an RS that affirms Judge Masipa reached different conclusions in respect of objective and subjective criteria, let alone aver that was critical to the judgment. Is that OR on your part, and is it guiding you in your editing here? What I have seen is criticism that Judge Masipa's verdict was too subjective, and in my remark above I suggest a possible dilemma she was facing. But as I understand it from you, these are just opinions which should be confined to a properly sourced "Reaction" session. On the face of it you don't appear to include your own opinions about the verdict in this dispensation.

I have asked you elsewhere and I now ask you here. Are you prepared to offer me an apology for your behaviour to me, given that you concede, apparently after lengthy deliberation, that my edit was correct? Dynamic IP from Chicago (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I do not concede that your edit was correct. You removed sourced content and replaced it with new content without a reliable source. I attempted a new edit based on my understanding of the dispute, that is how we collaborate here. I have not had any response at WP:RSN, so I will open a WP:DRN case to resolve the matter. My opinion on the verdict is irrelevant, this is not a forum. HelenOnline 05:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Please note I did not report you for edit-warring. I requested the page be reprotected, partly due to BLP violations, and that your new account not be confirmed before you have had a chance to understand WP rules. It is not the same thing at all. HelenOnline 07:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

First of all I haven't the faintest idea what you're going on about with RSN and DRN, and I happen to have spent a couple of evening working through the Wikipedia tutorial. No noobie now.

Right at the top of this thread you said I was edit warring and you immediately applied for page protection. You then thanked the administrator who subsequently provided the protection in these terms https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mike_V&diff=625680078&oldid=625679848:

" Hi Mike. Thanks for semi-protecting the article. Please do not confirm the edit warrior's account as requested here. Their edit warring was one of the reasons I asked for protection. As they were operating from a dynamic IP I had no other way of protecting the page from them."

You may have been mistaken on the basis of your administrator friend's actions, but there's no question that you were reporting me for edit warring on the basis of a single revert by me. If edit warring was taking place then you were as culpable as me, each of us reverting the other just once.

As for the rest of it, the facts speak for themselves.

I ask you again to apologise for your conduct to me, and in the circumstances I think can reasonably ask you to assure the community of contributing editors here (what is left of them) that you will in future be more appreciative of their efforts. Dynamic IP from Chicago (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I have added links to WP:RSN and WP:DRN above, they are noticeboards where we can get outside help resolving content disputes. I am comfortable with my conduct in this matter and have already explained myself to you above and on your talk page. I am not going to repeat myself again. I am sorry you are not interesting in resolving the dispute at the dispute resolution noticeboard. At least I tried. HelenOnline 17:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I explained my position at the noticeboard. There is no dispute between us because, whatever you say to the opposite, you laboriously edited your copy to reflect the concerns I raised. What I do complain of is your conduct for reporting me for edit warring on the basis of a single revert supplying a souce, one of several I could have offered, that you requested. You steadfastly refuse to concede you were at fault and warn me on my Talk page of a WP:BOOMERANG effect should I refer your conduct to your peers for review. I am awaiting my account to be confirmed and I want to familiarise myself with the ethos of Wikipedia little more. After that I shall indeed refer you, citing WP:ROWN amongst other issues, as advised on my Talk page. Dynamic IP from Chicago (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Opinion pieces

Note to all editors: Please do not add citations to opinion pieces by various legal experts to the verdict section per WP:NPOV. We can use them in a separate reactions section with attribution but we should not use them in the verdict section. It is just muddying the waters. HelenOnline 07:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Title of article:

Should it be renamed "The State vs Oscar Pistorius" since that is the actual name of the case? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

No, see Category:Murder trials for similar articles. HelenOnline 07:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of Categories, @HelenOnline:, did you mean to replace all the categories with your recent addition, if so why? Or were the parent categories dropped by mistake? (didn't want to revert as it seems the sort of thing there could be a reason for I'm ignorant of). SPACKlick (talk) 09:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I moved them to a new parent category (Category:Trial of Oscar Pistorius) per WP:SUBCAT. HelenOnline 10:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Reactions to verdict

Shouldn't this article have some substantive content under the section "Reaction to verdict"? I have seen (read of) legal analysts who support the verdict and discuss the legal reasons for doing so. And I have seen (read of) the same for legal analysts who disagree with the verdict. I think this type of information belongs in the article, and would also improve the article. There are plenty of sources out there. Thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

See #Reaction to the verdict above, some sources have been posted there. You are welcome to incorporate them. I have enough on my plate at the moment. Maintaining WP:NPOV will be critical and if the rest of the talk page is anything to go by, brace yourself. My main request at this stage is to keep opinions separate from the actual verdict section. HelenOnline 15:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

All opinions should be attributed per WP:RSOPINION. HelenOnline 15:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

For myself I shall wait for all due process to be exhausted before any attempt to review and comment on the verdict. In reality what will happen I expect is that academia will take over this article, as it is already clear the judgment is a landmark. But I don't think there is any real reason why other editors shouldn't report the various concerns raised as Joseph suggests, and I am indeed surprised no one has thought to record (or been allowed to record) the reaction of various minorty groups, not to mention substantial swathes of public opinion. Dynamic IP from Chicago (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I have removed some unsourced facts from this section and archived the source which I could not access last month due to exceeding my monthly limit for the site. The source implies that some personal attacks on the judge were based on race and sex but it does not say that explicitly and it doesn't say anything about bias at all. Apart from being unsourced, weasel words and phrases such as "some", "some of which", "some claims", etc do not belong in the article. If we can't be clear about who said what, then please leave it out. HelenOnline 06:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Books in print media

I removed one book entry for a self-published book which appears promotional per WP:NOTPROMOTION. There are a lot of books about the case out now. Do we include them all and, if so, what amount of detail do we include about them? HelenOnline 13:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Firstly we wait to see if any of the books become even marginally notable, only then do we need to figure out how much coverage we give it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Roger, I also removed an older entry to avoid a precedent. HelenOnline 08:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Dates should include Year

"The sentencing hearing began on 13 October ... Closing arguments were heard on 17 October ... The sentence will be handed down on 21 October" -- Surely all such dates should include the year? I know they're in 2014, but how will future readers know? 150.101.89.147 (talk) 04:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Per MOS:YEAR, we may omit the year where there is no risk of ambiguity. I have added a few to avoid any ambiguity. HelenOnline 06:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Prison sentence

His sentence "officially" is 5 years. All sources I have seen report that he will be out in 8 to 10 months. This should be included. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I will see what I can do tomorrow if nobody else has done it by then. It is not guaranteed that he will be out of prison in 10 months, that is the minimum time he needs to serve in prison. The balance may be served as correctional supervision (house arrest) if the prisons department agree to it (good behaviour etc). HelenOnline 17:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Ten months is technically the minimum possible prison time in terms of the rules of parole in South Africa, but as it's pure speculation by various commentators at this stage it's not worth including. I've never seen any other articles about criminal cases that include such hypothetical speculation on the day of sentencing. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. It's "big news". And nearly every RS is including it as a part of the "full story" of his sentence. It's clearly relevant. And it's clearly reliably sourced. It belongs in the article. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. I think it should be included, but without any speculation per se. Let me know what you think about this attempt. HelenOnline 07:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that edit is fine. It remains factual, and it does not invoke speculation. Thanks. However, why are we citing the exact statute when we discuss his conviction and his parole eligibility? That seems like minutiae that is not particularly significant or interesting. Why not just say something like: "Under South African law, blah blah blah, a prisoner is eligible for parole ... blah blah blah ..."? Why do we need to cite the phrase "Section 276 1(i) of the Criminal Procedure Act"? I think that detracts significantly from the flow of the sentence and the presentation of the information. In other cases, we do not cite exact statutes and laws. When Charles Manson was convicted of murder, we don't say "He was convicted of murder for violating California Penal Code Section 3.7 (b)." Why add that information here? It's far more detail than necessary. It adds nothing to the article. In fact, it detracts from the "readability" of the article. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It is a very specific type of sentence, and the reason he may be out of prison after 10 months. She imposed the sentence in terms of that specific section of the CPA (see video source). It is not straightforward imprisonment (section 276(1)(b) would apply). It is effectively a hybrid sentence between imprisonment and correctional supervision. HelenOnline 16:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. But, that is not answering my question nor is it addressing my issue. Why do we need to cite the exact specific statute? We currently state: According to Section 276 1(i) of the Criminal Procedure Act ... blah blah blah. Why can't we simply state: According to South African law, ... blah blah blah"? Of course, the judge will cite the exact specific statute when she is rendering her legal verdict in court. This is an encyclopedia. It is not a court of law, nor is it a legal publication. Adding the citation to the exact specific statute serves no purpose. It does not add to the article. In fact, it is distracting and detracts from the article. No reader is concerned about an exact citation to a specific statute. Nor should any reader be. A generic phrase such as "South African law" or possibly "South African criminal law" is sufficient for our purposes. We do not need to cite the burdensome, awkward, and unnecessary phrasing of "Section 276 1(i) of the Criminal Procedure Act". Why do you think this specificity is needed, relevant, or even of interest (to the reader and/or to improving the article)? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I have explained why. You didn't like my answer, but it is still my answer so please don't get upset with me when I repeat my answer to your repeated question. The facts you asked to be added only pertain to the specific section of the law he was sentenced under, not simply "according to South African law". If he was sentenced under section 276(1)(b) of the law, different parole provisions would apply. Saying it is "according to South African law" would mislead readers about South African law. If we are going to include details about parole provisions, we need to be that specific as parole provisions are complicated. Perhaps it can be worded better, but I don't see how we can avoid mentioning the specific section of the act he was sentenced under. HelenOnline 07:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It wouldn't be incorrect if we left out the section of the CPA and "according to South African law", i.e. On 21 October 2014, Pistorius received a prison sentence of a maximum of five years ... After he has served a minimum of one-sixth of the five-year prison sentence (i.e., 10 months), consideration may be given to allowing him to serve any balance of his sentence under correctional supervision. However, I think we would be leaving out a critical detail about the type of sentence he received addressing why he may be out of prison after 10 months. HelenOnline 08:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

You are totally missing my point. I am not about to repeat my question (which you still have not answered). You are seeing what you want to see. No one (aside from you) cares about the exact specific statute. It is 100% irrelevant and useless in an article of this nature (which is a general article, not a legal article). I will assume that "Section 276 1(i) of the Criminal Procedure Act" is indeed a component of South African law. Obviously, by definition, it is. Thus, the broader and generic phrase ("South African law") is sufficient for our purposes, as opposed to pointing out the exact and specific minutiae of which South African law. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Good edit! It puts the (imho irresponsible) reporting into the proper context and removes the impression that he will/must be released after only serving ten months. The "big news RSes" are definitely not RSes when it comes to the minutiae of South African law and Corrections policy. The misleading oversimplification and generalisations that I've seen, particularly in foreign media, over the course of this case would keep a media ethics tribunal busy for years if they were all collected together. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Roger. HelenOnline 07:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I support Joseph here. Of course he was correct to say that the question of Pistorius being released after just ten months was notable and should be recorded. Every source I have seen records this, often bylining on it ... "Pistorius could be released in ten months".

His point about the minutiae of SA law also relevant I think.

I'm clear in my mind that there are ownership issues involved here. It's got to stop. At some point, after all due process is exhausted, we can expect specialist ("expert") editing here. I may contribute myself. I do hope then for a more constructive response from existing editors. Dynamic IP from Chicago (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The 10 months has been added. The section of the act has been removed. There is no unresolved dispute here as far as I can tell. DIFC, please read WP:NPA. If you have any allegations to make about anyone's conduct, please do them properly (with evidence) and do them in the right place (e.g. WP:ANI). Unsupported accusations about conduct on a talk page meant for discussions about improving an article are disruptive. HelenOnline 05:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Answered at my Talk page. I'm not a newbie any longer Helen. Get over it. I shall in all likelihood be editing at the article after due process is exhausted and I shall expect a collegial atmosphere from you when I do. Dynamic IP from Chicago (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The sentence is now 13 years and 5 months. 104.169.28.113 (talk) 14:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Trial of Oscar Pistorius. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140707061434/http://www.citypress.co.za/news/oscar-pistorius-reeva-steenkamps-screams-acoustic-scrutiny/ to http://www.citypress.co.za/news/oscar-pistorius-reeva-steenkamps-screams-acoustic-scrutiny/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140809114452/http://www.sabc.co.za/news/a/2217fa8045073d9c918791a5ad025b24/Pistorius-defence-team-pleads-for-leniency to http://www.sabc.co.za/news/a/2217fa8045073d9c918791a5ad025b24/Pistorius-defence-team-pleads-for-leniency

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Pistorius' version of events

This article has a major omission. Until I added new material, it did not contain Pistorius' version of what happened. This meant it was biased. I tried to add his version but Diannaa deleted if claiming it "appeared" to be a breach of copyright. I have now added Pistorius version again this time using his words from his affidavit. I am not a lawyer but I trust there is no copyright on affidavits. It is in the public domain.CriminologyStudent (talk) 20:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Short quotations are allowed. What's not okay is to also copy the surrounding prose, which was written by BBC reporters.— Diannaa (talk) 23:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Progress of the trial

This section is way too long and does not provide a coherent view of any aspect of the case. It is simply a selection of largely unrelated details which needs to be condensed and rewritten. Any takers? CriminologyStudent (talk) 09:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)