Talk:Reeva Steenkamp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This needs merging[edit]

Im sorry she is dead, but she was just a normal model, not worthy of her own oage on wiki. Someone who knows what they are doing needs to delete this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.28.57 (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Reality TV star[edit]

really!!! Come on. this needs removing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.28.57 (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Please can you talk before reverting?[edit]

Just one example, doing 1 episode of 1 show does not make you a star! Regualt attendee of red carpet events?? Who she used to date?? She likes horse riding?? Was once 40th in a sexy list?? This article is set up as a glowing CV, and thats not how wiki is supposed to work is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.28.57 (talk) 14:28, 11 September 2014‎ (UTC)

I was merely reverting your addition of an inaccuracy and your removal of content without explanation. It is inaccurate to say that she was the victim of an "accidental" shooting: the judgment says nothing of the kind; it merely says the shooting wasn't murder. There is no dispute that he shot her dead, which is what the previous version said.
If you think the article includes trivia not meriting inclusion, by all means (carefully) change it. But consider posting a note here explaining what you've removed and why so that others can decide if they agree. -- Rrburke (talk) 14:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks will do. the lead is very emotive worded. the worst that he can be found guilty of now is not taking enought care and causing a horrific accident. It needs rewriting?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.28.57 (talk) 14:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Again, the judgment makes no mention of an accident. Judge Thokozile Masipa did not complete the reading of her judgment, but left open the possibility that he may yet be convicted of culpable homicide. -- Rrburke (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
culpable homicide means causing the death of a person by lack of attention and good judgement, ie an accident. Please change it, but that is what it means? I am not trying to be awkward here, but you must be able to see how bad this page is? If I removed all the chit chat there would be no page left. Lovely girl, very sad she is dead, but there is no need for a page?
from wiki: "Culpable homicide" has been defined simply[2] as "the unlawful negligent killing of a human being". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.28.57 (talk) 14:56, 11 September 2014‎ (UTC)
Negligence is not the same as an accident, and we don't even know if he is yet to be convicted of anything, as the judge adjourned the proceedings before completing the reading of her judgment. As for the quality of the page, by all means improve it. As for deleting it, information about the process is set out at Wikipedia:Guide to deletion and Wikipedia:Deletion policy. However, it seems to me very unlikely that the article would be deleted, as Ms Steencamp would appear easily to meet the notability requirements for meriting a standalone article. Please see Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (people) for more information. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

wow Helen has got her way, and managed to keep an innocent man slandered to look like he is a murderer for at least one more day. Well done helden, you should be proud, dont let little things like the truth and facts get in the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.28.57 (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

(Note: "Helen" and "helden" above refers to User:HelenOnline.) --83.255.57.82 (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Whether he's innocent or not was up to court to determine. Oscar was found guilty by the court and this is what we write. Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say. Brandmeistertalk 19:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Reeva Steenkamp#Coverage in media after death[edit]

Please can we discuss the creation of this section. Including it in the career section is not only wrong it is insensitive. This media coverage relates to her death, and unless it is specifically about Steenkamp the person and not about the case in general I think it should be kept in the trial article alone which includes comprehensive media coverage of the trial in order to avoid inappropriate WP:CONTENTFORKING. Why only include that specific programme and not the others? (I am not suggesting we include them all as we have a whole other article for that, but we can't cherry pick what we include here for whatever reason as that leads to an unbalanced article.) HelenOnline 05:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Whether the section should be in this article is debatable, what is definitely not acceptable is having it ax a subsection of "Career". I am now going to move it to be a subsection below "Death". This move in no way endorses the section's existence in this article, it is merely to correct a greater wrong asap. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)