Talk:Oscar Pistorius/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

2012

A couple of sources are now saying he has qualified for 2012 olympics. One here (Heat magazine South Africa) and one here here (Guardian newspaper UK). Not sure if Heat magazine counts as a reliable source, but the Guardian normally does. Guardian article gives Reuters as a source.

Ahh found the Reuters source too now... http://af.reuters.com/article/sportsNews/idAFJOE76L01A20110722 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.23.85.168 (talk) 09:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Heat magazine is junk but it was all over the news here in South Africa. I can get a whole bunch of RS cites easily but Reuters or the Guardian are perfectly acceptable. Roger (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Has he actually qualified yet? The reports I've seen suggest that he has done enough to be selected for the South African team, but of course this has not yet happened and it is possible that he may not be selected if there are other athletes with better performances. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 05:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes he has qualified, no he has not been selected because nobody has been selected yet, that only happens later but he's so popular here in SA that there's be a huge protest if they didn't select him. There is apparently a World Championship coming up soon where he would have an opportunity to "confirm" his eligibility. Roger (talk) 06:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well, I hope he does get selected. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thierry Mugler

I've just seen an ad campaign on the London Underground featuring Pisterius for a Thierry Mugler fragrance. Is this worth a mention in the article? Am on mobile or I'd investigate further but thought I should mention it now before it slipped my memory Mabalu (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I found a WP:RS report about it so I'll add it now. Roger (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The "Time comparisons" section

I think this section is unnecessary. It may have served a purpose at the time when Pistorius was "campaigning" to be allowed to compete against "able-bodied" athletes, but now it just look a bit WP:POINTy and condescending - "See the 'poor crip' can run with the big kids". His legitimacy as a "real athlete" doesn't need this. Roger (talk) 11:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

It was in the article before I first worked on it (which was a while back now) so I left it in, but I won't object to its removal. It's a bit of a pain to keep up to date as one has to regularly check if the records have been broken. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Since about 2008 you and I seem to be the only "regular" editors of this article. I'm going to remove the section before the "flood" of Olympic and Paralympic inspired editors get their claws into it. Roger (talk) 16:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

:) — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

A few other thoughts:

• How significant is it that "Pistorius was profiled on the NBC prime time news magazine Rock Center on 6 June 2012"? I'm sure he has been profiled in numerous newspapers and TV shows.
• We should probably remove the sentence "He is scheduled to run in the second semi-final." which has just been added once the race has been run, as it will serve no purpose. But I guess it can stay in the article for a few hours.
• However, maybe there should be a brief sentence or two in the lead about his participation in the 2012 Summer Olympics?

— Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree the NBC "profile" is no more significant than any other - I guess it was probably added by a US editor who had only just heard of him.

I will replace the scheduled run statement with the result of the run as soon as it's over - I know it's NOTNEWS but if I don't do it someone else might complain about it.

I'll take a look at the lead at the same time as I add the semifinal result. Roger (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

BTW He's in the second of three semi-final heats scheduled to start at 19:40 UTC (one hour and 15 min from now). Roger (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Just watched it live – Pistorius came last in his semifinal race and did not qualify. His time was not as good as the time he achieved in his heat. No doubt the news will be reported by major news outlets shortly. It's still a fantastic achievement, nonetheless. Is Pistorius the first athlete to be competing in both an Olympic and Paralympic Games (in the same Olympiad)? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Natalie du Toit did the "Olympic and Paralympic Double" in 2008 Beijing. According to List of athletes who have competed in the Paralympics and Olympics the first person to do it in a single year is the Italian Paola Fantato at Atlanta 1996 in archery. Roger (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Another disabled athlete in the current Olympics and Paralympics is Natalia Partyka a table tennis player from Poland. Roger (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Pistorius is probably the first track and field athlete (or runner) to do so, then. Still, we shouldn't mention this in the article unless a reliable third-party source confirms it. Now, on to the 4 × 400 metres relay! — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 20:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

BTW Even hs personal best would not have been good enough to get through to the final today - the last qualifier ran 44.99 while Pistorius' 400 m PB is 45.07. Roger (talk) 21:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The first round of the 4 × 400 metres relay will be run on Thursday, 9 August 2012, at 11:35 am BST, and the final the next day at 9:20 pm BST. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Removal of a table in the Medals section

Hi Dodger67. I see you re-added the material I removed from the medals section. I removed it again and explained my rationale in the edit summaries, but let me restate here to avoid misunderstanding. The section is clearly "Medals" and it had two sub-sections: "Disability" and "Able-bodied". I removed the "Able-bodied" section and table, since it had a single entry claiming an award of a gold medal, but neither of its citations seemed to confirm that fact. If the fact is true, can you please identify the source text in either of those citations which confirm a gold medal was awarded? Hope we can clear this up. Cheers. --Ds13 (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Was curious about this, so I did a search and found a YouTube video of the race. It's clear that Pistorius won the race, but none of the news articles I've come across mention anything about a medal ([1], [2], [3]), so I'm not sure. Are there international races where medals are not given out? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

This archived South African news report (in Afrikaans by the largest Sunday newspaper in the country, so it's definitely "mainstream media") explicitly mentions him getting a silver medal as a member of the 4 x 400 team at the same event while also lists his individual win and personal best. So now we have confirmation that medals were awarded at that event (part of an official IAAF "world series"). It also proves that the "disputed" gold is in fact not his only "able-bodied" medal. Roger (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm minded to accept that a gold medal was given even though I haven't located a news article explicitly stating that one was given. It seems unlikely that no medal would have been given for the race. Also, note that a news article may not specifically state that an athlete has been given a medal. There is nothing surprising about an article merely saying that the athlete has won the competition or came first. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 20:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Roger. Good stuff. So if that 2007 South African Senior Championship medal can be sourced to a reliable source (i.e. not the IP-based URL supplied above), then it would appear there is an able-bodied medal that can be included in the article. If it's in Afrikaans then a translated quote should be included in the reference template by whomever contributes it. It seems there are other links in this article that are dead, referring to that same 2007 event. Maybe multiple birds can be killed with one stone. Sorry I don't know where else (except Google!) to find South African news. --Ds13 (talk) 01:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

So, Roger, you'll be restoring and updating the table? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. Can someone who knows how to construct tables please add his 4 x 400 Silver from Daegu Report from BBC Sport. I can fill information into an existing table but when I try to build new lines and columns I mess it up!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dodger67 (talk • contribs)

The recently re-added material contains no new evidence that an able-bodied *medal* was awarded so I have removed it again. Verifiability can be found for his 400 m time, but not that he was awarded a gold medal. In light of how epic it would be for Pistorius to earn an able-bodied gold medal, it should be easy to find a reliable source reporting such a fact. In fact, even Pistorius' own website does not report the Lignano event as being a gold medal event for him, despite reporting other medal winnings before and after. To me, this suggests no gold medal was awarded at Lignano. We might all believe it's true, but encyclopedic standards require us to offer readers verifiability for all facts, particularly one so significant. --Ds13 (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Ds13, I'm confused by your stance. When you posted on 7 August at 1:18 am, I thought you were accepting that Pistorius had received the gold medal in the event. Are you suggesting that though he won the finals of the event this was somehow an event at which no medals were given out at all? Do you also not accept that journalists may write about athletes winning competitions without explicitly stating that a medal was given? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, I've found a website stating: "In 2011, he became the first amputee to win an able-bodied world track medal." Can we restore the table now? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jacklee. Sorry if there is confusion but on 7 August at 1:18 am, we were talking about a different medal. Roger had discovered a potential source for Silver at a 2007 South African event, not Gold at the 2012 Italian event. We were on track for getting a reliable source for the 2007 medal win. And it sounds like you found it! What I removed was the claim that Pistorius won Gold in 2012 in Italy because it, also, lacks a source to simply verify that a medal was awarded. I cannot assume that every qualifying event is a medal event and I certainly wouldn't ask an encyclopedic reader (possibly not an expert in sport competition) to accept such an assumption without a way to verify it. So the good news is it sounds like we *could* have a table of *two* able-bodied medals to soon include in this article. Regards. --Ds13 (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The source I found also reports a Silver won in Daegu Korea - 2011 World Championships in Athletics for 4 x 400 Relay. The Lignano meet (where he won the 400m) was a preliminary for the Daegu event - part of the IAAF "World Tour".

I have a bit of a "philosophical" problem with this whole issue: A medal (the physical metal object) is merely a symbol of an achievement, the really notable thing is the achievement - the act of winning itself - not the existence of an arbitrary commemorative symbol of that act. What difference does it really make if the object received for winning is made of metal or paper or anything else? Roger (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

True, but the tables in the article currently only cover events for which medals are awarded. Guess we can have a discussion about whether that is too narrow, but I suppose that's one way to keep the tables manageable. OK, since we haven't found any source actually specifying a gold medal for the Lignano event, I've restored the "able-bodied events" table but amended it only to mention the silver medal in the Daegu event. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Please also add the Silver medal for 400 m at 2007 SA Senior Championships - as reported here http://152.111.1.87/argief/berigte/rapport/2012/04/10/RH/VIII/jooscar.html here http://www.speakersinc.co.za/inspirationalspeakers/oscarpistorius.html and here http://www.ossur.com.au/pages/15616 Thanks Roger (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Another two silver medals won at the 2012 African Championships in Athletics in Benin http://www.iol.co.za/sport/athletics/another-silver-for-pistorius-1.1331898 and http://www.theroar.com.au/2012/07/02/pistorius-wins-silver-medal-at-african-championships/ The more we dig the more medals we find! Roger (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I have just noticed that these medals have been listed in the Infobox all along! Roger (talk) 21:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

After much strugling and cussing I have managed to add the 2012 African Champs medals to the table. Does the silver at the 2007 SA Champs also qualify for inclusion? Roger (talk) 09:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why not. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, this is pretty cool. The article has risen from zero able-bodied medals to three, within a day! Thank you for humouring my "need verifiability" stance. Cheers. --Ds13 (talk) 15:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

If you didn't push us, this research might never have been done. Even though I might have cast dark mutterings in your general direction while fighting with the mysteries of wiki-table formatting! I'm about to tackle adding the 2007 SA Champs medal - "Once more into the breach!", "Nos morituri te salutamus!", etc... Roger (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It's done! Until he wins another one... Roger (talk) 16:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Personal info

I've located an article here that contains a lot of personal information about Pistorius, including his strained relationship with his father, tendencies to risk-taking, etc. Is there still interest in expanding the Personal life section, or would info like this seem to be an invasion of privacy? Pkeets (talk) 04:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't think it is necessarily appropriate to add such a lot of detail into the article, bearing in mind WP:WELLKNOWN. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 21:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

There's very little in that article that isn't already adequately covered here - what there is, is either trivial or probably violates WP:BLP. Roger (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Punctuation at the end of footnotes

Hi, Roger. I don't really agree with you about this. Generally, I think footnotes should be treated like sentences, beginning with a capital letter and ending with a full stop. This isn't explicitly mentioned in "Wikipedia:Citing sources", but the examples indicate this – see, for instance, the lead section ("Ritter, Ron. The Oxford Style Manual. Oxford University Press, 2002, p. 1.") and "How to place an inline citation using ref tags" ("Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, 1971, p. 1."). I think the easiest way is just to add a full stop at the end of the citation template, but if you prefer the |postscript= parameter can be used. Can we agree on this? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

In all the years I've been editing WP and all the thousands upon thousands of Template Cites I have seen, this is the first and only time I have ever seen anyone put anything between the closing braces of the template}} and the close ref markup </ref>. The various style guides and the instructions I received at university explicitly state that a citation is not a sentence and they go into great detail about exactly where italics, underlines, commas, fullstops, etc, are required and forbidden. Adding "extras" to the carefully constructed templates violates such standards. I'm afraid I don't agree that your method is correct or an acceptable variant. I think we need outside opinions so I'm posting a question about it at WP:Help Desk#Disagreement about using Cite templates. Roger (talk) 18:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, let's see what other editors think. I guess this is one of those situations where usage varies from institution to institution and place to place. At my university we were taught to treat footnotes as sentences, as I mentioned above. Note also that {{cite xxx}} series of templates automatically inserts a full stop at the end of the template, which is an indication that there is a school of thought that citations should end with full stops. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 20:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

(Coming here from the help desk.) Interesting issue. I was sure the manual of style would have some guidance here but I can't find anything. There is a discussion here, which is about all I could find. I do not have strong feelings on the matter but I do think that, on balance, we should remove the full stops for a few reasons. First, my impression (and before you ask, no I don't have any sources to back this up – just a history of writing research papers) is that it is less common in academia. More to the point, at least by silent consensus, it is our house style, as shown by usage. It is ubiquitous across almost all articles, all FAs, and built into the default structure of all most of the citation templates. There is something to be said for consistency in these matters, until there's a good reason made to stray from the norm. I must say, though, that when I look at the references section with full stops ending all the citations, it does not jump out as unprofessional looking or clearly wrong.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Try for Feature Article?

I think this article can be pushed to FA Class, but not right now! We wait until after the Paralympics, get it fully updated then go for it! Who's with me on this? Roger (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, let's go for it! You take the lead. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 05:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Ref style

This article uses a weird reference style. It has multiple references under a single ref tag. This makes the references section hard to read, since you may not be aware this is two or more references in one tag, and not a quotation from the reference. -- 70.24.247.242 (talk) 03:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm busy cleaning it up. Roger (talk) 06:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow! the "bunching" of so many cites has kept many instances of WP:Citation overkill hidden. We really need to trim them down - it is not necessary to provide up to SIX! cites for a simple fact such as a record time. Unfortunately I don't have time to do this now so I'd appreciate someone else taking this baton from me (pardon the pun!). Roger (talk) 07:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

You can trim the number of citations if you wish to, but I have to disagree with you that citations should never be combined: see "WP:CITEBUNDLE". Bundling citations is desirable to avoid effects^[105] like^[106] this,^[107] or like this.^{[107][108][109][110]} Therefore, please don't go around "unbundling" citations unless there is a good reason for doing so. Also, do read all the citations before removing them to ensure that you do not accidentally remove any that support facts mentioned in the sentence or paragraph. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

If you read WP:CITEBUNDLE closely (together with WP:CITEKILL you'd see that it should be used when you need to use three or more cites to support multiple claims in a single sentence. Using it to "hide" cite overkill is not acceptable - there is no reason to use SIX references for a single fact/claim. The way you've formatted the citebundles is in any case not in compliance with the guideline - separating them with just a semi-colon makes it hard to see where one ends and the next begins. If you really must bundle them please delineate them more clearly. Roger (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

If you bundle citations, you should use bullet points or line breaks. Using semicolons makes it hard to read, and makes it look like a quotation passage. -- 70.24.247.242 (talk) 04:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

First, we need to check carefully whether some footnotes really have too many citations, or whether the citations are supporting distinct facts. Secondly, I see nothing wrong with semicolons, and note that WP:CITEBUNDLE states that "[w]hen formatting multiple citations in a footnote, there are several layouts available" (italics added), one of which is putting them into a single paragraph. However, I have no objection if you wish to separate the multiple citations using either bullet points or (more preferable, in my view) line breaks. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Other table issues

So, it looks like Oscar's semifinal time in the 200m is now his new personal best? I'll move the designation up. Pkeets (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, nevermind. Pkeets (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Medal section

Could we pick up the discussion again relative to the "Medal" table in the article? I notice that other athletes' articles list the medals under the info box and use tables within the articles to list wins, achievements or personal best times instead. Changing the title of the section to "Achievements," for example, and the "Medals" heading to "Result" would solve problems of how to list wins that did not award medals. This would also reduce redundancy within the article. Thoughts? Pkeets (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, I notice that the disability table is arranged by time, and the able-bodied table by date. Any objection to fixing that? Pkeets (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

How are these things normally done in athletes bios? We should follow WP "best practice" - we are aiming to try for FA after the Paralympics. Roger (talk) 16:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know that best practice is given anywhere. I just reviewed the biographies of a few prominent sprinters, including Merritt, Bolt, Warnier, etc. I have no objection to the extended table, but it does seem limited in featuring only "medals." Pkeets (talk) 17:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and switched the times in the lower table. Pkeets (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you've done the wrong sort - it looks "messy" - IMHO it should be in date order. Roger (talk) 07:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't establish the sort criteria. Check the table above. They should match, shouldn't they? Pkeets (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes of course they should match - sorted by date. Roger (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't change the way they were sorted, only adjusted the one entry that didn't match. It's a big job to resort the whole thing by date. I'll let you handle that.  :) Do you have any comments about changing the headings? If there's no discussion on the idea by next week, I'll expect it's consensus by silence. Pkeets (talk) 04:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Since there's no further comment on this, I'll go ahead and make the change. Once this is done, the door is open to list his personal best times, regardless of whether a medal was awarded. Is there support to do this? Pkeets (talk) 14:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Prior Olympians

"If Pistorius had been picked, he would have become the first competitor with a leg amputation to participate in the Olympic Games. Instead, Pistorius's compatriot Natalie du Toit, a swimmer whose left leg was amputated above the knee after a traffic accident, became the first athlete with an amputation to qualify in any event for the 2008 Summer Olympics." is rather problematic - there have been three previous Olympians who happen to be amputees. George Eyser, Oliver Halassy, and Karoly Takacs. Zipzipzip (talk) 20:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

There has also been competitors with disabilities who competed. Eve Rimmer is a 1980 Summer Olympics medalist in archery. She had paraplegia and competed from a wheelchair. I believe there was an archer who did well in these Games who was legally blind. George Eyser was an amputee who competed and I believe medaled at the 1908 Summer Olympics. --LauraHale (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Liz Hartel and Neroli Fairhall have also competed in the Olympics with a disability. My thinking is that all of these athletes did not qualify for the Olympics but rather received a wildcard and that Du Toit may have been the first athlete to actually qualify for an event. --86.19.251.17 (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

If one looks at the sources they say "since the existence of the Paralympics" - and they also specify "amputee" or "double amputee" and/or "athletics" (as in "track and field") so there arent't really any contradictions. Roger (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe not in the sources, but the first sentence quoted by the OP is contradicted by Eyser et al. (unless "the Olympic Games" refers to the 2008 ones specifically, which would still be misleading), so needs to be corrected. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. The source [4] in the article is also wrong in this, BTW; it doesn't "specify" as you claim. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Para-athletics classification

Para-athletics classification has been created. It isn't perfect and could really use a cleanup. hopefully, it better explains the issues surrounding Pistorius's classification in a wider sense, even if it doesn't mention his specific classification. Some of the technical classification specific things can be added to the articles about those classes, T43 (classification and T44 (classification). FEI has some good images that I've been trying to modify but haven't gotten around to them all and trying to figure out the equivilents for athletics classifications. --LauraHale (talk) 22:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Good job. Pkeets (talk) 14:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Inquiring minds must be wondering how the multi-class events are set up. Here's an explanation from the Telegraph. Pkeets (talk) 04:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

something interesting [5] from Australia about classification -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 10:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you think we should keep track of the various world records, etc in the classification articles? -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 10:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The opening section and several other parts of this page make reference to Pistorius being the T44 world record holder in the 100m - this is no longer true as Jonnie Peacock is the current record holder, this is actually referenced on the WP page on the T44 categorisation - http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/T44_(classification). I'm reluctant to edit the page to state this for several reasons, one I don't know how to link to Jonnie Peacock's WP entry, two I don't know how to link a citation (it's here http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/disability-sport/18663231), three I don't want to remove references to world records if they were world records at the time which have since been broken. Pistorius is clearly a very successful T44 (technically T43) athlete but he is no longer as dominant as this WP suggests so an edit may well be required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.128.152 (talk) 22:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The lead section does need minor rewording; someone will get to it soon. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Once the current Paralympics is over we can thoroughly check and update this article - amongst others - there are thousands of affected pages so the process is going to take some time. Roger (talk) 14:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Men's 4x100m T42-T46 - 2011 IPC Athletics World Championships

I can't find this relay at Christchurch in the table of results. Am I just not seeing it, or is it omitted? It's 3/4 of the same team that won gold at the Paralympics. Actually, I don't see Christchurch in the results at all. As a World Championships, should it be listed? Here are the results. Pkeets (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks like an omission? I'll fix it. Pkeets (talk) 16:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I left some spaces at breaks in the table so it will be easier to navigate. Any further thoughts about adding "gold" in for the Lignano win? It looks a bit odd just saying 1st place. Will anyone really care if they awarded actual medals? Pkeets (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Since there's silence on the issue so far, I'll go ahead and change it for now. Pkeets (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Controversy section needed?

The controversy I specifically have in mind is Michael Johnson, as a BBC commentator, criticing the decision to drop him from the relay final in the World Championships at Daeggu (which meant, among other things, that he didn't get to stand on the podium to receive his silver medal, as Johnson pointed out). Johnson said that as the only South African to make the semi-final in the individual 400m he should have been chosen to run the final. But Johnson didn't mention the seemingly relevant point that his time in the semi-final had been 0.8 seconds slower than the time that got him into that semi-final (which I didn't know until I read this article). I can't remember whether Johnson said the decision to drop him was bound to have disappointed large number of spectators and viewers (it certainly disappointed me enough to be trying to look up the incident in Wikipedia a year later - meaning right now). But I don't know how to write this up, as I can't very well give as my 'authoritative' source my memory of something Johnson said on TV a year ago.Tlhslobus (talk) 14:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You might find it on Youtube, as there are a bunch of videos there on Pistorius and commentary about him. The article already includes coverage of the blade issue, which has now expanded enough through Pistorius' comments at the 2012 Paralympics that it might warrant a separate article. I expect that the wrangle may continue after the Games, only more quietly. However, for right now, the separate controversies are located within the section of the article where they occurred. The issue of the relay is a bit dated, but I'll have a look at it. Pkeets (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Pkeets, I'll probably have a look at Youtube when I get the time. Incidentally, to me that relay silver is by far the most interesting and amazing thing about him, at least so far, so to me the controversy associated with it will probably never be 'a bit dated', but I expect we'll probably just have to agree to differ about that.Tlhslobus (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

What I mean is that it's harder to find articles on old news. I'm sure I've seen that video on Youtube, but I didn't come up with it right away. Instead, here's a good article on the issue with links. They're saying that the decision was made based on his split time, but then they'd restricted him to running in the first leg which is his slowest. After a bit of arm-waving, they gave this up at the Olympics and let him run the anchor leg, but by then there was no chance of RSA winning.Pkeets (talk) 15:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Pkeets, and sorry for misunderstanding you.Tlhslobus (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I've altered the relay info in the article and added my reference. Does that help? It's interesting results for the relays. I gather that Mogawane is important to the team. Also, it looked like Oscar's contribution to the relays may have been more than they thought. Pkeets (talk) 16:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Pkeets, your reference is excellent . Might I suggest the change below for yor consideration? But in any case 46.20 should seemingly be corrected to 46.2 (the figure in your reference, and which in practice can mean anything from 46.15 to 46.29). I suggest replacing

However, Pistorius was not selected to run in the finals based on his split time of 46.20 on the first leg.[66]

by

However, Pistorius was controversially[66] not selected to run in the finals based on having the slowest split time of 46.2 (on the first leg, which is normally slowest because it alone has a standing start, and puts him at an even greater disadvantage[41]), and through being controversially restricted to the slower first leg by Athletics South Africa 'on safety grounds' (which did not prevent him running the anchor leg in the Olympic final the following year). [66][81] He initially tweeted "Haven't been included in final. Pretty gutted.", but later added "Well done to the SA 4x400m team. Was really hard watching, knowing I deserved to be part of it." [66]

This looks pretty good. If you don't mind, I'll put it in with a slight bit of adjustment. Others may check in with a different opinion later, but we can address that if/when it happen. BTW, it would help if you included the full references, as the numbers will change. Pkeets (talk) 18:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that, and thanks.Tlhslobus (talk) 23:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I feel that gives a more accurate and (thanks to your excellent reference) well-sourced account than the current text, which seems misleadingly over-sanitised, especially for the vast majority of readers who don't have time to read the sources (always assuming the links haven't gone dead by the time they are reading). I'm not entirely pleased with it, especially as it gives no explanation for the dropping of the safety objection by London 2012. But it's the best I can come up with at the moment. In any case I leave it to your greater experience as an edtor to decide the final details.Tlhslobus (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Ha. I figured they were out of runners for the 2012 Olympics race. They put Van Zyl in, but they still had an open slot because Mogawane was out. I'd loved to have heard the discussion that put Pistorius in as the anchor. It had to be a strategy decision, as he's so much faster there. Pkeets (talk) 18:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, there it is. I made the relay into it's own paragraph, and took out the clause about the change for the Olympics. That seems to include a slight point-of-view, taking sides in the controversy, which we shouldn't do. Oscar is fighting his own battles well enough. :) Pkeets (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

So, I wonder if that Olympic decision was a bit dangerous? Oscar doesn't really seem to have any experience running in a pack.Pkeets (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

And it's not just Oscar - nobody in the pack had any experience of running with a blade runner in the pack.

Maybe that's what the relays are about. There's a bit of a crush at the changeovers regardless that they're in lanes. I notice the the photos that people look down when they hand off to him. They may do that normally, but the blades are a slightly bigger hazard than feet. Pkeets (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

But I suspect it all came down to politics and economics. In Daegu the top dogs were the International Amateur Athletics federation (IAAF), presumably telling South African Athletics 'do as we say, if you ever want the World Championships to be held in South Africa'. For the IAAF Pistorius is a long-standing pain in the neck; and they and their national federations have to worry about blade runners in thousands of future races, so for them the injury risk (and the risk of punitive damages in US courts for gross negligence, etc) is a lot higher than just the risk from one race. In London, the top dogs were the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games (LOCOG), presumably telling the South Africans 'do as we say, if you ever want the Olympics to be held in South Africa'.. The IOC and LOCOG only have to worry about the risk in one race. The IOC also often fight turf wars against the IAAF (as do the National Olympic Committees against their National Athletics Federations) just because that's how rival bureaucracies tend to behave. Also the IOC need to be on good terms with LOCOG, for whom Pistorius was the Usain Bolt of their upcoming London Paralympics, so they wanted him to get as much exposure as possible (there was a slight risk of injury to him, but perhaps one that was small compared to the risk of him being injured in training, etc). And the IOC and LOCOG are probably more heavily dependant on TV and corporate sponsorship for their revenues than is the IAAF, and TV and sponsors want lots of viewers, and Pistorius brings in the viewers. And so on.

Also I'm not entirely sure that safety was really the only consideration, even if it was the only one mentioned in public. The Court of Arbitration in Sport(CAS) had allowed Pistorius to run on the basis that it had not been shown that the advantage of blades at high speed outweighed their disadvantage when starting and accelerating - so presumably a flying start for Pistorius might result in legal challenges from anybody wanting to get South Africa disqualified to gain their medal - this would only have been a concern in Daegu, as it seemed pretty clear there would be no medal in London.

As for not mentioning the dropping of the safety requirement in London, I suspect you're probably right about this being the law according to Wikipedia, even if I suspect that in this case the law is an ass. But we could probably spend half eternity without ever getting it exactly right, so I think it's probably now reasonably OK as it stands. Thanks again.Tlhslobus (talk) 00:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. As far as the article goes, it's better to be conservative. Because it's an encyclopedia, best practice is to avoid opinions or even suggestions whenever possible and just deliver balanced facts. This lets others make up their own opinions. Thanks for pointing out the omission. Pkeets (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Please feel free to restore a less misleading version of the removed statement

Previously the article correctly mentioned that at Daegu his individual heat time would have got him to the final had it been repeated in the semis, but not that it was only the 14th best time of those heats (from where he dropped to 22nd in the semis), and that the times generallly slowed in the semis, perhaps due to less favourable weather conditions. The 14th fastest time (which was pretty much par for the course for him, as his personal best that year was the 15th fastest time of the year) cannot normally be expected to reach an 8-man final. So the way the technically correct fact was mentioned was deeply misleading. One might equally well mention that with him in the relay team in the heats, South Africa ran 0.1 seconds faster than the USA gold-medal-winning time of the final, while omitting to mention that South Africa only had the 3rd fastest time in those heats, behind the USA and Jamaica.

So I've removed the technically correct but misleading statement.Please feel free to restore it if you feel strongly about it, provided you do so in a less misleading manner. To make any such restoration easier, here is the removed statement including the associated reference (though you may have to go into edit mode to see the datails of the reference):

Had he run the 45.39 seconds in the semi-final, that time would have qualified him for the final.(IAAF World Championships Daegu 2011: Daegu, Korea, 27 August – 4 September 2011: Timetable/Results, IAAF, 29 August 2011, archived from the original on 4 August 2012) Tlhslobus (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks good to me. You don't have to include the statement here, as it remains in the history of the article. Click on the "History" tab and you'll see a list of all the edits.Pkeets (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Pkeets, but looking through History for an unknown needle in a haystack can be difficult and time-consuming, so I prefer to cause as little offence as possible by leaving it as easy as possible to restore, perhaps especially as I've recently witnessed some poor guy being eaten alive by the devotees of another top Paralympian, for saying something which seemed perfectly reasonable to me but was somehow deemed quasi-blasphemous by his devotees :) Tlhslobus (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, dear. Who was that? Pkeets (talk) 18:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It was Alessandro Zanardi. By the way, I must be getting blind - or else some Great Joker In The Sky is having fun at my expense :) - as after re-checking I've had to amend my opening comments to say Pistorius was 14th fastest in the heats instead of 15th fastest.Tlhslobus (talk) 23:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

LVIII V VIII - II III VI

This is the inscription on the tattoo on Pistorius's right arm, and according to the BBC - ref http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/disability-sport/19460868 - it's the dates of his mother's birth and death (i.e. 8th May 1958 - 6th March 2002). But that makes her 43 when she died, not 42 as stated in this article, and properly referenced. I'm not sure what the best procedure is here. Obviously this article should be corrected. But the newspaper story which said she was 42 is a useful reference for the claim that his mother was a big influence on him, and that seems quite relevant and important, so it seems a shame to remove the reference. Suggestions? Stewart Robertson (talk) 12:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Use the BBC reference for her age and the other (regardless of the error) for the significance. A source getting just one detail wrong does not invalidate it entirely. Roger (talk) 12:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done: I've updated the article. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

What are the mechanics behind Oscar Pistorius's prosthetic limbs?

I was just wondering how exactly Pistorius's legs are seen as an advantage? Are his prosthetic limbs made of metal, plastic, or fiberglass? Are they manufactured to be lighter, so that he can run faster? If Pistorius's limbs do in fact cause him an unfair advantage, can the prosthetic limbs be altered to be more biologically realistic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.23.112.129 (talk) 02:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

This is mostly information that should be researched elsewhere. Maybe we could make up a separate article on the science behind the blades, but for now you should Google for info on it. There's a certain amount on Pistorius' website, and other folks have also put up their research and opinions. The blades are made of carbon fiber, which is a fiber reinforced polymer. They were designed to provide the type of spring that the human foot and ankle provide for running. There's a debate about everything else. Pistorius participated in studies of how they work which provides some information. Everyone seems to think the blades are lighter than his feet would be, although I've not read anything about the boot. The blades also store and release energy without causing the fatigue that human ankles would accumulate. However, they are less efficient than human ankles and feet, providing less thrust and control, and they work very poorly out of the blocks, providing no thrust at all. There are also other physical disadvantages of being an amputee. Figures are available on this. There has been no major change in the design of the blades since 1996, so I gather nothing better is available just now. However, I saw that some of the athletes had mechanical knees at the Paralympics, so the time may yet come.Pkeets (talk) 04:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually because Pistorius runs in IAAF events as well as IPC events (after much turmoil and argument that ended up in court - see the article) it's actually only his blades that have not changed. The IAAF will only allow him to run in their races if he uses exactly the same prosthetics that were tested during the whole saga. Other Paralympic athletes who do not run in IAAF events are not restricted like that. The much looser IPC rules about the blades is exactly the cause of the whole drama around him coming second in the 200m. That's what he and other "blade runners" will be discussing with the IPC, hopefully soon. Roger (talk) 12:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm suspecting they already had their meeting, as the group of impacted athletes have now gone home. Best to catch them before they all dispersed. I'm sure there are variations, improvements, etc. in the blades--you can see the variety the athletes are wearing--but the basic design is still the same. However, the mechanical knees were something else. They provided a working joint. I was impressed. Pkeets (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

There is certainly no indication in the local South African media that such a meeting has happened yet. I would be very surprised, as there has been no time for any of the interested parties to consult and prepare proposals and position statements. From what I know of how such matters are dealt with, I believe the substantive discussions are several months away.

Thanks for the input. I thought there was some kind of meeting, but likely it was informal, with some of the athletes giving their opinions on whether the question should go forward. We'll have to watch for the rest of it. Pkeets (talk) 15:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The IAAF rules shouldn't restrict Pistorius for IPC events, though; he would have been allowed to change to "better" blades at the paralympics, had he wanted to. Oliveira also changed his blades' lengths only 3 weeks before the race... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The point is that Pistorius has settled on a blade that works for him, and he thinks it's fair to stick with that so other athletes (regardless of disability status) know what they're dealing with. He was complaining about surprise changes in performance, if I understood it correctly, which was a personal issue. He made an error in not watching the heats, but once he was aware of the performance issues, he coped perfectly well. However, other athletes in the race didn't have the option to change blades. Singleton and Fourie were the athletes who were injured by unfairness in the 200m run. Pkeets (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's an interesting article that describes some projections for more natural, electronic limbs. It also reviews accusations made against Pistorius in 2004 for using blades that were too long. That might be something to add to the controversy section. There's a clip of his race against Shirley in this video, but it looks like the usual blades to me. There's also an interview with Heat Magazine where he discusses choosing an ordinary prosthesis. The gal asks him about shoe size and he says he tried tens but likes nines better. Then she asks about adding height, and he says there's a comfortable length, and that if you go taller, it interferes with what you want to do. Pkeets (talk) 14:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's an interesting article that reviews the blades complaint. Apparently the IPC rules say that a competitors' artificial limb "must not create the unrealistic enhancement of stride length." If Pistorius can make this stick, the race results may be voided. Looks like he had done his research before he made the complaint. Pkeets (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Doubt it. Seriously doubt it. The accusation that the South African Paralympic Committee actually filed on behalf of Oscar are detailed a bit IPC drops Pistorius, South African-requested prosthetic cheating investigation. I was in the room with the same Telegraph reporters, and the IPC said they had dropped the investigation, and any new such appeal would be past the time to file. His competitor's stride length was actually SHORTER than his, so it really can't work as an argument either. A new, more recent source needs to be found if you think it has a chance. (And I should be able to find the audio some place, which for copyright reasons, I cannot upload, where they say that at the press conference. --LauraHale (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

It's has indeed moved on past the specifics of that one incident. The issue to be discussed is the fairness of the rule itself - not whether anyone broke the rule, that has already been settled. BTW the stride length "explanation" is missing (or deliberately obfuscating?) the point. The fact that Oliveira's stride was shorter than Pistorius' stride is in itself irrelevant. What matters is how Oliveira's stride had changed - in length or rate - due to the blade length change.

It looks like the same bullshit obfuscation that the IPC did in the immediate day or two after the incident. They made a big show of asking all the coaches whether their atheletes had changed their blade lengths on or immediately before the days that they ran, which they knew would obviously all answer "no". The IPC knew perfectly well that any such changes would have been done months before the Paralympics for the athletes to get used to it well before the Paralympics, but at that stage they were going through these motions just to embarrass Pistorious even more in the eyes of the ignorant world media who don't understand that you can't just fuck around with blade length ten minutes before a race. Roger (talk) 19:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Except, and this is a very big important except, the South African allegations that they took to the IPC accused the Brazilian of changing their blades after having them measured when they got to the Games. So ignorant media or not, the IPC playing this card or not, the South Africans made a specific accusation which was completely untrue. The British media repeatedly demanded answers regarding the accusations by the South Africans, and the South Africans and Pistorius did not hold their own press conference to clarify. (And I have the newsletters, which I can cite for a few of them which say which press conferences were held.) There has been no evidence of changes to the Brazilian's stride length as a result of changes in equipment. I'm not sure what your point here is. --LauraHale (talk) 03:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure the accusation was untrue. Interviews with other athletes suggested that competitors were changing blades between events, at least. Watching the video, I can see Oliveira change his stride length toward the end of the race, but he actually shortened it and increased the frequency of his strides. Research on the mechanics of the blades indicates this can significantly affect sprinting time. Pkeets (talk) 05:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Since I'm poking around in references this morning, here's a quote "McQueen added: ‘I think the IPC are going to review it and realise that something needs to be changed. I’ve talked to Oscar, he got caught up in the heat of the moment but what he’s saying is true. Absolutely they switch heights between distances." Pkeets (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Can this information be added to Para-athletics classification, T43 (classification) and T44 (classification)? --LauraHale (talk) 05:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

What, in particular? The controversy? The research? There was a study of single leg runners that suggests limitations on their top speed. However, it appears unlikely that any changes in the classifications will take place in the short term. Pkeets (talk) 12:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

T43/44 revisited

So, the news articles about the blade controversy suggest Pistorius has been running in the T44 competitions because that's the way the races are presented. Was there a time when they were separate? I gather the meeting to discuss the problem took place during the Games, after all? That would make sense, as everyone was there, and other athletes should have had input, as well. One article said they were now considering a split of the classes. Pkeets (talk) 12:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the meeting is still upcoming. He said in Trafalgar Square that he was coming back in two weeks.Pkeets (talk) 22:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, what happened is that they found that T43 and T44 classes had too few competitors to run separate races so they were combined under the T44 label. In practice the athletes are still classed separately - the case of a bronze medal winner also being a record holder is a case in point. It looks like the athletes are now pushing the IPC to split the races so that the T44s can also win medals - The 44s mostly lose against 43s. Roger (talk) 12:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

T44 reigned in the 100m. Presumably this is because they have more thrust off the blocks. However, it looked like the T43 might have more advantage in the 200m and the 400m. Some of this in the 200m was due to the longer blades, which is the real unfairness about that race. T44s don't have the option to change their blades because they need to balance with the natural leg. Pkeets (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, in general T43s beat T44s because they don't need to deal with asymmetry. It's intrinsically easier to run on two blades (or feet) than on one blade and one foot. Roger (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

But in the 100m, all the winners were T44. In that case, asymmetry failed to trump thrust off the blocks. Note Peacock's time. In just the opposite result, T43 swept the 200m, given the chance to build up speed. Results were mixed in the 400m, which is an endurance race, as T44 David Prince came in 3rd. This suggests that for the 100m and the 200m, class has more to do with winning than training or talent. The ability of T43s to use longer blades adds to the unfairness, of course, and may have contributed to this result. Pkeets (talk) 18:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I just had occasion to look at the graphs of Pistorius' performance in the research tests. It looks like he reaches his cruising speed right about 200m. Pkeets (talk) 13:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

World record in Germiston meet?

In this article Arnu Fourie says the 4x100 relay team ran against able-bodied athletes at Germinston, Johannesburg, in April of this year and set a world record. Should we include this info in the article? I first thought it was an able-bodied meet, but maybe not. Here's another article on it. Was it mixed? Anybody familiar with it? Pkeets (talk) 02:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the Diamond League includes disabled events in their meets, so presumably this was a mixed meet and since they were there, they asked to run in the able-bodied relay and were accepted. They've set a new record at the Paralympics, so this is old news. Anyone think it should be included? Pkeets (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Sponsors

I don't see Ossur in the list of sponsors toward the end of the article. They're listed under "Partners" on Pistorius' website, and they have a page here that mentions they sponsor him. Shouldn't they be included in the paragraph? Pkeets (talk) 00:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they should be mentioned if there is a reliable reference. The references I read didn't mention Össur. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Their website would be considered a primary source, so I'll include another, too. It appears they may provide the blades. He said in an interview that they were very durable, but they must have needed replacement in nine years. One source said they run at least $15,000 each if you buy them. Pkeets (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Awards

There are various articles and video about the Gamajun International Award Premio Bruno de Marchi 2010. Apparently Pistorius received this award for commitment, courage and dedication to building a new sense of global community. Should this be included in the article? Pkeets (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

T44 vs T43

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

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

According to Jerome Singleton on Twitter, the classes will be separated for Rio. Pkeets (talk) 04:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

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

AIUI it's simply because he can beat them. He's faster than practically all other T43s and just as fast as the fastest T44s. We need to check which rule allows athletes to compete in a higher class than the one they are actually in. Note that some events are actually multi-class events. Roger (talk) 07:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

T43 vs T44 is not really "competing up a class" - some advantages to having bilateral blades vs single. In the 200 metre 'T44' final in London, the medalists were all T43s. Arnu Fourie broke the T44 world record, but came 4th overall. Sportygeek (talk) 00:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Pistorius, Oscar (2012). Blade runner. London: Virgin. p. 145. ISBN 9780753540855. OCLC 782993965. says " He took issue with the fact that during the Athens Paralympics I competed against the T44 athletes but, as I have stated, I made this choice precisely because there were no T43 athletes with qualifying times anywhere close to mine." --LauraHale (talk) 08:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

"There were no T43 athletes with qualifying times anywhere close to mine" - accurate statement at the time. But if he wanted to compete at the Paralympics, at the IPC Athletics World Championships, or similar, he had to run with T44 athletes. There were no separate T43 events. Separate T43 and T44 world records, but so far only combined T43/T44 races in international competition (usually called 'T44', but T43 athletes now tend to dominate the 200 and 400 meter distances) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportygeek (talk • contribs) 01:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

That's what I remembered, he chose to compete in T44, but which rule permits it? Roger (talk) 08:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It will be found some place in this. I've been slowly working on some of the classification articles as I have time, but the highly technical nature of some of them makes it difficult. : / I know you can compete in a more abled class than you are because I have been told that. (I think by a classifier actually.) --LauraHale (talk) 09:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't really have time to do the research this week - my schedule is full! Roger (talk) 09:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I have a stack of books with the hope of improving some articles this weekend before I head to London. : / I do have a copy of Pistorius's autobiography and checked out about 10 different books about the Paralympics and classification today. Trying to get articles on Australian Paralympians done first. Would love to have articles about every classification at the Paralympics before the Games but not sure it is feasible. --LauraHale (talk) 09:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

@LauraHale - I have a draft in my Sandbox that basically summarises the classification system in each of the sports - some sections are just about complete others still need work. Unfortunately I'm right in the middle of a very busy time in my academic calendar right now, so you're welcome to come play in my sandbox. Roger (talk) 10:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

@ Dodger67: Ditto. I've got User:LauraHale/Classification where I have started working on some articles. Beyond that, Category:Disability sport classifications has a number of articles. I've got additional specific drafts sitting around on Wikiversity. We had a classification workshop with a sport librarian, a Paralympic classifier, an academic and some one looking to get a job in the Australian sport sector and two Wikipedians facilitated by the Australian Paralympic Committee about three weeks ago. If you want to start playing in any of those articles, either existing ones or the drafts I've got, that would be helpful. Some of the individual classification articles are getting a hundred plus views a month and will be really important so people can clearly delineate what the difference is between T43 (classification) and T44 (classification). (or an uncopyrighted version thereof) --LauraHale (talk) 10:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

(aside) shouldn't there be a T41 (classification) (presumably double above the knee amputation or equivalent loss of use) ? I see from the classification articles, it goes from T40 to T42, skipping T41.

IPC has proposed splitting the current T40 (disproportionate short stature) classification into new T40 (tighter eligibility criteria) and T41 (minimum disability) classes. But it's bizarre - double above knee amputee runners like Richard Whitehead (athlete) or Rudy Garcia-Tolson are currently classified T42, same as single above-knee runners. I suspect it didn't occur to the IPC that elite double above knee amputee runners exist, assuming double AK athletes compete as wheelchair racers instead. Sportygeek (talk) 00:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

T41 now exists - minimum disability class for short statured athletes, vs new T40 with tighter eligibility criteria. ~Sportygeek

It also might be good to add one of those anatomical charts used by police to indicate injuries on a person, to indicate what limbs are considered disabled/lost for each of the classifications T42(T41)-T46. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 10:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Double leg amputees essentially have a choice of classifications: they can compete in wheelchair racing and sitting throws (where they'll be classified with paraplegics), or they can run with prosthetics and compete in standing throws (different classification - double above knee amputees classified with single above knee amputees, because the logical separate classification doesn't currently exist). Many athletes with cerebral palsy spastic diplegia get the same sort of choice - wheelchair racing/sitting throws in T/F34 or running/standing throws in T/F35. See the IPC Athletics Classification Rules and Regs (p49-50). Sportygeek (talk) 00:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

And that is not illustrated. So there is no chart system used in the articles, I don't see why we wouldn't illustrate what functional disability is used to classify the athletes. What's wrong with illustrating it? -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 06:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Nobody said there's anything wrong with illustrating the classifications - it just takes time to get things done. We are volunteers, not staff! What are you doing to improve Wikipedia? Roger (talk) 06:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You stated that there is a standard chart system. I stated that no standard charts are in our articles. So, if you have the standard charts, then you could scan them if they're not copyrighted or add a FUR as well if they are. Since I don't have access to this "chart system" that you say exists, I can't do that. My suggestion was to use anatomical charts to illustrate the articles, which you say is the invention of a new system. So, if we illustrate it with the chart system you say already exists, I cannot do it, since I don't have it. That has nothing to do with being staff or volunteers, staff wouldn't necessarily have access to this "standard" chart system either. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 07:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It's going to take me a while to find it, I saw it only once several months ago. Roger (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I found it, yay! It's on pages 30-31 of the Equestrian classification manual. I hope we can use it. Roger (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

That looks complex enough to be copyrightable. You'll have to get someone to redraw the table with different symbols, I think. (Or write to the FEI and ask them to license it to the Commons.) — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 21:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if those athlete profiles originated with the FEI. Exactly the same profiles currently used in paratriathlon classification (see p20-21). Half-remember seeing them used in other sports too.

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

T43 and T44 were separated for the 2013 IPC World Athletics Championships in Lyon. ~Sportygeek

Height

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

I don't think a one centimetre variation is worth fussing over - a change of shoes will easily vary anyone's height by that much - or in the case of his running blades just replacing worn out "spike pad" could make that much difference. BTW I saw a mention somewhere that Nike makes custom "spike pads" for him. Any person's height varies by that much during a day anyway, depending on hydration and the lennth of time spent upright the thickness of the cushions in the spinal joints vary. Roger (talk) 07:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Correct on the spike pads--I read that one, too. They analyzed his running action and designed the pad to match. That way they're always the same.Pkeets (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

If there's a reliable reference to the statement from Pistorius's management, though, we could update the article. At the moment, the height in the infobox is based on the statement in a US news article that Pistorius is 6 feet 1.25 inches tall (the height in metres was arrived at by conversion). — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

In that case, the statement is a better source, Pkeets, if you can find it, please update the article. Roger (talk) 09:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

A quick Google located it in a number of articles, but one of them is already cited at #93. I'll add this to the box. Pkeets (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, it's fixed. It's an interesting statement, and leaves me wondering how they measure the blades. In 2004 Brian Frasure thought they were too long. They look like he's walking on tip-toe, but they also look proportional and he's not overly tall in them. The long-legged American and Jamaican runners tower over him on the track. Pkeets (talk) 16:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The blades cannot make you any taller than 10% of the height you would be if you had both legs. (That is, they allow a 10% variance.) I don't know where the source is for that, but there should be one some place as this came up during an IPC press conference regarding the South African Paralympic Committee filing an accusation of cheating. --LauraHale (talk) 02:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

"The overall standing height of the Athlete with their competitive prostheses on must be less than or equal to the mean estimated height plus 2.5%". Source: IPC Athletics Classification Rules and Regs (p44-47). Sportygeek (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I know. Arcane formula. They have to estimate what height you would be, but now there's discussion about whether the 10% is appropriate. Pkeets (talk) 02:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I once worked out my "estimated maximum height" using the formula. It's dramatically shorter than my actual standing height (183cm / 6ft). No prosthetics involved, only slightly odd body proportions. I'm female, very long in the trunk relative to my legs, with a negative ape index. Sportygeek (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Shooting

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

I suspect we might be moving a bit fast on this - every reference used in the article states that police have not released the identity of the shooter, so at this point in time there is a lot of rumour floating around and little that has been confirmed. I think we need to proceed very carefully until the police make a clearer statement as to what happened. - Bilby (talk) 10:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Additional coverage with photos at the telegraph --NJR_ZA (talk) 11:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

He's been charged with murder. Bang bang. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The police weren't going to release his name until he was charged, so that clarifies a lot of the reports. However, I note that they have also raised doubts on the accidental shooting reports. - Bilby (talk) 12:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

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

I trimmed the story from the lead, it's premature to be adding such (largely speculative) detail to the lead. Keep WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE in mind when editing and keep it in the subsection under "Personal life" at least until we have more clarity from impeccable sources. Roger (talk) 14:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It should be briefly mentioned in the lead as it is a major event in his life. Reliable sources have reported that he shot her dead, has been charged with murder and says he mistook her for an intruder. Jim Michael (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

A sentence in the lead is acceptable but the "intruder" story is not appropriate in the lead and has been refuted (e.g. police deny making claims that he had thought she was an intruder - source); he hasn't made an official press release or public statement at the time of writing Jebus989^✰ 17:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The paragraph in the lead would benefit from being reworded, but there should be a mention in the lead of the murder and of him being charged with it. Jim Michael (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Further reading section

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

I agree and have removed a few, I'd guess there's probably some overlap with references too. I think nearly all (if not all) the "News reports" could go Jebus989^✰ 16:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I removed the News Reports. I think much of the rest of the Further reading should go as well. It should just be a short and concise list. It's kind of ridiculous that an athlete can have a Further Reading section so long, but Big Bang theory has one so much smaller. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Is this REALLY a "Good" article?

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

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

Go for it. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I was directed here by a message left on my talk page. If the article is to be nominated for GA delisting, I'd like to see the nominator's detailed reasons. "Too long and a bit of a mess" is rather non-specific. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 10:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Personally I think that prose-wise, the article is relatively not that long as compared to the GA Tiger Woods. And it pretty much meets the GA guidelines. Yes, you should be giving a more argumentative and detailed reasoning as to why it should be delisted. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Intro

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

The lead was long and detailed, but User:Spiculalinguae deleted it all. I've now restored it - Spic, if you have such a problem with it please at least rewrite a decent one instead of leaving one pathetic sentence. Probably 100,000+ people are looking at the article today, it's embarrassing to just have one sentence in the lead.

And I'm not sure what you meant by "none of this content 'covers the entire article'. they are NOT summarizing fact but facts that belong in the body". If you look down the article, all of the facts in the lead seem to be covered in more detail in the relevant subsections. What is the good in placing them again at the top of the "Sporting career" section?? --Lobo (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Intro is too long and too detailed. Can be condensed. Paragraphs combined. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Someone pulled a bad joke by adding "international poes" to the intro as "poes" is the Afrikaans (language) equivalent of "cunt" (pardon the language). I suggest it be removed as quickly as possible. Rembrandt0 (talk) 07:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed that it already has been removed and some people are sending a URL to the old revision as a joke: https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Oscar_Pistorius&oldid=725064152

My apologies for not realising it earlier. Rembrandt0 (talk) 07:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Reeva Steenkamp into Oscar Pistorius#Shooting incident

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

---

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

The Independent article describes her as a "national celebrity". I suggest we give editors a few days to source her notability before making the decision. -- 99of9 (talk) 04:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The shooting makes her notable. Leave her article as it is. Pkeets (talk) 04:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Clearly notable, no need to merge. --Hydao (talk) 05:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Notable: She was on the cover of FHM magazine in December 2011 in South Africa [6]. While she may not have been well known in the USA before her death, and while her murder will certainly overshadow other coverage of her life, she met the guidelines for notability prior to her death. Netrogeractor (talk) 06:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Notable: although I might be less convinced of her notability than many of my countrymen, putting aside her death, she certainly seems to pass the notability test that gets minor celebrities in the US to become notable. I think it is more a sign of how few Wikipedians there are writing about South Africans than her note worthiness that is the cause of the small number of articles about minor notables in South Africa and this very debate. Discott (talk) 06:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Merge I am South African and I had never heard of her, although I don't read You Magazine. I don't think she is notable in her own right. HelenOnline (talk) 09:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Not notable? I think she is notable enough to have an own article. There are so many amateur soccer-players from small villages and even hamlets in the Netherlands who have their own article on Wikipedia, but women tend to be highly underrepresented.--OPolkruikenz (talk) 13:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Support merge - I get the impression that her celebrity status was largely based on being Pistorius' girlfriend - otherwise she's just another model. I'm South African with a reasonable exposure to a variety of media although I don't usually seek out celeb news as such. Her independent notability is marginal at best. Roger (talk) 08:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You may well be right. Libération says she was "not well known" in South Africa ("peu connue en Afrique du sud"), and that she was hoping her career would soon pick up. We have contradictory reports on whether she was notable. On that basis, I don't know enough to say. Aridd (talk) 08:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Keep her article. While the circumstances of her death will probably overshadow anything she did in her life, her modelling career appears to meet the test of notability. Canuck^{89 (chat with me)} 08:57, February 15, 2013 (UTC)
• Weak keep she appears notable as a model and TV celebrity, so WP:BLP1E doesn't apply. Widefox; talk 09:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose merge There are sourced notability claims with reliable sources on her article. She is not only notable for this one event. This request should be closed ASAP to remove the banner from the page heading, it's not what 40 odd thousand pageviews need to see Jebus989^✰ 09:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC) edit: I've moved the template to the relevant section Jebus989^✰ 09:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose merge If she were only notable for the manner of her death, I'd support the merge, but that doesn't appear to be the case here; there are independent articles readily available from before her death that are primarily about her. The fact that it took her death for the article to be created is not relevant. Given rapidly emerging consensus to not merge, and Jebus989's observation about having the banner at the top of some very topical subjects, I propose closing this discussion now per WP:SNOW. —me_and 09:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
• Weak oppose merge As I said before although I might be less convinced of her notability than many other South Africans(putting aside her death) she seems to pass the notability test that gets minor celebrities in the US to become notable. I think that this discussion is as much a sign of how few Wikipedians there are writing about South Africans than her note worthiness. If there were more South African focused Wikipedians then we would likely have many more articles about minor notables like most of the people on the List of Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue cover models. Discott (talk) 12:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - I gather they were considered a "celebrity couple" in SA and that suggests a level of notability in keeping with our criteria. Deb (talk) 14:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment - That is actually an argument for the merger. If, as you argue, her notability is based on her relationship with Pistoruis then she does not have sufficient notability for a separate article.

• Oppose. Was known well before this murder. Murder does not discredit her fame prior. Srsrox (talk) 14:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. per notability. Racklever (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - notability established already before she was shot.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment - That's not true, the article didn't even exist before her death. Roger (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Notability and article is not the same thing. You misread my post.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Merge as per Kaldari and HelenOnline rationales. Quis separabit? 16:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think a separate article is clearly justified in this case, although it's open to question whether it should be titled after Steenkamp or the shooting incident. Robofish (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• NOT MERGE BUT SPEEDY DELETE - I am sorry but are you all being absolutely rediculous - 3 years ago I tried to start an article about an MIT Professor emeritus of Mechanical Engineering and it got speedy deleted - it took me literally begging an administrator to get it resurrected from the trash bin - let me be clear this person is of absolutely no notability to any encyclopedia before her death - she was the girlfriend of someone notable - period - her only place in wiki is as "the death of Reeva" etc. - shame on all of you for attempting to make her out as the next mother teresa postmortum - "quote" "unquote" rock stars like this person are the bane of wiki by engineering fictious notablity from thin air

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

• delete or merge or rename to Death of Reeva Steenkamp - in that order. 1) there is zero evidence of any coverage of her before her death to exist as a stand alone article. 2) she is now only talked about in relation to Pistorius - however that is likely to be WP:UNDUE and WP:CRIME violations 3) her death has recieved coverage, but there is no indication there is lasting coverage WP:NOTNEWS -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Have you looked at the article? Three of the sources were published before the shooting Jebus989^✰ 23:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Snow close?

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

I'm reverting the removal - only a proper formal closure of this proposal can remove it. Roger (talk) 12:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

What do you suggest, waiting a week? We usually don't go through due process for the sake of it per WP:IAR and WP:SNOW. If you mean just adding the template and closing the discussion please feel free to do those things. This is a time-sensitive issue given the current visibility of this page Jebus989^✰ 13:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

If you want to close it per SNOW be my guest - but please do it properly. Your "time sensitive" argument holds no water at all, we are building an encyclopedia, not a news service. See WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. Making articles "pretty" just because readership stats are up is not an argument at all. Any reader who comes to WP looking for news is an idiot. Roger (talk) 13:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

As an involved editor it's not my place to close the proposal. We are, as is often the case, top 3 google pagerank for the article's subject, many viewers aren't here for the latest details but a overview of his life (also see my comment higher up the page highlighting NOTNEWS). I'm not trying to make the article pretty, but there's consensus not to merge so leaving a "merge proposal" banner on what will be a heavily trafficked article for the next few days serves no purpose; while high readership itself isn't an argument, I was using it as a proxy for WP:COMMONSENSE Jebus989^✰ 14:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

A similar discussion has been started at the talk page of Reeva Steenkamp. Is that really necessary and if so isnt it a bit misleading?--BabbaQ (talk) 11:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

This is getting messy; the renaming discussion assumes the outcome of this is 'no merge', IMO a fair assumption but I agree poorly timed Jebus989^✰ 13:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Improperly skewed article

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

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

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

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

Nobody has been convicted of murder yet, so please refrain from implying otherwise for the time being. HelenOnline (talk) 10:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that this article should be "balanced" to emphasize his girlfriend's murder. Because this article is already so long and well-developed, the better solution would be to summarize in the section already established, and then start a new article on the subject of the murder. I believe this is normally how scandals are handled. I'll be happy to establish the new article now if others are in agreement. I think the coverage of the murder trial should be moved fairly soon, as it is already beginning to get very detailed in this article. I don't know about South Africa, but in the US, this could go on for several years. Pkeets (talk) 13:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Nickname

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

WP:BLP: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist". All of the sources you mentioned are sensationalist reports relating to a very specific controversial incident. HelenOnline (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Blade gunner is also a specific media reference in response to the death he is associated with, based on an advertisement he did in South Africa. He is better nicknamed Blade Runner, which is also the title of his biography and the media materials put out at the London Paralympics and Olympics. Sensationalis or not, it is not the nickname he uses for himself. --LauraHale (talk) 07:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

It's just an obvious pun on his sporting nickname of Blade Runner. I agree with HelenOnline that it's inappropriate for the article at this time Jebus989^✰ 11:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Bail

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

115k = you walk away ... and yes it rhymes--68.231.15.56 (talk) 03:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Plus a four day fight over it. Pkeets (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Photo from the bail hearing

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

Carl Pistorius manslaughter charge

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

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

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

I agree. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 22:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

For the talk page record, CP was acquitted today. Helen (talk) 13:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Split death to new article

Please add this split banner to the article

{{move portions|Death of Reeva Steenkamp}}

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

Thanks -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 02:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Reeva Portrait.jpg nominated for deletion

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

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

Spelling of name

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

Redirect?

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

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

Accuracy of wording in relation to the shooting incident

The following wording is inaccurate:

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

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

Amelie Garcia 03/07/2013

"The "offence" of which he is suspected...". Killing a person is not an "offence" - it is a "crime"!! --77.10.17.167 (talk) 17:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I am fairly sure you need to be charged with a crime before you have a bail hearing. I don't think the degree of charge has been decided yet (premeditated or not). Regardless, we cannot do anything without reliable sources and there are plenty saying he was charged. Helen (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

His own affidavit read during his bail hearing states "I fail to understand how I could be charged with murder", "I have been informed I have been accused of murder", and "I want to deal with these allegations". Helen (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Inaccurate Sources

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

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

 Done Fixed thanks. HelenOnline 13:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Presumptuous Language

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2014

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

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

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

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

Murder trial

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

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

I think the article is inevitable. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

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

I strongly support your proposal. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

This will eventually have to be changed to past tense, of course. Pkeets (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Murder and it's definition

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

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

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

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

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

Links

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

Ref 185 is a . 63.92.241.249 (talk) 03:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC) Darwin

Transhumanism

His cases to be allowed to run in the Olympics and in other able bodied events seem to be some of the first trans-humanism in the real world. If so, shouldn't it be mentioned or linked on his page? Sdmitch16 (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Only if there are reliable third-party publications that state this, otherwise it's just original research or synthesis. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 20:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Girlfriends page

can someone have a look and edit it please, liable on there! Plus needs a lot of work, not really deserving of her own page imho. Needs merging. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.28.57 (talk) 14:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

lead needs editing

not murder, at worst negligence and a horrific accident. Need changing to state this. Plus Reevas page is a joke!! How wiki hasnt been sued for it is beyond me, plus there are things like "like riding, on a sexy list, who she used to date on it!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.28.57 (talk) 14:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

T44 v. T43 (again)

In the London 2012 Olympics section, the first paragraph states that he entered the 200m as T44. The next paragraph then starts talking about how he did in the T43 category for the same race. Is this correct, i.e. did he change category? I think this needs clarifying. 194.66.198.40 (talk) 09:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's what "He entered [X, Y and Z] races in the T44 classification" means, it means the events are in the T44 classification – he is classified T43 regardless of the events he participates in (although I think he can still set T44 records, as he has a greater disability than T44 competitors). HelenOnline 11:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I have reworded the sentence to remove ambiguity. HelenOnline 11:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

(ec)The classification is attached to the person. Some races include athletes in more than one classifications - in this case the race was a T43 & T44 race. In the distances between 100 and 400 metres there is no meaningful performance difference between T43 (double below knee amputation or paralysis) and T44 (single below knee amputation or paralysis) runners. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Culpable homicide

For categorization purposes, can we treat manslaughter and culpable homicide as equivalent? Or do we need a separate category for people convicted of the latter? PatGallacher (talk) 12:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be acceptable if we explain in the category description. HelenOnline 13:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I mean in this case – it will depend on the country. As long as the actual crime meets the long description of manslaughter. HelenOnline 13:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

There are some American and British sources that use the term manslaughter in this case. HelenOnline 13:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I've asked for some input from WikiProject Law. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Manslaughter is broadly understood as referring to reckless homicide, while culpable homicide in South Africa is a type of negligent homicide. Recklessness is a higher level of culpability, and therefore more criminal, than negligence. In my view it's quite a severe miscategorization. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:36, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

That interpretation is not at all obvious in the manslaughter article. HelenOnline 15:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Is "reckless homicide" the same as dolus eventualis? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@HelenOnline: Then the manslaughter article needs reworking. I don't mean to sound condescending, but this is basic substantive criminal law. Manslaughter in modern practice means having a culpability of no less than recklessness; negligent homicide is not manslaughter in the United States, so to claim someone convicted of negligent homicide committed manslaughter very likely implicates WP:BLP in various uncomfortable ways. In older common law practice it means the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought. See Blackstone's Commentaries at pp. 190–191 for the common law meanings. It's very likely that the term "manslaughter" is meaningless in civil law countries.

@Dodger67: I'm entirely unfamiliar with that term. It doesn't appear in Black's Law Dictionary. I get the impression that it's a civil law concept, with which my familiarity is very limited. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

It's from Roman law, not English common law. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I think these terms mean different things in different countries, which may be why someone added Category:People convicted of murder to this article. It wouldn't solve the problem to create Category:People convicted of culpable homicide to answer the OP. But then the same problem applies to "black" categories etc, and it boils down to what reliable sources call it. We have sources for manslaughter here. HelenOnline 16:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

They mean different things in different legal traditions. South Africa does not follow common law. It's not appropriate to use a common law term to a conviction from a country not governed by a common law legal tradition. The sources you have at best might be used to claim that a conviction for culpable homicide is similar to manslaughter. I would go so far as to argue that those sources are not reliable sources for law (Cf. WP:MEDRS). It's flat out not correct to say Pistorius is a person convicted of manslaughter. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings about it. Bowing out now. HelenOnline 17:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the problem is resolved - a new set of "culpable homicide" categories to parallel the "manslaughter" categories has been created. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Medaliv is right. However, it does seem odd that his conviction was upgraded from culpable homicide to murder, skipping the manslaughter degrees in the middle. Different systems draw the terminological line at different points, e.g. some reserve murder for the highest degree, premeditated and intentionally aimed at ending the victim's life, all lower degrees of murder being manslaughter which can be aggravated e.g. if committed in the course of another crime, and, as Medaliv says, these grades are to be sharply distinguished from culpable homicide, the latter being due to a failure of thinking the appropriate things through whereas a murderer _has_ thought inappropriate things through. So: is P's "murder" in the SA sense equivalent to one of these intermediate degrees elsewhere? I'm not ruling out that the SA judges did well and truly mean the highest degree, just asking if this can be clarified.137.205.183.109 (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2014

Please change this: He used to own a house in South Africa which was sold in June 2014, and used to train for the European season in Gemona del Friuli, Italy.

... to this: [New paragraph]He owned a house in South Africa that he sold in June 2014 in order to raise money to finance his training for the European season in Gemona del Friuli, Italy.

... because the current version is bad English and unclear. Pistorius did not use the house for training; he used the proceeds from the sale. Brandon1942 (talk) 12:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually the proceeds from the sale of the house went to paying for his trial defence. He did not sell the house so that he could train in Italy. You seem to be conflating two separate statements - he owned a house in SA and he used to train in Italy. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The sentence needs to be a bit more clear, but as far as I know, he used the house to train for Italy. Grognard Chess (talk) Help:Getting rid of Media Viewer 13:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you serious? By June 2014 he was on trial for murder, training in Italy was off the menu - his bail conditions did not (and still don't) allow him to leave the country. Previously - way before the shooting incident - he used to train in Italy. Owning a house in Pretoria (in South Africa) has got absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he used to train in Italy. They are totally unrelated facts. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

I reverted the addition of Template:Infobox criminal as a primary infobox as the subject's notability is not due mainly to their being a convicted criminal. We could add it as a secondary infobox in the Oscar Pistorius#Killing of Reeva Steenkamp section if there is consensus to do so. Please discuss. HelenOnline 09:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of retaining it. Pkeets (talk) 23:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

POV question

This seems to me to introduce a slanted point of view, and I'd like to propose it for deletion. Any comments? "Following Pistorius' sentencing Reeva Steenkamp's mother, June Steenkamp, claimed Oscar Pistorius was "Sure To Kill Someone Sooner Or Later".[156]" Pkeets (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Um, NO. The statement is properly sourced - it reflects HER point of view, not the article's. 98.67.182.193 (talk) 08:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Second paragraph

Second paragraph reads: "After becoming a Paralympic champion in bathroom shooting, Pistorius attempted to enter able-bodied international competition, over persistent objections of the IAAF and charges that his artificial limbs gave an unfair advantage. Pistorius eventually prevailed in this legal dispute." I do not think the text in bold is needed (although somewhat funny).

It was vandalism and it was deleted, which is what you should have done in the first place. Don't be afraid to delete vandalism. __209.179.0.121 (talk) 17:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)