Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:32, 10 August 2014

Important notice: The topic of this article may be the subject of sub judice concerns in South Africa due to the ongoing criminal trial. All editors should exercise caution in editing or commenting on the topic of this article. Editors in South Africa may also wish to consider any personal legal implications. Please remember that legal information provided on Misplaced Pages cannot substitute for the advice of a licensed professional.

Crime and Criminal Biography C‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

South Africa C‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South Africa on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Title

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

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

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

Image

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

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

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

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

Neutrality of the article?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Name of court case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opening sentence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good faith WP:BOLD "Event of Killing" section

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

Paddy Power

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Nathan121212 diff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prosthetic legs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neutrality "Progress of trial" section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

1. Cite error: The named reference Postponed was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Lyall, Sarah; Cowell, Alan (28 March 2014). "Murder Trial of Pistorius Is Postponed After Illness". The New York Times. Retrieved 29 March 2014.
3. Davis, Rebecca. "Pistorius Trial: Week Five, Day One". The Daily Maverick. Archived from the original on 7 April 2014. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
4. "Oscar Pistorius Faces Final Day of Cross Examination". The Guardian. Retrieved April 19, 2014.

Roger Dixon

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

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

Minor Correction

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

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

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

Evaluation and "simple fact incident took place at night"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unsourced edits

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

Source:

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

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

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

eNCA explains what led to Roux's concession:

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

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

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

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

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

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

fixed a number of errors

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

Request for HelenOnline to cease editing this article

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

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

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

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

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

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

• C-Class Crime-related articles
• High-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• C-Class South Africa articles
• High-importance South Africa articles
• WikiProject South Africa articles