Talk:Oscar Pistorius/Archive 3

World record in the 400 m at the 2008 Summer Paralympics
Would someone please clarify why Pistorius's time of 47.49 seconds in the 400 metres (T44) at the 2008 Summer Paralympics is being called a world record when he achieved 46.56 seconds on 17 March 2007 at the South African Senior Athletics Championships in Durban? — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 18:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The event in Durban was probably not recognised by whoever officiates over disabled atheletics records. Roger (talk) 14:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of "2009 boating accident" section
I have removed the "2009 boating accident" section (text below) that was in the article. Although it was originally reported that Pistorius was seriously injured, it has now emerged that he sustained only minor facial injuries, bruises and lacerations (see, , ). Therefore, I think the incident is trivial and marginal to the article. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 14:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"On 21 February 2009, Pistorius was seriously injured in a boating accident on the Vaal River in South Africa. His agent stated that the details of the accident and the nature of his injuries would only be made known after he had undergone emergency surgery in Johannesburg. As of 22 February, a spokesperson of Millpark Hospital said he was in critical but stable condition in intensive care."

Assault charge
I have deleted the following sentence that was recently added to the article:

"In September of 2009, he was arrested and charged with assault of a 19 year-old at a function at his house. []"

Although the information is properly referenced, I believe it may violate "WP:BLP": "It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy." It appears that the incident was a minor one – a news report dated 14 September 2009 states "[t]he paralympic sprinter was released with a warning", and there do not appear to be any other reports on further legal action having been taken against Pistorius. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 05:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not a privacy issue. Why is it that something like this happens to someone but it has to be buried? Even if it was resolved (which I didn't see) that doesn't mean it shouldn't be noted. This is a biography, not a "ignore all bad things" and only highlight the positive. Imaslee  pviking  ( talk ) 16:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Because this is a biography of a living person, more caution has to be exercised, and privacy is relevant. Also, we need to consider whether the information is mere trivia and thus a mere "titillating claim" or truly relevant to the article, in the sense that it helps us to understand the subject of the article better. Not everything that is ever written about a well-known person in the press is worth mentioning in an article, otherwise articles would soon become unnecessarily long. On its own the assault incident seems fairly trivial – no further legal action is being taken. If Pistorius was being charged in court that may be a different matter. In addition, if there is reliable evidence that the incident is part of a series of related incidents (i.e., Pistorius getting into trouble where overconsumption of alcohol is involved), then this might merit mention in the article. Why don't you explore that angle, if you wish to? — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 07:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent Results
I'm no expert in this area, but came here from a recent Sports Illustrated article suggesting that two of the scientists involved in producing the original evidence used by the Court to overturn the ban, had actually agreed that he received unfair advantage from his prostheses, but not for the reasons stated in the ban itself. The article is here: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/david_epstein/11/19/oscar.pistorius/index.html - I haven't looked up the original work on which the article is based, and was not sure whether the source would be adequate to add these details to the article. I thought I would at least post the link to see whether more experienced editors felt it was worth mention. 59.167.9.131 (talk) 07:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)