Talk:O. J. Simpson/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Early Life

There is an important fact missing in the section of O.J.'s early life, he had rikkers, a disease and had to wear leg braces. I think that should be mentioned. --Silly Stone; Oct 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silly Stone (talk • contribs) 02:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"Rickets", and seconded. There are numerous sources to back this up, including CNN here. --Irrevenant [ talk ] 03:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. I took the advice of "be bold" and added it. --Irrevenant [ talk ] 03:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

O.J. DID win the Heisman Memorial Trophy. It says in this article that he was a candidate but not a winner. He later sold the trophy, which I believe adds to his character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Packersfan99 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

OJ's Picture

You should add a date to the featured picture. You know there are people that never really followed either of this trials (criminal or civil) and it would be best to say something like OJ with child circa 1985 or whatever. At least that way we'd know what year it was take4.142.90.220 06:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)eric

Hmm. It had a caption, but it got removed at some point. I've re-added, but it's not appearing; something's wrong with the infobox. I'll look a little further.—Chowbok ☠ 19:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

There we go. Fixed.—Chowbok ☠ 19:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

The article was supposedly peer reviewed, but the review is redlinked above and I can't find it...anyone know where it is? Videmus Omnia 23:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the link. At one time, there was no space between his initials in the article's name. Xoloz 18:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Merging Juiced with OJ Simpson into article

I suggested merging an article I found floating around into this article. That one is just a stub on the pay per view special Simpson was supposed to have done, but it is unsourced and I'm not sure this was ever anything more than a rumor. I would have merged and redirected outright, but I'm not sure where if anywhere that article would fit into this one. Optigan13 04:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it's got an IMDB page is pretty good evidence that it's not just a rumor. I agree wholeheartedly, redirect the "Juiced" page here. ~ Jbshryne 00:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I merged what little there was in there into this article. Since I couldn't really see where to put it, and there was so little to that article, I added it as a note to the title itself. Optigan13 07:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Other litigation

The spiel in the last bullet point on litigation is not sourced in entirety. Clean up? --Garzj019 02:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, what's with this? '"A corporation owned by OJ Simpson's four daughters"'? He has four daughters? I thought only one? FilmFemme 16:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• • I think he has two daughters, one with Nicole, and the other one is older but I'm not sure of her name. There was also another older daughter who drowned in a swimming pool in infancy. Sky83 (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

There needs to be some info on the current controversy regarding his live-in girlfriend, currently in ICU in Florida, as a result of either an alleged beating by Simpson or a "slip and fall" at a gas station, according to the Miami Herald (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/miami_dade/story/418596.html)

Suggest the following:

According to a Miami Herald news report, police may be investigating injuries to Simpson's longtime girlfriend, Christie Prody. She is currently in intensive care with head and other injuries after what Simpson says was a drunken fall at a gas station. Police have been called to the Simpson residence five times over the last seven years to resolve conflict between Simpson and Prody, according to an investigation by the Herald. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Journalist33 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Criminal Trial

There are weasel words in the "Criminal Trial" section. I quote:

"and many contend that Simpson would have been found guilty had there not been so many mistakes and irregularities made by the prosecution and the police investigation of the case."

Should this be cleaned up?

Alternately, perhaps a balancing statement along the lines of "On the other hand, many others contend that the evidence itself showed significant reasonable doubt and thus merited the acquittal" could be included as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.169.167.212 (talk) 03:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

At the end of the segment, someone has added "he did it. and by it i mean everything." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.252.189.80 (talk) 17:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to request that someone with the authority to do so remove the phrase "He Did It. And by It I mean Murder, and by Did i mean Stab his wife over and over with a magic knife/glove." at the end of the criminal litigation description section. The statement is an opinion and while declaring facts to the dubious circumstances of the trial is one thing, biased and slanderous phrases should not be tolerated. Jazida 14:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP

Please could you guys that monitor this article make sure everything is sourced ASAP? The article is in bad need of more references or I'm going to have to chop out what isn't referenced if I can't find them per WP:BLP. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

OJ Las Vegas Trouble

I think OJ might be in trouble here in Las Vegas, there is some speculation in the press that he may be involved in an armed robbery attempt of a sports memorabillia store...Robert Beck 14:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Well there better be a reliable source for it before it goes in the article. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the AP has picked up the story, ditto for Fox News. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.202.248.12 (talk • contribs) 16:47, September 14, 2007 (UTC)

If you read the current news stories, everything currently being reported boils down to nothing more than suspicion and guesswork. It is best in situations like this to wait and let the dust settle. There is no way, at this time, to know if this will all come to nothing or if it is the start of a significant event. --Allen3 ^talk 17:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

MSNBC is currently reporting Simpson claims he was conducting a "sting operation" to recover belongings. Is that worry of note, being that it is a less than frequent occurrence by citizenry? JasonPresyl 18:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

CNN is reporting OJ was just arrested. Dirtysocks 18:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The "sting Operation" comment has since been retracted by the AP. Please remove it post haste. 71.239.180.89 22:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)LongJohns

To admin. Please note that he has been arrested and yes guns have been found. time to update the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.206.89.65 (talk) 18:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

A couple of references about the arrest. They say he was trying to recover items but wasn't armed. http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1284346,00.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6997950.stm Doyley 06:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This should be comclusive proof that he was arrested http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6990000/newsid_6998000/6998021.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm&asb=1&news=1 Doyley 06:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Juiced

Should there be mention of his prank show "Juiced" under his acting credits? Not to mention the controversy it caused ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.23.77.221 (talk) 13:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Civil Court Expiration?

Do civil court judgments expire in the US? (After 10 years they expire in Canada, though can be renewed for an additional 10 years)204.112.152.79 03:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Just Curious

Has OJ ever been accused of antisemitism? 204.52.215.13 04:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

NO. people that have defended him or have given him money and support have typically been Jewish such as Robert Shapiro or Alan Dershowitz or Robert Kardashian or Barry Scheck and on and on and on and on and on....--70.71.13.87 05:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a google advanced search might turn something up.Albion moonlight 06:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Incarcerated celebrity list

The current link to category "Incarcerated celebrities" does not seem appropriate because that category is for "celebrities who are serving, or have served a prison sentence for a criminal conviction". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benailes (talk • contribs) 10:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced information

I just removed a significant portion of the article lacking references per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. You are welcome to restore content, adding references as appropriate. Here is a link to the revision immediately before my removal: [1], which you are welcome to use as a basis for rebuilding this article. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 20:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest restoring the deleted text with an {{Unreferencedsection}} tag. The text seems pretty neutral and boilerplate as bio info goes. Referencing is a chore someone needs to do and the tag should suffice by pointing out the need. Mytwocents 20:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP states that content in articles like this one must adhere strictly to WP:V. That means, in short, if it doesn't have a source then we can't include it. Simple data such as birthdates may seem trivial, but it needs a reference so we are sure that we aren't misrepresenting someone's age. I saw a documentary made probably a couple of years ago where a reporter looked up the article about her on Wikipedia only to discover that the article got her birthday wrong. This didn't do much to promote the credibility of Wikipedia. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 01:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The heart of WP:V is(with bolded text): "This page in a nutshell: Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." I don't see any material in the deleted text that is "likely to be challenged". However, tagging it as unreferenced doesn't hurt any thing for the time being. I just don't think it's necessary for every single statement in a bio article. Mytwocents 05:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

All articles need references, and articles like this one especially. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material – whether negative, positive, or just questionable – about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia."

If you don't like the lack of information in this article, then take the time to do the article right by adding references to support statements. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort to get people to improve an article, but BLP doesn't require removing the material. It's not contentious. Nobody is going to think that information harmful. Where policy speaks you still use common sense; where policy is silent common sense is the rule. So I've restored it. Why not an unreferenced or fact tag? Still, if anyone cares to source this, go for it. Wikidemo 23:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP is very firm about making absolutely sure that we get the article right. Among the statements I removed are sentences such as

He first rushed for more than 1,000 yards in 1972, gaining a total of 1,251.

On June 24, 1967 Simpson married Marguerite L. Whitley.

Simpson was considered for the lead role in The Terminator, before it was decided audiences might not accept him as a relentless villain, due to his "nice guy" image.

We do not have any sources to back these statements up. What if one or more of the birthdays, marriage dates, statistics, etc. is wrong? What about the list of endorsements that Simpson made? How can I know that this information is accurate? The answer is that from the given information, I can't. If it turns out that any of these unsourced statements are inaccurate then they could be considered slanderous, and that is why it is inappropriate to include the material without citations. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that the authors of this article did not see fit to mention where they got their information. For all I know it could have been from their personal memories, or they might have been guessing. That is simply unacceptable on a biography of a living person. We need to know where the information came from. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I agree with WD here. Can we put a date in the (refs and sources needed) notice? And perhaps a notice above the unsourced material in particular? This route seems to me to be much more likely to improve the section(s) more quickly.

Also, using the BLP policy to completely remove uncontroversial material in this manner shouldn't be done. As more editors object, it could possibly lead to the weakening of the BLP policy itself, which I don't think was meant to be applied this way. Discretion and common sense are needed in this case.

Finally, I wanted to note that the conversation is also on the talk page at BLP (link here). R. Baley 20:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to compromise here. I've commented out all the unsourced material. It is still viewable by clicking "edit this page", but it will not be visible to the casual reader until sources are provided. Please also take a look at WP:PROVEIT: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." All the statistics and statements about Simpson have got to go unless we can provide something to back the information up. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 23:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The heart, again is Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged should be deleted. I added tags to add citations. I think we should give the process of adding citations some time. ans incidentally, anybody can google these statements and add citations. Mytwocents 00:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Mytwocents and others. BLP relates to controversial material--it's not controversial that Simpson gained X number of yards in year X or that he was married to X person. If Remember the Dot was concerned about lack of sources for these points--which is laudable--obviously the best course is to take a couple of hours (I don't think it would take much more than that) to add in sources. It is obviously completely unacceptable to have an article on OJ Simpson which says little or nothing about his football career and only discusses the murder trial (which is basically what removing those sections did). In fact that's probably a bigger BLP problem as it gives an extremely slanted view of how Simpson achieved his fame.

Incidentally, there were a number of sources added by User:Ah3133 which were apparently removed in this edit. If those were reinstated we probably would not have much of a problem.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

family? nfl?

why is there no info in this article about his family or about his nfl career? it was in at some point, but now it's gone. there is info in the google cache:

click here for cache

that's where i had to go to find the information i was looking for, not the current wikipedia article on oj. that's very irritating. 208.148.197.29 04:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)ah3133

Take a look at #Unsourced information above. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Then why don't you just put "citation needed"? By deleting it, you force others to recompose that content instead of just looking for a source. 74.251.2.187 05:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)ah3133

I did provide a link to the previous version of the article, which editors are welcome to use as a basis for rebuilding the article. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 23:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I will allow the content to remain in hidden comments visible by clicking "edit this page", see the above thread. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 23:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Tax Liabilities

The California Franchise Tax Board reported on their web site on October 17, 2007, that Orenthal Simpson of Miami owes $1,435,484.17 to the State of California for deliquent taxes. A lien was filed for this amount on September 1, 1999. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.62.11.5 (talk) 04:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Jersey Number

Hello, When O.J. first played with the Buffalo Bills he wore the number 36. He later switched to 32. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.61.130.33 (talk) 01:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

His jersey should've read "187" Who gives a crap what Wiki deems "libelous" everyone knows O.J. is a murdering scumbag even if they don't have the balls to admit it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.176.235 (talk) 03:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

OJ's SlowRide in the Bronco

Why is there N O T H I N G said about the FACT that the DAY OJ did his SlowRide in a white Bronco down the San Diego freeway just happened to coincide with the "Grand Opening" of International Football in the USA and we saw N O T H I N G about this "Grand Opening" anywhere on TV as all channels were focused on this SlowRide parade of his Bronco with police cars following, almost guarding OJ while TV channels rolled.Some of us believe "America IS a LIE" so we are aware there was something was fishy about this event as if it was staged on purpose to disrupt the Grand Opening. Question is, was corporate media and NFL in cahoots to use OJ to make his best football run ever for the NFL? If so, he succeeded beyond anyone's expectations- No show. Oh, you didn't know International Football is Soccer? Can you guess why NFL & US media did not want it to go thru? They want International Football to be American Football. I'd hope it was not true that NFL put OJ up to this, but since [America IS a LIE] NO ONE has even bothered to ask OJ if the NFL or American media put him up to it. Why else would he SlowRide his Bronco down the freeway on that PARTICULAR day when he could've done it any other? This all SMELLS like either a skunk or Nword in the woodpile Roger Carmichael, BSME —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.240.123.119 (talk) 07:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You are an idiot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.124.75 (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The "O.J. Bowl"

The information concerning the "O.J. Bowl" is factually incorrect. The game took place at Pittsburgh on October 27, 1968, and the Steelers defeated the Eagles by a score of 6-3. It was the seventh game of the 1968 season for both teams, who entered the game with records of 0-6. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TOttenville8 (talk • contribs) 11:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)