Talk:O. J. Simpson

Another broken sentence that needs rewording

Before his murder trial, sportswriter Ralph Wiley claimed in 2002, White people considered Simpson a "unifying symbol of all races".

Should be - Before his murder trial, sportswriter Ralph Wiley claimed in 2002, white people considered Simpson a "unifying symbol of all races". 150.143.27.147 (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

It should be "Before Simpson's murder trial." If one writes "Before his murder trial," the sentence reads like it was Ralph Wiley's trial. KevinScott71 (talk) 02:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

How should we treat Simpson's “culpability” in the murders; neutral or adamant?

A legal verdict is not required for scholars and historians to draw their own conclusions based on the evidence: they may conclude that a person that was actually acquitted of some crime was, in fact, guilty; or visa versa, they may conclude that someone who was convicted was, in fact, innocent. Although Simpson was acquitted in a trial, reliable sources, such as Jeffrey Toobin's book The Run of His Life: The People v. O. J. Simpson (1997), firmly establish that he killed Brown and Goldman. I think to say I think it is very easy to write it when the evidence is so overwhelming. It is WP:BLP's standard, which, obviously, does not apply to someone who died years ago. We quite frequently describe deceased people in ways that imply or presume guilt; once someone has been dead for long enough that there's no longer a BLP-level risk of harm, the standard shifts to the same one we use for everything else (ie. what do the preponderance of the best available sources use, with perhaps some additional weight needed if the claim is WP:EXCEPTIONAL.) Otherwise we would have to cover almost every historical figure's article with "alleged" this and that - especially murderous or genocidal dictators, heads of state, etc., who were often never convicted of any formal crimes. WP:BDP applies; while WP:BLP may apply for some period after death, that's exceptional, would only apply to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime and is comparatively brief. Well, I think it could be seen that those "living relatives and friends" might be just not wanting to believe it. 92.17.198.220 (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

reliable sources firmly establish that he killed Brown and Goldman I highly doubt that, as it's not for RS to establish guilt. We should continue to say what we say, which is that he was found not guilty in a criminal trial and liable in a civil trial. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I just thought that the discussion could be suggested in future, particularly as Wikipedia, from the mid-2010s, firmly embraced Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt and has no qualms about naming him as the killer, as officially concluded. https://en.luquay.com/wiki/Talk:Lee_Harvey_Oswald#Alleged 92.17.198.220 (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Two suspects of murder are not necessarily the same beyond that. We had a Warren Commission on Oswald. What sources say OJ did it? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I recently gave it away to a shop, but Jeffrey Toobin's book The Run of His Life: The People v. O. J. Simpson (1997) could be argued as one source. I obviously don't have the full argument he used on the page number but as quoted in this article: https://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/10/books/figuring-out-the-o-j-simpson-trial.html, "Mr. Toobin pulls no punches in this book. He is convinced that O. J. Simpson is guilty of murdering his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ronald Lyle Goldman, and he argues that any rational analysis of the events and evidence in question leads to that conclusion." At the very least, it seems that various theories (like "Jason did it" or "intruders did it" are regarded as fringes theories and hardly taken seriosuly), especially as no other "reliable" theory surfaced. There are no definitive answers to any of these questions. Whether one answers “yes,” “probably,” “possibly,” “unlikely, “implausible,” or “no” to these questions will often depend on whether one already thinks O.J. is guilty or innocent.92.17.198.220 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I have retitled the subject, as Simpson was found guilty of robbery.92.17.198.220 (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I am aware this could be a WP:CATV issue, and consensus is not to add Simpson to categories like killers and murderers, because he was acquitted. Obviously, it disappointing he can never be retried, but that's the way it is. 92.17.198.220 (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Pretty much that. It's not verified that he committed murder, and it's best to just stick with the facts: he was found not guilty in a criminal trial and liable in a civil trial. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

For the sake of a "test", I have done several edits to Ron and Nicole’s articles naming OJ as killer, after which it can than be changed to reflect a neutral stance, if in case one day, we do name him as the killer 92.17.198.220 (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

And someone else reverted them. —Bagumba (talk) 07:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we can make an FAQ above as to why the article is to remain neutral in regard to guilt or innocence. What we need is an edit filter on the page (and the article itself, I suppose) which, if the submitted edit contains the word "alleged", blocks the edit and throws up a message referring the editor to an FAQ above. I think it would need to apply to all of the peripheral articles too, like Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, not to mention the central article, O. J. Simpson murder case. Anything that's not protected at a given moment tends to get that kind of drive-by edit. There are some reasons why if someone else (or a group of someones) had been involved in the murders (either as the real/actual killer or an accomplice with Simpson), the LAPD would not have charged them. Many positing alternate theories argue that the either the LAPD framed Simpson or conducted a shady investigation that led them to miss evidence of other's involvement (it is also both suggested Simpson killed Brown and Goldman and the police still framed him by planting one or two pieces of evidence) or ignore evidence because they did not want to undermine their public position that Simpson acted alone. Last I checked, Wikipedia policy is not to proclaim guilt if a person if found not guilty by a court of law. That does not mean his is innocent as we all no, but it does not Wikipedia should not state that position. We can state that many people believe he got away with murder and that the president ate trial was more convincing of his guilt. We also have to acknowledge though that others feel differently and think he was framed or that he was at least not the sole perpetrator in the murders. While many people over the years have stated they believe the evidence points to Simpson indeed being the real murderer and having acted alone, some people have posited alternate theories for the murders in which either one or more other suspects committed the murders or in which Simpson did not act alone. I'm not defending any "fringe theories" regarding the Simpson case. As a matter of fact I am pretty sure that Simpson committed the murders, and that it is likely he had no accomplices but if we're going to have to divide how people feel about the case, in varying ways, it only makes sense that we should have FAQ detailing the neutrality towards Simpson’s guilt or innocence. 92.17.198.220 (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Ironically, the 2025 film "The Juice" is coming which will present a version of events in which Simpson did not commit the murders. 92.17.198.220 (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion regarding List of unsolved murders (1980–1999)

https://en.luquay.com/wiki/List_of_unsolved_murders_(1980%E2%80%931999)#1990%E2%80%931994 Brown and Goldman appear in the 1994 article on "unsolved murders". user:Aquillion says that sources don't generally describe it as unsolved, but more generally, lists like this aren't generally linked as a see-also; this isn't an emblematic "unsolved murder" that would justify it as a core connected topic. In particular, "unsolved" appears nowhere in the article body. All else aside, this isn't a great see-also because it isn't central to the topic - we would need significant amounts of coverage describing it first and formost as an unsolved murder (with no qualifiers), and a significant amount of the body discussing how it's unsolved, before a generic list like this would make sense as a see-also. And it's just unlikely that that sort of coverage exists or would be WP:DUE. 92.17.198.220 (talk) 09:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC) More relevant for Talk:List of unsolved murders (1980–1999).—Bagumba (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

This will be the last time addressing the issue, and I suppose only time will decide, but with his recent passing, and with no evidence to support "alternative theories", it wouldn't be surprising if one day, Wikipedia officially breaks the issue and names Simpson as the killer. I think every person who will examine the case thoroughly will think he almost certainly did it. Not even a 0% chance that he didn't do it. Even if you were to argue otherwise, he might as well have been standing right next to whoever did it. The fact he never launched any official search for the "real" killer, and seemed content to try to enjoy life, even making "bad taste" jokes, clearing referencing the murders (His banana stabbing of Ruby Wax and "Juiced" reality show) really show how cruelly he treated Nicole's death. 2.100.74.138 (talk)

And reverted again., Stop doing this. Meters (talk) 21:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Conviction

@Neveselbert:: Your edit added "Murder" to the charges. The problem is that "Criminal penalty" doesn't show which charges he was convicted of, so someone could mistakenly believe he was convicted of murder instead of being acquitted. Not sure how this can be best clarified. In {{Infobox criminal}}, there is |conviction=, described as Crimes individual was convicted of (Dates of conviction). However, this page is now using {{Infobox person}}.—Bagumba (talk) 04:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

That's a fair point, I'll remove it if it hasn't been already. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

According to the documentation for Infobox persons the "Criminal charges" entry is "For convicted criminals only". I removed the reference to the murder charge. Nxavar (talk) 09:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2024

In the very last sentence of the lede, the phrasing "lived in freedom" strikes me as bordering on bias.

My suggested revision:

He served his sentence at the Lovelock Correctional Center in rural Nevada until being released on parole in 2017. Simpson was granted an early discharge from parole in 2021. He died of cancer at the age of 76 in 2024. 2600:100A:B1CE:1EF1:0:24:60B1:F701 (talk) 05:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Done. It's possible the death doesn't even need to be mentioned in the lead per MOS:LEADBIO:

Unless the cause of death is itself a reason for notability, a single sentence describing the death is usually sufficient, and often none is included in the lead at all, just a death date.

—Bagumba (talk) 05:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

That was fast, thanks!

I see what you mean, but I think right now if the death isn't in the lede, you will get umpteen requests to add it, lol. Maybe after some time goes by? 2600:100A:B1CE:1EF1:0:24:60B1:F701 (talk) 05:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Pop culture section

Ban evasion by Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/UK Kennedy–Lincoln–Titanic IP
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I feel that the section in regards to Simpson and portrayals could be trimmed slightly or rewritten. For example, the sentence “BBC TV's documentary, O.J. Simpson: The Untold Story (2000), produced by Malcolm Brinkworth, "reveals that clues that some believe pointed away from Simpson as the killer were dismissed or ignored and highlights two other leads which could shed new light on the case."” doesn’t seem important to this particular article and fits more better on the “Alternate theories and suspects” section on the murder trial article. The mentions of OJ: Trial of the Century (2014) and O.J. Simpson Trial: The Real Story (2016), fit more suitably on the article too, as is The Lost Confession? (2018). I think a Concession is needed and only should mention portrayals of Simpson by actors, much like how the Nicole and Ron articles mention portrayals on film. Something like; ===Portrayals=== Simpson is portrayed by: Bobby Hosea (1995) The O.J. Simpson Story (TV movie) Gerald Rush (2004) Reenactment of the Century (short film) Cuba Gooding Jr (2016) The People v. O. J. Simpson: American Crime Story Gene Freeman (2019) The Murder of Nicole Brown Simpson Boris Kodjoe (2025) The Juice 92.17.198.220 (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC) Who portrayed him is trivial, short of it being an award-winning performance. Per MOS:POPCULT: Cultural references about a subject should not be included simply because they exist. —Bagumba (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Square One TV

The OJ trial was parodied on the educational TV series SQUARE ONE TV in the form of a skit in which a carpenter is accused by his king of faulty measurements in building a new bed for the Queen. The carpenter's attorney proves his innocence by showing that the king's feet are bigger than the carpenter's feet (the actor playing the role of the king wore clown shoes for the role). The skit was meant to show why the original Royal foot - the length of a man's foot - was faulty.Glammazon (talk) 04:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Square One TV

There was a parody of the OJ Simpson trial in a skit where a carpenter is hired by a king who wants him to build a new bed for the queen and carefully paces out the dimensions of the bed on the floor of his palace. The bed turns out to be too small for the Queen, because the carpenter's feet are smaller than the King's, and the carpenter is accused of a math crime. Because, the King's feet are bigger than the carpenter's, his attorney is able to prove his innocence.Glammazon (talk) 04:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

"Convicted felon"

While it's true that he was convicted for the robbery, it's VERY misleading to put this in the lede even with a note, for obvious reasons. dekema (Formerly Buffaboy) (talk) 03:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree, and I have reverted those latest edits. It's strange to have a footnote when it's already in the lead later. But the robbery was a minor part of his notability, compared to his career and his wife's murder. The previous lead had been stable, so a new consensus should be established before changing again. —Bagumba (talk) 04:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

At Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography § RfC: "convicted felon" / "convicted sex offender" in the lead sentence, it was established that convictions dont automatically belong in a bio's lead sentence. —Bagumba (talk) 04:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Created racial divisions?

“The internationally publicized murder trial lasted from January to October 1995 and created racial divisions in the U.S.”

The trial did not create racial divisions in the U.S. Those divisions might have became more prominent and played out more publicly than usual, but they existed already. I would request editing to end the sentence with a period after 1995. 50.47.201.32 (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. It "exacerbated" them. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I wrote that bit originally. I meant rather that it created racial divisions like "black people mostly say o.j. is innocent, white people mostly say o.j. is guilty", divisions that legitimately didn't exist before the trial. but yes exacerbated is clearer Atubofsilverware (talk) 06:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Inconsistent information

In one place it says OJ Simpson died in Las Vegas, but in another place it says he died in Florida 99.181.40.199 (talk) 17:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)