Taxus Baccata

by | Mar 15, 2018 | Taxus Baccata

How Can We Help?
You are here:
< Back

WP:Editorializing and trivial or unnecessary text

MisterCake, regarding this and this, additions such as "curiously" and "ostensibly" fall under WP:Editorializing. You removed "curiously" after I pointed to WP:Editorializing, but "ostensibly" was there and left in after you reverted me.

You also included the following: "In 1985, detective Mark Fuhrman responded to a family dispute at Simpson's estate, and found Brown crying next to a car with a windshield Simpson had shattered with a baseball bat." Exactly why is this needed?

You also included the following: "Simpson had been training for the lead role in a movie and action series akin to the A-Team called Frogmen, in which he played 'Bullfrog' Burke, a trained killer and Navy SEAL." This is trivial. And if it's to be included, it, per MOS:Paragraphs, certainly does not need its own section.

You also added, "The front door was left ajar." Where is the source for this?

You also added, "The glasses had only one lens." Not sure why this is needed, but I do know that this Xlibris Corporation source is self-published, which is against WP:Self-published.

And there is no need for extra subheadings when the material fits fine in the section it's in, especially when the material is a little bit of material. Again, see MOS:Paragraphs. Unnecessary subheadings simply cause the article to look bigger than it is from the table of contents.

If you reply, there is no need to WP:Ping me since this article/talk page is on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Self published is a fair point. As to the rest: Don't really think it is editorializing but yes I granted the point on 'curious'. Is it not curious that one lens was left? What's the explanation for that? Scheck made a deal out of it in closing argument, with a whole board showing it. They wanted to argue that e. g. there was money in the envelope taken, along with the lens as a souvenir, by the perpetrators and LAPD ignored this; or, it was taken as a souvenir by LAPD, showing their evidence was compromised. Ostensibly is also because (obviously) there is the defense and prosecution side to this story, and the thing the defense was most confident was a lie was that the four most important detectives of the case went to alert OJ rather than to investigate him as a suspect. I would say most who know about the case don't believe that. Fuhrman and OJ's domestic violence are also obviously relevant to the case. It's the first time they cross paths, and the 1985 incident is supposedly why Fuhrman was asked to come with them to Rockingham. He was the one who knew how to get there quickly thanks to that case. For the defense, it's when he began to dislike OJ. If the 1993 incident is included, the 1985 and New Years 1989 incident should be included. To say Frogmen is trivial is a bit surprising. He had experience acting as a trained killer with a knife. It's probably why the knit cap was at the scene (supposedly Frogmen sometimes wear a cap because of heat loss through the head when coming out of the water). Also no screams were heard, perhaps due to "silent kill" training. The sub headings seem to help navigation and 'wikification' to me, and looks better than a wall of text without separation by category. The source for the door being ajar would be Riske's testimony, and can certainly find one. Cake (talk) 09:44, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MisterCake, I'm interested in following this site's policies and guidelines. The WP:Editorializing guideline is straightforward. "Curiously" is obviously editorializing, just like "interestingly" is.
As for headings, MOS:Paragraphs is clear that a little bit of content usually does not need its own subheading. Too many unnecessary subheadings can also make an article look bigger than it is from the table of contents. I'm not vehemently against mentioning "Frogmen," but I am against unnecessarily giving it a heading. And your beliefs about how it's relevant is a personal opinion. It would be better if a WP:Reliable source tied it to the murders the way you have.
Regarding your latest edits, I've interacted with you before and I'm not sure if you tend to lean toward the "not guilty" side of things when the public thinks that a person is guilty even after the verdict comes back as "not guilty," but be careful to not let your POV affect your editing. Samsongebre should also be careful of this. It can be hard to do if one has strong passions on the topic, but editors should try to keep bias out of their editing. Avoid poor sources such as conspiracy theory sources unless they are specifically used for a section about conspiracy theories. But even then, they should pass our WP:Reliable sources guideline. And, in that case, it's better to use reliable sources that refer to certain authors' conspiracy theories rather than use the conspiracy theory sources directly. Make sure that sources you use are not self-published. Per WP:YESPOV, do not present an author's opinion as fact. Instead, use "According to" or similar. It would also be best that when you cite a source, use some type of WP:Citation template rather just adding "Toobin, Run of his Life" and the page number. And regarding this, what source is "Lee, Tirnady, Blood Evidence"? This is why providing full details about a source is best. It's important to include the publisher.
Again, no need to ping me. Samsongebre, I don't need to be pinged. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:51, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see that you filled the bare references with this edit. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lee is Henry Lee, and that book is cited several times. But yes, the sources could be better, with templates, etc. And yeah I would agree about POV - though it seems to me the article is heavily POV on the guilt side for a verdict that came back not guilty. Seems like it should present why the jury thought he was not guilty. As for my personal opinion like most I think he did it, but very hard to say the trial made it beyond a reasonable doubt. I would say whatever bias I have as a result of that seems to affect my edits than the previous editors, as I don't have strong feelings either way. Just reads like a book trying to retry the case sometimes, arguing against the defense. Also, what do you think about injecting the list of evidence presented to the jury into the prose? That seems to happen as an article matures. Some of it fit too well in Samson's defense section. And yeah I know about sourcing things, this is a talk page, and it was removed despite a source. And it was background but not about the marriage. Cake (talk) 07:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On the topic of balance, we have to be careful not to artificially balance. If more sources focus on the prosecution, his presumed guilt, or beliefs about how the jury got it wrong, so should we.
I'm not sure if your "I would say" sentence currently has a typo in it or not. Do you mean that you "wouldn't say"? I ask because you go on to state "as I don't have strong feelings either way." Whatever the case, as long as we are aware of any bias we have and actively look to not let it affect our editing (at least not much), that's good.
As for turning this list into prose, I have no objections. Per WP:Prose, prose is preferred. The "Evidence not presented to the jury" list should also be turned into prose. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sorry, I butchered that sentence. I meant I wouldn't say it would affect my edits more than the previous editors. I meant that while I think he did it, I also don't think the jury was a bunch of morons or that the prosecution proved it beyond a reasonable doubt. Cake (talk) 19:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Think it looks good now as far as sections go, not to say within those sections things couldn't be clarified or rearranged. Need something about the discovery of the blood in the Bronco and on the driveway. Also, isn't a little odd to have a picture of him and Sydney? Kinda gruesome details between father and mother for that. Why I changed it to the one where she is cropped out. Cake (talk) 01:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Setup, balance, and bloating

So MisterCake and Samsongebre, we can see above on the talk page (near the end of the #Police Conspiracy Allegation section) that Samsongebre stated, "Most of the article consists of just the prosecution case and only has two paragraphs devoted to the defenses case." But look at how the article is now. That is what it looks like without the Template:TOC (which is used because, like I stated in the #WP:Editorializing and trivial or unnecessary text section above, too many subheadings can clutter the table of contents; in addition to sometimes making an article look bigger than it is, they can make the article more difficult to navigate through). Looking at the current text, there are now significantly more sections devoted to the defense case. But it can be argued that this is simply a superficial setup since the "Defense case" section has a lot of material that challenges the defense's case. Therefore, I think that a lot of the material about what the prosecution or defense argued should be in standalone "Evidence" and "Arguments" sections, with subsections for them. Some text can also be split into a "Witness testimony" section. The article should be careful to not include every little thing, or everything in excessive detail. This is per WP:DIARY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Wikipedia is not meant to give a blow-by-blow/day-by-day account of the trial. It's meant to sufficiently summarize what happened. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not stating that we should get rid of the "Prosecution case" and "Defense case" headings, but they can be reduced to summaries while the "Evidence" and "Arguments" (or similar) sections addresses the arguments and rebuttals. Or the "Prosecution case" and "Defense case" sections could simply be changed to "Prosecution" and "Defense," or "Attorneys and jury," and note who the lead prosecutors and defense attorneys are, when they were assigned to the case and other relevant material that doesn't go into excess, and include jury material (such as when jury selection began and how they were selected). This would obviously mean that the current "Jury" section would be integrated. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was trying to stick to how the sections were given. However, much of the prosecution case is better suited elsewhere. For example, the abuse of Nicole, or testimony of Alan Park. While the defense was stuff one had not heard before until they presented their case, much of the prosecution case had already happened. If you take that into consideration, I think the article is fairly balanced. And yes I know, I don't wish to give every detail. However in this case there was a "mountain of evidence", and the defense pretty much shot down all of it, such that there was the not guilty verdict most find baffling at first blush. So, yes, don't want to explain too much, but there's also a lot to explain even in a summary article. Also agreed that it was hard to decide what to do with the prosecutions rebuttals of the defense. For one, they weren't very good, and some don't even make sense, hence the not guilty verdict. For example, that Fuhrman couldn't have planted blood from the reference vials - they didn't claim he planted blood from the reference vials. They made it quite simple, Vannatter is the man who carried the blood - Fuhrman is the man who found the glove. Then there's simply the issue of a lot of prosecution stuff in the defense section which might confuse the reader. I'd have to see evidence and arguments but it sounds like a good idea - though within arguments one might have a prosecution section and defense section and have the same issue. Also unfortunately still a lot to cover. There's nothing about the discovery of blood on the Bronco or the driveway. For example, one should explain the blood in the Bronco were transfer stains. Aside from the obvious, this is why the claim is Fuhrman using the glove like a paint brush rather than Vannatter dropping the blood onto it. Also the blood on the driveway makes for a lot of mileage from the defense. It seems to say there were two OJs. One jumping over the wall and the side of the house where he dropped the glove, another coming in through the driveway like normal where he left the blood drops. Cake (talk) 01:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
talk it sounds like you maybe a little biased towards the defense in this case. The purpose of this article is to just list the facts from the case, and not to render an opinion. For instance we can say that the defense claimed Vannatter was the made who had the blood but the prosecution demonstrated that he never had the opportunity to plant it at the bundy crime scene because he never went there, he went to Rockingham and handed it over to Fung immediately upon arriving. Likewise, the blood on the back gate was witness, documented and photographed by the police before the blood was taken from Simpsons arm. WE can mention it was collected almost three weeks later but the previous evidence proves it was already there. All but one of the defenses allegations of fraud were deductively refuted using timeline alone except one - Fuhrman planting the glove at Rockingham. The prosecution could only provided inductive arguments to disprove that claim. There is a lot of material here so we need to be selective with the main article and then generate supporting articles to flesh out the details not in the main article. I think the main article should just mention the primary arguments for both the prosecution and the defense and the main points made during cross-examination challenging it. More detail can be added to the generated article. For instance - the defense alleged Detective Vannatter planted Simpson's blood on the back gate at the Bundy crime scene because he carried Simpson's blood for several hours after thanos peratis withdrew from him and then drove it directly to Simpson's home rather than book it directly into evidence and 1.5mL's of Simpson's blood was allegedly unaccounted for and the evidence was collected from the back gate 19 days after the rest of the evidence at the Bundy crime scene. The defense also presented a photo of the back gate taken on June 13 which doesn't appear to show blood on the back gate. The prosecution countered that a different photo of the back gate shows the blood was there prior to Simpsons blood being take from his arm. Officer Riske, the first officer to arrive at the crime scene, notice the blood first and pointed it out to detective Fuhrman who documented it in his notes from that night. Multiple other officers who were there that night also testified seeing blood on the back gate. Thanos peratis never documented how much was taken from Simpsons so it is not a fact that any blood is actually missing and Peratis latter clarified that he made a mistake in estimating the amount he withdrew.Samsongebre (talk) 04:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Except I'm not and it doesn't sound like anything except projection; I'm not going to take being called biased from the guy who pretends they didn't show Fung touching the envelope on video (like a trillion people saw this on their television, and you can still see it) and reacted like this because he scored a point. "All but one of the defenses allegations of fraud were deductively refuted" is literally opinion, and it's opinion the jury who actually saw the trial rejected. Also the inductive claim is not even true "If Fuhrman didn't know where he was, he wouldn't have planted the glove; Fuhrman didn't know where he was, therefore he wouldn't plant it" isn't inductive. That's another cope. "The jury didn't understand we needed inductive arguments." As the article states, it's a fact that Peratis said 8 CCs under oath, "well it could've been 7.9 or 8.1", then 'clarified the mistake' while not under oath, with a seemingly silly excuse that he couldn't see the numbers. The defense and more importantly the jury's inference from that was apparent. All of what you say is a lot more biased attempt at re-doing than trial than is the guy who added the bit about Frogmen - as if that were favorable to the defense. Cake (talk) 05:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Fung, the link you provided says that Fung denied that what he was holding was an envelope and specifically stated my fingerprints are not on it and the defense never refuted that so it the that whole statement is spurious. If you want to include you have to add the part about Fung denying it and saying his fingerprints aren’t on it. By deductively disproven by timeline I mean the blood at the crime scene was photographed and collected, except the back gate, prior to Simpson’s blood being taken from him, and the blood at Simpson’s home and the Bronco collected -except some of it for the Bronco, before the autopsy blood was collected from the victims. So in either case, there was no opportunity to plant blood because the reference vials were not created yet. We can include all of the allegations the defense made just so long as we include the prosecutions rebuttal otherwise it is one sided and biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsongebre (talk • contribs) 16:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking this article off my watchlist. It's getting worse and worse and does not have enough watchers to counter the problematic editing and extensively debate the matters here on this talk page. And despite stating above that "the article should be careful to not include every little thing, or everything in excessive detail," this edit shows Samsongebre stating "will include a section on Barry Scheck's cross exam of Fung and Mazzola." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And by "not have enough watchers", I mean ones devoted to addressing the problems with the recent editing at this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Singular

I've massively condensed the coverage of Singular's book - a lot of the stuff in there was WP:SYNTH, uncited, didn't accurately reflect the sources, or was cited only to theunredacted.com, which I don't think is a good source for controversial claims involving multiple WP:BLPs (especially clearly WP:BLP-sensitive claims about Fuhrman). That said, I don't think we should remove it entirely - Singular's claims are not commonly accepted, but the more cautiously-worded cut-down version isn't WP:FRINGE, and the possibility of what he outlines and speculates about regarding Fuhrman played a major role in the trial, to the point where the jury accepting that possibility may have contributed to the not guilty verdict. Actually, while editing it, I realized that the most important point of note about Singular is probably that the outline of his book came up in the trial. Also, should it be covered under "other theories" (as a theory about the trial) or under "books" (as, well, a book about the trial)? --Aquillion (talk) 07:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prosecution case needs cleanup

Flyer22 Reborn I would appreciate it if you made this article semi-protected again. I also research some of the changes that mistercake made to this article and I don't think they are a reliable editor. For instance he is adding bad information and then falsely citing it as coming from reliable sources which is WIKI: VANDALISM. I also want you to know that I agree with you that I don't want this article to include irrelevant material from the case. Just the main pain points accepted at trial. Mistercake's biased editing has seriously screwed up the prosecution case and DNA evidence section and I would like fix it succinctly if I gain consensus.Samsongebre (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The prosecution began making opening statements on January 24, 1995. They prosecution argued that Simpson's history of domestic violence against Brown proved he had motive. Christopher Darden said "he killed her out of jealousy" and "because he couldn't have her." Darden said Simpson had a documented history of abusing Nicole. Simpson and Nicole met when she was only 18 and working as a waitress. Darden said Simpson began controlling Nicole financially then by making her sign a prenup before they wed and then refusing to let her work while they were married. There were 59 separate incidents of domestic violence, including eight times the police were called to Simpson's home. Darden said they would provide photographs of Nicole's injuries and witnesses who will testify to seeing the abuse. After Nicole Brown moved out of Simpson's home with their children and started working again, Darden said Simpson began stalking Nicole and wearing disguises so people would not recognize him. On the night of the murders, Simpson attended a dance recital for his children with Nicole and witnesses said Simpson was angry with Nicole that night about a tight black dress that she wore. After the recital, Simpson returned home and received a message from his then girlfriend Paula Barbieri ending their relationship. Darden said that was the motive for why Simpson went over to Nicole Brown's home that night, to reconcile their relationship. When Nicole refused, Simpson killed her in a "final act of control". Goldman then came upon the scene, was ambushed and killed by Simpson as well.

Lead prosecutor Marcia Clark stated during opening statements that there is a "Mountain of evidence" proving that Simpson is guilty "without a doubt". She stated the prosecution had collected over 450 pieces of evidence in this case pointing to Simpson's guilt. Multiple expert and other witnesses would establish the timeline of the murders to be approximately 10:15pm to 10:30pm. She said Simpson had no alibi that and several witnesses would refute his claim that he was home sleeping that night. There was a witness who saw Simpson's Bronco speeding away from Nicole Browns home at the time of the murders. Another witness would testify to not seeing Simpsons Bronco parked outside his home at the time of the murders where it was later found that night by the police. The gloves worn by the murderer were recovered, with one found at the crime scene and the other glove found at Simpson' home. A witness who lived at Simpson's home would testify to hearing "thumps" on his bedroom wall that night coming from right outside where the police found one of the gloves at Simpsons property. She said they have evidence that Nicole Brown had purchased a pair of those gloves for Simpson in 1990 and photograph of Simpson wearing them as well. Clark said the "blood will speak for itself" and there was a "trail of blood from Bundy through Simpsons Ford Bronco and into his house in Rockingham is devastating proof of his guilt."

Johnnie Cochran made opening statements for the defense. He said "This case is about a rush to judgment, an obsession to win at any costs." He said the defense would provide an alibi witness for Simpson who would testify he was home that night. Another witness would testify to seeing a group of four men at Nicole Browns home the night of murders. He said the DNA evidence in the case was "compromised, contaminated, and ultimately corrupted." Cochran stated that Simpson was the victim of a police frame-up and mentioned that a specific officer played an important role in this, Detective Mark Fuhrman.


During the opening weeks of the trial, the prosecution presented evidence that Simpson had a history of physically abusing Nicole. Darden argued that Simpson killed his ex-wife in a jealous rage; the prosecution opened its case by playing a 9-1-1 call from Nicole Brown Simpson on January 1, 1989, in which she expressed fear that Simpson would physically harm her, and he could be heard yelling at her in the background. Other material related to domestic violence was presented including another 9-1-1 phone call that Nicole made on October 25, 1993, expressing the same thing and Simpson also could be heard shouting in the background, less than eight months before the murders. The prosecution called Brown's sister, Denise, to the witness stand. She tearfully testified to many episodes of domestic violence in the 1980s, when she saw Simpson pick up his wife and hurl her against a wall, then physically throw her out of their house during an argument. Simpson's lawyer Alan Dershowitz argued that only a tiny fraction of women who are abused by their spouses are murdered.

According to the prosecution, Simpson was last seen in public at 9:36 p.m. that evening when he returned to the front gate of his house from McDonald's with Kaelin. Simpson was not seen again until 10:54 p.m. – an hour and eighteen minutes later – when he got in Park's limousine. Brown's neighbor Pablo Fenjves testified about hearing a "very distinctive barking" and "plaintive wail" of a dog at around ten to fifteen minutes after 10:00 p.m. while he was at home watching the news on television. Eva Stein, another neighbor, testified about very loud and persistent barking, also at around 10:15 pm, which kept her from going back to sleep. The prosecution used this for the time of the murders. The prosecution alleged that Simpson had driven his Bronco during the required five minutes to and from the murder scene. They presented a witness in the vicinity of Bundy Drive who saw a car similar to Simpson's Bronco speeding away from the area at 10:35 pm.[13]

In closing arguments, Darden ridiculed the notion that police officers might have wanted to frame Simpson.[5] He questioned why, if the LAPD was against Simpson, they went to his house eight times on domestic violence calls against Brown between 1986 and 1988 but did not arrest him; they only arrested him on charges of abuse in January 1989, when photos of Brown's face were entered into the record. Darden noted the police did not arrest Simpson for five days after the 1994 murders.[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsongebre (talk • contribs) 08:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Always fun to accuse me of vandalism with no examples, and of bias while I've added info to both sides and while your mission is to refute what the jury believed (the one who decides what was 'demonstrated'). The article was a mess before I got here because it's an attempt to retry the case. If we are anal about primary sources, and calling that vandalism, then the trial transcript presumably should not be cited. "Bad information" lol so not false. Cake (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for huge cultural impact

I'm sure there have been serious arguments about why the case had such a gigantic impact on the popular mind. A presentation of such arguments would greatly add to the article. -- 194.39.218.10 (talk) 10:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Categories
Table of Contents