Talk:If I Did It: Confessions of the Killer

Copies

"Because of its cancellation, existing copies of the book are extremely rare." The article says "Citation Needed" for this. That's the dumbest "Citation Needed" I've ever read. You think a cancelled book is NOT going to be extremely rare? ----sol

Since it was cancelled and not recalled or anything, there should not be any copies of the book anywhere. It was never made or published. Therefore, you are claiming they exist in some number somewhere, and for that you need a citation. -- Ubergenius 18:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

They printed 400,000 copies, genius. Some guy (talk) 07:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

If 400,000 copies were printed it might or might not be "rare" depending on demand and how many copies were destroyed or leaked. Wikipedia is about verifiable information, not intuitive guessing. Embrace the objectivity.

Author in infobox should be changed to O.J. Simpson

Even his publisher's website[1] lists Simpson as the book's author (and Amazon too [2]). What is with this "None, Sam Jones" in the infobox here? Moncrief 18:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the update, Moncrief. If you read the article, you may have noticed that as recently as this morning, Harper and amazon were listiung it as "None"and Sam Jones. I'm changing the infobox and the text now.Jeffpw 18:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Stations boycotting

I just saw on the local FOX afiliate where I live that they and other FOX stations are refusing to show the program due to its "poor taste" or something to the like. I haven't found any internet sources yet, if anyone can this should be added —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.67.119.245 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• If you can find a reference for that, sure. —tregoweth (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Per Drudge, the Fox show has been called off...?

Thanks for posting that, and updating the article with a reference, anon IP.Jeffpw 21:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Book Cover

Is that REALLY the cover? REALLY? Moberho 22:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• That is the book cover image taken from the HarperCollins website. If that's what will actually be in the stores is anybody's guess. That's why there's a box on the article page saying this is a "future event", and that things can change dramatically before publication. Jeffpw 22:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Also, it's being displayed as the cover on Amazon and Barnes & Noble's sites, so it's seems to be from HarperCollins. —tregoweth (talk) 22:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Dancing around it

Well, I hope we can handle this one with NPOV kid gloves. --Uncle Ed 19:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

So far, the entire article has been very stable, almost *no* vandalism, and reads NPOV to me. Jeffpw 19:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Now that the book is canceled I think this might be an appropriate page for deletion.

This is still an ongoing story. It is possible the murderer will try to have it published by another American publisher, or overseas. It's way too early to delete this article. Jeffpw 22:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

i would be opposed to a deletion. the book/show very nearly existed, caused a public outcry, and the projects were canceled because of that. that happens pretty damn rarely. not to mention the subject matter itself. this is more notable than half the stuff in wikipedia, even without existing. however, if someone wanted to smoosh it down a bit and merge it into one of the many OJ-related articles that i am sure already exist, i would have no problem with that. --dan 09:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This is still an ongoing event. It may still be published/broadcast. There is a reason why the article has a current event tag on it. I would not merge this, or delete it until the story has completely played out. Jeffpw 09:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Cancellation vs. Cancelation & Cancelled vs. Canceled

Apparently, there seems to be a an inconsistency of the use of the word cancelation. Using two "l's" is primarily British or British English. Seeing as how this is an American subject (American publication [or lack thereof], American author, American trial, etc.) I suggest sticking with the American English version of the word using only one "l." ~ UBeR 23:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

While "cancelled" is specifically Commonwealth English, to the best of my knowledge the word "cancellation" is spelled with two Ls in both Commonwealth and American English. --Saforrest 16:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

They're both correct. It's sort of like the term Web site. While in British English, the word is spelt website a majority of the time, in American English it is often spelled Web site. Though both are used fairly commonly among British and American English speakers alike, one tends to be predominent in one or the other. In this case, canceled with one l is typical in American English even though some sources in America may use two l's. It's just sort of a nitpicky thing, but it really helps if you stay consistent within the article. ~ UBeR 23:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you on crack? Nobody spells it "Web site" in the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.41 (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

deletion

It's been cancelled heres the proof http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061120/ap_on_en_tv/tv_simpson_interview I dont feel like putting it in the article and this article should probably be deleted but I'm new so i have no idea how to nominate it for deletion.71.164.35.139 00:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Why? It's still a news story, and it will be a historical event for some time. It's now simply become an article about a cancelled book, instead of a published one. --Saforrest 16:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

available text

Anyone know if there manuscripts floating around? Floating in the figurative sense... 24.16.15.150 03:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This article http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20061121.SIMPSON21/TPStory/TPInternational/Television/ says the book has shipped, but it will be recalled and destroyed.

There were copies that did not get destroyed. Several have shown up on eBay. I bought a copy as a collector's item, knowing that since it was purchased on the aftermarket and the book was never officially released none of the money would go to O.J. (REB)

Mark Fuhrman

I heard the comment about the book on Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes" on Thursday.

WAVY 10 14:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Project cancellation

Someone cut this:

This has happened before: In 1990, Vintage Books, a division of Random House, bought the rights to American Psycho, a novel by Bret Easton Ellis, after the original publisher, Simon & Schuster, refused to publish it because of the novel’s graphic violence.

Not directly relevant, but still interesting to readers. Is there an article about "cancelled books" or "cancelled projects" we can link to?

As a software engineer, I am professionally interested in factors leading to the cancellation of a project. Usually, it's because the computer programming team ran out of time or didn't understand the problem domain sufficiently. Often it's because managament changed (increased!) the scope of the project excessively.

Not the same as cancelling a book or movie, of course. And that's why there should be an article. So we (readers) can see the difference. --Uncle Ed 15:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I started Project cancellation, but it's only about software development right now. --Uncle Ed 15:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

A list of cancelled books/films/software products will only work if criteria is laid out specifying what kinds of cancellation are sufficiently encyclopedically notable for the list. Otherwise it'll just be another listcruft magnet. (I don't see any connection, direct or indirect, between this and American Psycho, incidentally) Bwithh 22:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly boycott again?

That Fox News guy Bill O'Reilly gathered another boycott against something and forced them to pull the plug on the book and television program. Sure it's entertainment but their were internal motives and public outcry. Racism, Murder, Scandal, Drama! No different from Fox Broadcasting and Fox News Channel's programming. LILVOKA 16:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

And above me we have libel. Have fun.

Ebay bid

The article places the current ebay bid at $100,000, linking the auction. Following this link, it is clear that the price is well below this amount. (Currently $800). Is this a shameless attempt at promoting an eBay auction? Etafly 02:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. http://offer.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewBids&item=200050875873 shows that these were fictitious bids. Removing line accordingly. Etafly 02:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Copyright

Who actually owns the copyright? Could it just be released under another publisher? --Kalmia 03:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Presumably, Simpson does. I would imagine he could shop it to another publisher, if he wants. —tregoweth (talk) 05:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

"Non-fiction"

I removed the "non-fiction" mention in the infobox. This was reverted by Jeffpw. The mention of "non fiction" in the introduction had already been removed by someone else from this article earlier. Now, Jeffpw says "The book was listed as Non-Fiction both at the publisher's website as well as at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, etc." Granted, but it has also been reported that the author claims the books is about how he imagines it would have happened if he had done it. This article says:

[...] Simpson's attorney has said that there is "only one chapter that deals with their deaths and that chapter, in my understanding, has a disclaimer that it's complete fiction."

However, Wikipedia defines "non-fiction" as:

Non-fiction is an account or representation of a subject which is presented as fact.

Apparently, it has not been "presented as fact. So obviously the team behind the book is divided; on one side there's a publisher who probably wanted to make the book even more sensational and there's the author himself and his lawyer who are trying to protect the little reputation left of the man. Who is right may appear obvious to our citizen's eyes, but it's not Wikipedia's place to judge (even in such extreme, strange cases). --Liberlogos 08:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Everyone can write a book except OJ

On TV on two separate shows (CNN Anderson Cooper, PBS Jim Lehrer) a commentator made the following comment: "many many people have profited from this murder. all the trial lawyers wrote books. Some of the trial witnesses wrote books. Some journalists wrote books. And another 130 people have written books on this murder. Nobody criticized them. They all made money and no one said a thing. The guy who supposedly did the murder that made all these other books possible, cant write one himself". I think this is a valid comment. I am no OJ supporter, trust me, but this comment is valid and should be in this article. I wrote it in 2 weeks ago but was deleted. --Anais1983 22:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

i don't know who said it or anything, or i'd do it myself, but if you wanted to put this back in, all cited and nice, i think it would be worth having in the article. as part of the response to the cancellation section. --dan 07:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

preceded by?

the infobox tells us "Preceded by I Want to Tell You: My Response to Your Letters, Your Messages, Your Questions". what is this? what is being preceded? maybe i am missing the obvious, but i just have no idea what this is refering to in any direction. --dan 07:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Vanity Fair review

I put in a brief note mentioning the James Wolcott review on the Vanity Fair magazine website. Link is http://www.vanityfair.com/fame/features/2007/01/ojsimpson200701?currentPage=1 if anyone wants to use it to add more information. Mujokan 06:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

If I Stung Him

Despite supposedly being a "popular picture" "going around on web," I cannot find any hits at all for it on Google. Can someone back this up, or should this remark be deleted? AaronWL 19:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ownership to the Goldman family

I just heard something on the news about that a bankruptcy court could change the ownership of the book could change form O.J. to Goldman family to help pay off the money O.J. owned during civil lawsuit. This should put into the article. Also I heard that that if it did happen they will change to something like "confessions of a double murder" so if they do it should moved to that new title.--71.164.131.199 22:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Leak on to the internet as an ebook

Or at least it seems to have [link removed] should this be mentioned/is it a fake?

Entertainment Weekly

Entertainment weekly reviewed a leaked version of this book a while ago. (They gave it an F.) Should it be added? Crowstar^{Vaseline-on-the-lens-Jitsu!fwends!} 20:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

"purportedly hypothetical"

User:71.58.89.154 changed the article's first sentence from saying "he puts forth a hypothetical description of the murders" to "he puts forth a purportedly hypothetical description of the murders". I believe this is an unnecessary and incorrect change for two reasons:

a) "hypothetical" is correct even if OJ did commit the murders. If a scientist proposes a hypothesis and it turns out he's completely correct, it is referred to as a confirmed hypothesis, not a purported hypothesis.

b) "purportedly hypothetical" implies "not hypothetical". "Not hypothetical" is only correct if OJ committed the murders exactly as the book says. According to the article the book's scenario of the murders includes an accomplice to the crime. If, in real life, there was no accomplice, then the scenario is not anything other than hypothetical -- even if OJ did murder Brown and Goldman.

In short, "hypothetical" works for all POVs on OJ's guilt or innocence, while "purportedly hypothetical" is only accurate for a very limited selection of POVs. -- 192.250.34.161 21:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

National Enquirer

The National Enquirer is a supermarket tabloid! Nothing it says should be considered a legitimate source. 24.128.138.55 18:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Why the heck would anyone use this as a source? It's not peer reviewed, it's not even remotely reliable. --EarthSprite^∞ 02:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

As a journalist I have to comment on this year-old remark. No newspaper or magazine that isn't a scholarly publication is peer reviewed. To use that as a rationale for disqualifying the Enquirer automatically disqualifies all news media. 23skidoo (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Heisman Trophy

Did the Goldmans get it and if so are the rumors of them melting it down true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.93.246 (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Renaming the article

This sounds as though it will be controversial, and I mean renaming this article to the full name of the book as it is NOW. But I don't see why the article shouldn't be named If I Did It: Confessions of the Killer. --AEMoreira042281 22:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it normal practice on Wikipedia for the subtitle of a book to be included in the main article title? Pawnkingthree 15:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we should leave it as If I Did It. That title refers to both editions of the book, while "If I Did It: Confessions of the Killer" refers to only one. Secondly, the former title is far easier to link to: only four words, each of which is capitalized, as opposed to eight words, only six of which are capitalized, and which include a definite article. People trying to link to the latter title will inevitably forgot which words are capitalized and which aren't, and they'll misremember "of the Killer" and "of a Killer". In terms of accuracy, "If I Did It" is the better article title; in terms of practicality, "If I Did It" is the better article title. -- 192.250.34.161 13:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Post-publication controversy -- deleted?!

Hello. My name is Claire Cruise and I have never contributed to Wikipedia before yesterday. The computers at the public library where I do all my work online doesn't allow me to register with Wikipedia, even if I was allowed to edit. Will the person or persons responsible for the deletion of the short section, "Post-publication controversy" that followed the "Contents" section of IF I DID IT please explain to me why it was deleted? Thank you very much. clairecruise[at]gmail[dot]com 209.78.98.27 18:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted primarily because it violated Wikipedia's policies, including Wikipedia:Verifiability because it did not provide sources, and the policy against unsourced statements that contains potentially controversial information about living person. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an outlet for unsourced speculation and rumor. Wikipedia also has a policy against original research, and if you are Claire Cruise and reporting unpublished information that you personally acquired, that is considered original research. Additionally, the section was placed after References and Categories, contrary to acceptable Wikipedia writing style, and the section had an inappropriate header. Ward3001 18:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

how many copies sold?

The Goldmans were on Dr Phil 9-30-08, he never ask if they have made any money, if anyone has bought this book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.187.157.175 (talk) 03:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Republication title

I corrected a factual error that snuck in somewhere. The republication title -- clearly indicated by the book cover image -- is "If I Did It: Confessions of the Killer". The republication title erroneously gave the complete republication title as not having the original "If I Did It" part. 23skidoo (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

How many of the origianl OJ books (If I Did It) actually got out into the public? I know I have a couple, but didn't know if anyone else has any or not. I also know that the figure that was quoted on ebay over a year ago is laughable because they won't let anyone even list it there.Grammabrown (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

If it can be confirmed, I think it should also be added the differing treatment of the word 'if' in the title. Both the original and the re-publication have the 'if' in a different font to the rest of the title, yet the original seems to emphasize the hypothetical nature of 'if', whereas the re-publication downplays the 'if', and the cover can quite easily be misread as simply "I Did It", the 'if' being so small and in a non-stand-out color. Why didn't they just remove the 'if' completely? Where the legally committed to the original title? - 121.208.89.240 (talk) 08:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

pop culture?

it said that chris rock thing happened in 2000, but this book didnt come out until 2006, right? so how is that possible?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.250.107 (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Because like most useless pop culture crap added to Wikipedia articles, the two are unrelated except by coincidence. Chris Rock didn't base his episode on the book. Ward3001 (talk) 23:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)