Talk:Phil Spector/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Dubious: Date of birth & correct first name

(Note: This discussion has been carried over from Archive 1.)

in hes personal page www.philspector.com is the official web that he owns and the date there is December 26, 1939, shoulbe the rigth date and hes wife Rachelle has a web page www.rachellespector.com where she has a link to spector official page, that means that the December 26, 1939 date is corect!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.41.69.46 (talk) 13:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

On Spector's homepage it says he was born on December 25, 1940. (www.philspector.com/bio.html) So what's the source for December 26, 1939? --84.142.189.184 (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You're clearly right that it was 1940, and not 1939. Sources seem to differ on whether it was December 25 or 26, though: Encyclopedia Britannica says December 26, while the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame says December 25. I've left it as the 26 pending more definitive information. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

-- His police record indicates 1939. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.138.214.116 (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC) -- His birth certificate states 12/26/39. It has been cited in the article. Pretty definitive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.138.214.116 (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Phil Spector pretended to be born in 1940, but it was 1939.

http://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/phil-spector-s-birth-certificate-prospect-hospit

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2007/mar/18/features.musicmonthly4

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Spector

http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Spector

Please revert last change.Thanks

Albert2810 (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The reference for the 1939 birth year given in the article is "Christies.com Official image of Phil Spector's BIRTH CERTIFICATE." Sorry, not good enough. Since when does Christies authenticate birth certificates for Wikipedia? That is just a picture of an alleged birth certificate for someone named "Harvey Philip Spector." Phillip Spector (note the two "Ls") has a 1940 birth year in the California prison system database because they list his age as I write this on June 2, 2011 as 70, not the 71 in the Wiki article. His first name in the article is also wrong. Hence, I flagged the name and birthdate with "dubious" tags. 5Q5 (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I know I haven't been in the conversation thus far, but I have read through everyone's comments and looked at the ... evidence, shall we say? :) Anyhow, I agree with you, 5Q5, that this birth certificate not be verified as (this) Spector's. I wonder, also, is there precedent regarding the use of birth certificates as sources? Are they considered reliable sources? It seems to me that would be a difficult source to accept, with the number of (as seen here, perhaps) similarly named individuals in the world, not to mention forgery. Anyway, I reiterate: I agree with your decision, and placement of those tags. I just wonder how it could ever be possible to reach a resolution here. "Yes...It's Raining" 02:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I found a PDF copy of the murder indictment against him online: California vs Phillip Spector Case no. GA048824. The document says his name is Phillip Harvey Spector (two Ls) and gives his birthdate as Dec 26 1939, which would mean he is 71. However, the Calif prison system database is saying his age is 70, which can only mean they have a 1940 birthdate and he will be 71 in December. One possibility is that the DA's office got their info from (shudder) Wikipedia when composing the indictment and by the time Spector showed up at prison the correct birth year had been sorted out. Until some additional verifying info comes along, I am going to put the second "L" in his article name (since both the indictment and prison record agree on that) and leave the birth year dubious flags in place. 5Q5 (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I am doing some research in libraries, bookstores, and online and compiling high quality sources and will be updating the article in the days ahead regarding his name and birthdate. 5Q5 (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Unless someone has something to add to this discussion. 5Q5 (talk) 15:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Now it is 1939 again in the article. 82.141.66.136 (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone switched it back to 1939, so I flagged the references with "Dubious." As I write this the California prison system database says his age is 71, which means a 1940 birth year, not 1939 as the article now states, and he will be 72 this December.5Q5 (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Again. The birth date has been restored back to 1940. I went back to my public library and got the quotes from the professional-grade, large, multivolume hardcover reference books supporting December 26, 1940 and added them to the references in the article. The year 1940 also corresponds to his displayed age in the California prison system database. Any changing of the date to 1939 should be considered vandalism in my opinion. Be attentive on this. Thanks. 5Q5 (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

California's inmate locator ( http://inmatelocator.cdcr.ca.gov ) currently has him at 74 though the Wiki page has him a year older. Look him up by name or his CDCR # G63408. That's the government; it doesn't get any more official than that. :-) --CousinJohn (talk) 04:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

So odd to discuss something that can easily be determined. Phil Spector appears in the US 1940 Census taken in April 1940 as a few months old; he has to have been born in 1939! (See http://1940census.archives.gov/search/?search.result_type=image&search.state=NY&search.enumeration_district=3-973#filename=m-t0627-02485-00808.tif&name=3-973&type=image&state=NY&index=16&pages=20&bm_all_text=Bookmark)--BruceGomes (talk) 12:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

3rd wife

Rachelle Spector, he also produced an album for him and is very proud of his trial hair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.174.74.44 (talk) 16:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Current picture

Does the current picture for the page have to be so damn creepy? Come on guys, surely we could come up with something better. 68.167.71.214 (talk) 05:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. Plus, it very possibly violates the spirit of WP:UNDUE. Spector is known as one of the most influential popular music producers of all time first, and much later as a convicted murderer. I don't think this image should be in the infobox to illustrate him; but free or WP:FUC images of him in his earlier career may be hard to come by. Doc talk 05:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Ehh. His "earlier career as a musician" (as you put it) is the only key to his notability. There are scores of murderers of women rotting in prisons all over the world: but only one Phil Spector. He is notable as a producer first and foremost. Doc talk 11:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I just came across this page for the first time, and damn is the current infobox photo terrible. Besides being creepy, it's almost certainly a violation of the biographies of living persons policy, one of the most crucial on Wikipedia. The image section of that policy specifically mentions mugshots: WP:MUG. Regardless of Spector's guilt or innocence in the murder trial, the page needs a new infobox photo immediately.  White Whirlwind  咨  23:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Before this image in the infobox there was no image. I think it has to go back to that way unless we can find a suitable image. It's very doubtful there are any free images out there, but I did find this image on Flickr that has some rights reserved. I don't know if it's enough to get it into WP Commons, and then this article. I'll look into it. Doc talk 02:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this image is no good. If we can find an image that fits this it is okay. Sigh... Doc talk 02:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

And furthermore - all of the foreign language wikis use this image as the infobox image in their respective wikis. The rest of the world doesn't seem to have a problem with it; but this is where unchallenged free images collide with (and usually win against) WP:UNDUE (and BLP), complying with WP:NFCC, and probably common sense. He will never be known more as a convicted murderer than his real claim to fame, and this image in the infobox as his primary identifying image perpetuates the lie of him being known solely as a criminal. Doc talk 06:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Reference required for Let It Be (film) tracks?

User "Dr.K" will not let me edit the Phil Spector page unless I provide a reference that states that the songs on the Let it Be film were not mixed by Phil Spector. The proposed addition was the following sentence to be inserted at the end of the second paragraph of the Comeback section:

"However, it must be understood that the songs which featured in the motion picture were in fact the 'naked' renditions, as recorded prior to Spector's involvement in the production."

...Dr.K - do me a favour and actually READ around the information you are seeking to influence. Phil Spector was not involved until after the film was made...so the film tracks, are by their very existence not mixed by Phil Spector. Asking for a reference here is akin to saying:

"I know you think 2 comes before 3, but I'm going to demand you provide a citation for that"

Please revert my original edit, as both the wikipedia Let it Be film and album pages confirm my point (FWIW, they assert this without someone demanding a reference is provided too). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emalgiar (talk • contribs) 06:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

You attempted to add your personal commentary as follows:

However, it must be understood that the songs which featured in the motion picture were in fact the 'naked' renditions, as recorded prior to Spector's involvement in the production <ref>[[''Let It Be'' (film)]](Soundtrack)</ref>.

Please understand that personal commentary like that is not allowed on Wikipedia. The tone of your commentary is also inappropriate for an encyclopaedic article. We are not supposed to give lectures to readers as in your expression However it must be understood.... Your citation is also invalid and your edit is original research. Another editor told you this also on your talkpage. So, please don't make this personal by bandying my name around. This is not good form. So please stop it and spare me the silly lessons on logic. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

As an advocate of clear and precise referencing, you will appreciate my removal of the sentence I originally sought to clarify - as it was not referenced itself.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Emalgiar (talk • contribs)

Indeed. Thank you for that. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Returning to photo question

Regarding the issue of finding an appropriate photo for the top of the article, which has recently re-emerged: I agree with deletion of the one that was recently added, which is creepy and violates WP:UNDUE, if not WP:BLP. As to finding a more appropriate one that is unencumbered by copyright issues, I am not nearly as good as Doc and some others at discerning the fine points of what is "wiki-legal" and what is not. So I'll just point to this photo, and this, and this, along with one more that is somewhat less ideal, IMHO -- all of which appear to be "street legal" since they've been reproduced all over the place -- but I leave it to the experts to determine if I'm right or wrong about that.

Also, I have deleted an old anon post on this subject (above) that grossly violates WP:BLP, which must be observed even on article talk pages, and even on those of convicted murderers. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 14:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, all of those photos appear to be copyrighted, and therefore ineligible for use here. Anyone that wants to attempt uploading any of these images with a "fair-use rationale" should be cautioned that those images will be deleted. Maybe not tomorrow, or a year from now, but they will be deleted by some other editor. For now it's free prison photos from California, freely licensed images that could theoretically have the potential to exist since this is a living subject: or nothing at all for the lead image of this article. There will certainly be no mug shot of him in the infobox here, so we are stuck with what we've got. Anyone watching: try the fair-use route for an image of a younger Spector, and see what happens. I'm forever soured by the experience, especially in understandable cases like this one. Doc talk 04:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

This is the photo that's currently uploaded to the article: . According to its info box, it's from Getty Images. I've read about Getty's aggressive protection of their copyrights, utilizing their own proprietary search software to seek out purloined images. When found, they demand large payments for their use up to that point. Be forewarned. Wordreader (talk) 02:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The label does say "photo by Michael Ochs Archives/Getty Images" -- so we should probably get it out of the article, and probably out of Wikimedia too, yes? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 02:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow! That was a fast reply. I agree with you. Even if Getty wasn't so assertive, it's still wrong to use it. Wordreader (talk) 02:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed -- I'm taking it out . We can always put it back if I'm wrong, but it seems clear that it's a copyrighted image. I don't know the exact procedure for removing it from WM, if that is necessary. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 02:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the huge image banks like Getty and Corbis are very serious about what they do. That's how they get to own every good image out there. Money talks. Good call removing it. Doc talk 03:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

How about this image from Flickr? It appears to have the right license, but I believe it's a screenshot from Easy Rider so I don't know if that's ok. - Maximusveritas (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Marky Ramone posted a recent photo of himself with Spector on Twitter that hasn't been published or copy-written anywhere. https://twitter.com/MarkyRamone/status/315986844493946881 Wouldn't this constitute public domain?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

No, the person who posts the Twitter pictures (in this case, Ramone), retains the rights to the photo. There was a recent legal decision about that. I haven't ever uploaded photos here before though, so maybe someone with more experience can weigh in on these photos. - Maximusveritas (talk) 03:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Third wife to section on wives

The third wife was listed under children -- I moved her to the wife section. Risssa (talk) 01:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Associated Acts in Header

Not really sure how to proceed with this. Spector has been involved with so many musicians in varying degrees, but in most cases he left a real imprint on their career.

There are the obvious ones like: Ronettes, Crystals, Darlene Love, Bob B. Soxx, Righteous Bros., John Lennon and George Harrison.

Then there are the acts he did just one album for: Beatles (Let It Be), Ike & Tina (River Deep - Mountain High), Ramones (End Of The Century), Leonard Cohen (Death Of A Ladies Man) and Dion DiMucci (Born To Be With You). Each album Spector did for those artists are a discussion point for each of those artists careers in their biographies - whether positive or negative.

Then we have the sporadic but noteworthy work: Modern Folk Quartet (P.S. co-wrote/produced their most famous song, which was used as the theme for The Big TNT Show), Starsailor (P.S. produced their highest charting single), Gene Pitney (P.S. produced his 3rd highest charting single and the two have a Rolling Stones song named after them for their contribution), Ben E. King (for his involvement on Spanish Harlem - King's 2nd biggest hit).

Further, we have the general appearances: Cher (she is currently listed, but she should be under Wrecking Crew as he only did one solo song for her and it flopped), Rolling Stones (co-wrote and appeared on Little By Little, plus they named a song after him for joining in on the session), Bob Dylan (recorded 5 songs of his for Concert for Bangladesh, plus an appearance on Cohen's album).

Not to mention, The Paris Sisters, Alley Cats, Connie Francis, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellobeatle (talk • contribs) 18:37, 6 July 2013‎

Associated acts

Since this section looks a bit long and inconsistent I consulted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_musical_artist#associated_acts

According to it:

The following uses of this field should be avoided:

• Association of groups with members' solo careers
• Groups with only one member in common
• Association of producers, managers, etc. (who are themselves acts) with other acts (unless the act essentially belongs to the producer, as in the case of a studio orchestra formed by and working exclusively with a producer)
• One-time collaboration for a single, or on a single song
• Groups that are merely similar

As a result, Cher, George Harrison, John Lennon, Ronnie Spector, and Sonny Charles have been removed. Please write here if you believe any further changes should be made.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC).

Interesting. I'm on the fence with listing the Beatles though, when the real production work was only with John Lennon's and George Harrison's solo career; especially given the number of songs he did with Lennon after the Beatles break-up. Whereas, he really just re-produced Let It Be since it was poorly recorded/mixed in the first place. There is also a debate as to whether Jack Nitzche should just be in the Wrecking Crew. I will add the Paris Sisters as he recorded multiple singles and an album with them, as with a notable Dion DiMucci album. It also lists in the guidelines:

• Other acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together. This would include Lennon, Harrison, DiMucci, Cohen, Paris Sisters, and likely many more. The work done with Lennon and Harrison is far too substantial and in a high enough quantity to be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellobeatle (talk • contribs) 19:04, 6 July 2013‎

His murder conviction and jailing belong in lede

This is not a public relations piece. It is an encyclopedia article based on fact. When someone is in prison after being convicted of murder, that is not a trivial fact. It is central to that person's life and to the person murdered. It is a fact that belongs in the first paragraph. Please do not revert this edit without discussion on this talk page. Provide justification for any proposed action with the idea of arriving at consensus. Thanks. Skywriter (talk) 13:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The heading of this section is misleading. The issue is not whether the murder conviction belongs in the lede - it does. It is whether it belongs in the opening paragraph - it doesn't. WP:OPENPARA is what applies here. The reason for Spector's notability is his work as a record producer and songwriter. He is not notable because he was convicted of murder - were he a run-of-the-mill murderer, this article would not exist. Clearly the murder conviction should be in the opening paragraphs - but not in the first paragraph itself. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Ghmyrtle - and I can't improve on the case he/she made. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 16:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense to me also. It should be left out of the first paragraph. It would be WP:UNDUE to do otherwise. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

He is famous because he is a record producer, song writer AND murderer. There is no reason why all three facts should not be reflected in the leading sentence. [WP:UNDUE]] does not apply here. That he took someone's life is the dominant fact of his life. It is the controlling factor in what he does, where he lives, what he eats and drinks, the air he breathes, and who he talks to. That he took a life defines the quality of the rest of his own life. Killing someone is not an after thought as it appears to be in the lead to this misguided and fawning bio.

No one talks about someone for three paragraphs and then in the fourth paragraph says tersely, "Oh and by the way, he killed somebody." An honest portrayal would show how the killing integrates with the rest of his life.

An article does not go on for three paragraphs about what a famed and talented stage actor John Wilkes Booth was. It immediately gets to the complexity of who Booth was and what he did. So should this article on Spector.

The following linked article gets to the core of who Spector is compared to this Wikipedia bio that fails to place his actions, personality and misogyny, in perspective.

Evil Deeds A forensic psychologist on anger, madness and destructive behavior. by Dr. Stephen Diamond Dangerous Genius: The Rise and Fall of Phil Spector The fine line between madness, evil and creativity. Published on March 24, 2013 by Stephen A. Diamond, Ph.D. in Evil Deeds http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evil-deeds/201303/dangerous-genius-the-rise-and-fall-phil-spector

(This entry was updated due to an editing conflict.)

Skywriter (talk) 07:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Your edits did not add the words "and murderer" to the opening sentence. They added 34 words, and that is undue weight. The article as it now stands goes into some detail about his murder conviction; it is absurd to describe it as "misguided and morally corrupt". Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I would surely hope a sensationalist editorial about Phil Spector entitled "EVIL DEEDS" would keep away from talking about his quite nice music work. As for it being in the lede, I agree with Ghmyrtle: "He is not notable because he was convicted of murder - were he a run-of-the-mill murderer, this article would not exist." The article as it is now is split neatly in two halves: Phil Spector the Record Producer and Phil Spector the Convicted Murderer. The lede does well to reflect this.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 09:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

If you want to count words, here are some numbers. One hundred and ninety four words appear before this article gets to the nitty-gritty that the guy was convicted of murder by a jury (and, at that, ignores that he's exhausted appeals.)

In a total of 8278 words, the reader is taken all the way to word #6026 before again getting to the "by the way" he killed somebody, has exhausted appeals, and will likely spend the rest of his life in prison.

What version of 'fair and balanced' is that? Skywriter (talk) 08:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Where do the words "by the way" appear? This is an encyclopedia, not a sensationalist tabloid. I repeat, his notability derives from his work in the field of music, not as a murderer, and that is what the balance of the article reflects. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

And once again I agree. The comparison with John Wilkes Booth is ludicrous: Booth is remembered as an assassin who was once an actor; Spector is remembered as a record producer whose life ended badly when he killed a woman. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 15:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow! I was just reading this article wondering if Spector was still in jail. I found myself struggling to find any mention of the murder in the article! Why is all this important information buried underneath his discography? The article as written and organized seems biased. While Spector may have been highly regarded in the music industry for decades, his notoriety with the general public is based on being involved with a sensational murder case - not on being a record producer. The article needs to be reorganized so that it is consistent with the format of other Wikipedia biographies. It looks like someone has tried to buried unflattering information as if it were a footnote - rather than what makes the subject notorious. Cleo123 (talk) 22:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

That's simply not true. The murder and conviction are mentioned at the end of the lead section. Rothorpe (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The only section of the article that would remotely make sense to reorder below his crime would be "Legacy and influence". It might look strangely out of place though, unless he received accolades for murder.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 11:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that this edit - which removed any mention of the murder from the opening paragraph - was a serious error. (I hadn't commented before, because I hadn't noticed.) What editors collectively agreed at Jimmy Savile, to overcome similar problems over achieving the right balance between his "good" and "bad" sides, was to ensure that both were mentioned in the opening paragraph, and then, in separate sections, refer to his achievements and then his criminal activities. I'd favour the same approach here. There is a problem with this article in that the murder conviction now appears to be underplayed in both the lede, and the article itself, by relegating it to a position after his discography and musical legacy. There is no simple answer, but I have a lot of sympathy with people coming to the article and identifying an apparent lack of balance. We should not judge whether or not his musical triumphs in some way outweigh his criminal conviction, but we need to have a fair balance, and in my view the article falls short of that and more work is needed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I've rearranged the article in a way that may compromise.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

At first glance, that looks to me like a big improvement (though "infamy" always reminds me of Kenneth Williams). Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I've read the other topics on this page about this but to me the ratio is still off. About 5-10% of this page is dedicated to the murder, even though surely the fact that he has been in prison since 2009 and will be for the rest of his life has a greater impact on who he is as a person than just taking up a small paragraph? Romeowth (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure you've noticed that this has been discussed - heatedly, at times - at great length, and there is merit in both arguments. It's unfortunate that, for all of Spector's accomplishments, he will undoubtedly be remembered for those final pathetic images, of a wigged nut job brought down by his own loneliness and paranoia. Nevertheless, WP articles are supposed to reflect the source material, the vast bulk of which covers his musical achievements. I understand that most of that material was written before the shooting and the trial; but sources are sources, and guidelines are guidelines. I would also remind you that the shooting and trial are covered in somewhat greater detail in a separate article, Murder of Lana Clarkson, which was split off from this article only a few months ago. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 00:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

2016 retread

As of 2016, the top 5 Google results for Spector are his own website, this Wiki page, "Biography.com: Phil Spector: Murderer" (the music is only mentioned alongside the murder upon clickthrough), the IMDB page for the 2013 film about his murder trial, and the Rolling Stones page about him. Rebecca Solnit's 2014 book also includes a mention of him -- as a murderer. It is not balanced to bury the murder several paragraphs down, no matter how much you think his music is still relevant. Terukiyo (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@Terukiyo: You should bring this up at Talk:O. J. Simpson. Most of his Google results talk about his trials and convictions, yet only two sentences discuss it in his article's lead, and only two paragraphs in the body. This issue has been discussed to death and you're not refuting any the points previously established on this talk page.

What is the significance of Spector being mentioned in a 2014 book by Rebecca Solnit? Are you referring to this trivial passage?

No major female pop star has blown the head off a young man she took home with her, as did Phil Spector.

Amazing. I guess Claudine Longet doesn't count?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Never mind that OJ Simpson's conviction is in the first sentence of the lede of his Wiki article, while Spector's is several paragraphs down -- if I want to point out one illogical thing, do I have to fix all other ones first? The significance is that Spector has faded from the music world and, in the past decade, arisen in pop culture -- the movie starring major film stars and the book being two examples, and you'll note I didn't add the latter to the article -- best known as a murderer. That is my refutation of Ghmyrtle's point, whereas you've added nothing new but OJ Simpson. And you've left out the next line, which is:

He is now part of that 93.5 percent for the shotgun slaying of Lana Clarkson, apparently for refusing his advances.

I accept the murder not being in the lede, which is what the above users were discussing, but you have given no reason for moving it out of the second paragraph, before the mention of his 1950s start in music. I'm moving it back.Terukiyo (talk) 01:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Whatever you think of Spector's standing in pop culture depends on where you look. If you read tabloid newspapers and criminal analysis texts, then Spector is a murderer who happened to be a record producer some decades earlier. If you read music journals and Western cultural encyclopedias, then Spector was a historic record producer who happened to be a murderer some decades later. The truth leans more toward the latter. Sometimes his conviction is never mentioned at all, such as in Matthew Bannister's White Boys, White Noise (2007), which details Spector's megalomaniac personality and how it influenced studio-bound artists.

I'll admit that it's useless comparing Spector to O. J. or Longet — he is a unique case. The O. J. trials were a huge deal, and it's not like he was an extraordinary golfer, inventing new ways to swing. And Longet was convicted of negligent homicide, not second degree murder.

I moved the paragraph below the text concerning his life between the 1950s and 1980s because the murder and conviction occurred in the 2000s. Proper chronology flow makes things easier and less confusing to read. I think it's better than leaving it at the very end, which is where it was before. Think of the lead this way:

1. Notability
2. Life
3. Conviction
4. Legacy

--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Citations

I rearranged data in many formal references and further readings to use YYYY-MM-DD Archived and Retrieved date format consistently. And I rearranged data to use "Last, first (DMY)." author and publication date consistently to begin listings where we do have author and publ date. Evidently I missed "Bronson, Fred (1992)".

• Bronson, Fred (December 2002). Billboard's Hottest Hot 100 Hits. Watson-Guptill Publications.
• Bronson, Fred (2003). Billboard's Hottest Hot 100 Hits. Billboard Books (3rd ed.), pp. 106–28.

Two listings may be shortened or combined if those are two issues of identical 3rd-edition material.

• Williams, Richard (1972). Phil Spector: Out of His Head.
• Williams, Richard (date?). Out of His Head; ISBN 0-7119-9864-7
• Williams, Richard (date?). Phil Spector: Out Of His Head, Omnibus Press, 2003

Three to five listings may be shortened or combined, moreso if 2003 is a reprint of 1972 material and ISBN 0-7119-9864-7 is the same material.

--P64 (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Height - plus differences with the movie

Does anybody know how tall Spector is?, and can then put it in the bio? The movie makes him out to be a short runt of a guy, but I know a lot of the movie is not based on fact (it notes that at the outset). For that matter, can somebody who knows, insert a section titled perhaps "Differences with movie" - for example, the movie says he was teetotal for 10 or so years, and then was drunk on the night of the murder. Is that true?, or just poetic license by the moviemakers? Thanks to anybody who knows.Betathetapi545 (talk) 20:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Spector is like 5'6" in real life; that's probably not worth including in the article. Any information pertaining to the accuracy of the Pacino film has to be sourced from somebody who already has such verified information published.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Phil Spector. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121210114832/http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/celebrity/phil_spector/index.html to http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/celebrity/phil_spector/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

@Sjones23: I like combining the infoboxes, but I'm not crazy about how it looks now. We jump straight from "years active" to the murder charge, with the musical credits coming later. This is out of chronological order, but it also seems wrong to put his criminal career first when he is better known for his musical career, which takes up by far the larger part of the article.

I've never had much luck embedding infoboxes, but would it be possible to embed both "musical artist" and "criminal" boxes with musician first? Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I have no objections if it comes with musician first. I'll go ahead and embed them in this case. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• Hold on – what about other musical artists who have been convicted with a significant criminal charge? Let's stay consistent here. I don't think it's ideal if we were to switch infoboxes on Chuck Berry, Faust, Varg Vikernes, Ike Turner, Johnny Paycheck, Jim Gordon, Leadbelly, Claudine Longet, and David Allen Coe.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Were any of them convicted of murder? Leadbelly was convicted of something, but he was released after just a few years so it may not have been murder (I have been unable to find out what the charge was). Sid Vicious died before his trial. I can't think of any other musicians of Spector's stature who have been convicted of murder. I'm not arguing that the conviction should be in the infobox, just questioning whether consistency is possible in this case. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I know Jim Gordon and Varg Vikernes were, certainly. Although in the case of Vikernes, I think maybe he should constitute as an exception. But I don't know enough about Burzum to really say.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 11:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Split proposal

• Split to Murder of Lana Clarkson or Death of Lana Clarkson for two reasons:

1. The article is currently divided between two virtually unrelated merits — one very notable and the other not-so-notable — representing two totally different perspectives of Spector's biography: "Phil Spector the musician" and "Phil Spector the murderer". Because of his enormous, long-term musical impact, he will clearly be remembered for the former, not the latter (WP:RECENTISM). Another important point: this article would not have been created if all we knew about Spector was that he killed an actress (WP:NOTABILITY).
2. Lana Clarkson is also notable for her own merits. In this case, she was an actress. The subject of her death deserves as much coverage on her own page as it does on Spector's, and yet Spector's article is treated as the "main" spot for this topic (WP:UNDUE).

Per WP:SPINOFF:

"A common situation is when a particular controversial incident gets a lot of attention from reliable sources representing different points of view, expanding until every item of evidence is included and referenced. This kind of detailed examination of a single incident in a general article will usually be considered to give undue weight to the incident, so it is more appropriate to break that section out as a separate subarticle and just leave a summary section in the main article."

The new article would also be appropriate for locating a criminal infobox template, as has been tried so many times in this article.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:06, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Weak oppose – The section isn't all that big or notable that it requires its own article. I don't think we have "a lot of attention from reliable sources representing different points of view, expanding until every item of evidence is included and referenced." Lana's murder gets even less space at her own article than we have here. I would rename the section to something like "Murder of Lana Clarkson" because it's about more than just the conviction. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not about the section being overwhelmingly long, it's about whether so much of the article (about 15~20%) should be devoted to it. It is "a particular controversial incident" that received a lot of attention. This is indisputable. In a 75,000+ byte biographical article of a notable musician whose career spans five decades, there shouldn't be 4 subsections devoted to a murder incident from the 2000s. This infringes on WP:BALASPS.

... discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news.

The whole incident does not just involve Spector, but also Clarkson, and various members of California's judicial system. The fact that "Lana's murder gets even less space at her own article" proves my point that it is unfairly centered here. There have been numerous books written and films made about this case.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Being convicted of murder would rightly be considered a major part of any person's life - it's more than merely a "not-so-notable" "incident". While fully recognising Spector's importance to music, giving 15-20% of this article over to the murder case and conviction does not seem in any way excessive and does not justify splitting that part off. It is, at best, premature to suggest that he will be remembered for his musical contributions but not for the murder - he is very likely to be remembered for both. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle: To clarify, I never called the incident itself "not-so-notable" - only that it is "not-so-notable" in comparison to his musical contributions and the prior 60 years of his life. This is an encyclopedia, and this is a biographical article. A proper and comprehensive biography of Spector would not devote just 60 pages to the years 1939–2003 and then 240 pages on the six years after. Especially when so many equally (or more) notable things happened in those first 40 years. This is exactly the kind of issue that WP:WEIGHT and WP:SPINOFF addresses. Per WP:SPINOFF

when done properly, [splitting creates] the opportunity to go into much more detail than otherwise permissible.

Again, this case was the subject of extensive coverage, and it inspired numerous films. One could potentially double or triple the size of the section, but not while it remains here.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Where does the 60:240 ratio come from? The current article has nothing like those proportions. I find it astonishing and somewhat worrying that you consider a murder conviction to be ""not-so-notable" in comparison to his musical contributions." Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

60 pages would be 20% of a 300-page book. And I can spin that last comment right back to you: I find it "astonishing" and "worrying" that you think the subject of somebody's murder shouldn't be separated from an article in which its perpetrator is glamorized for his contributions to the arts. Obviously there are people who feel very passionate about the matter and want this to be the place where the crime is all laid out in great detail, but that sort of thing is not conducive to maintaining WP:NPOV.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I still don't understand the significance of the 60 pages - it just seems to be a number plucked out of the air. But anyway, this is a biographical article - which is supposed to give a rounded picture of the person. Spector is known for two things - he is an important record producer, and he is a convicted murderer. Removing one of those two from the article would inevitably lead to a biographical article that gives an unbalanced overall picture. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

It wouldn't really be removed. It would just be replaced with a paragraph and a link to a more detailed article, as was better explained below.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• Here is what the split article would look like, roughly. The result is ~15kb and contains thirty different points of view. WP:SPINOFF definitely applies here.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
• Split as proposed. I haven't previously commented, but started out as a mild "Oppose". However, I've gradually been won over to supporting the proposed split.

Part of my reasoning is that the identical material is applicable both to this article Phil Spector and the Clarkson article, Lana Clarkson. WP:SPINOFF contemplates a single article whose content has grown enough to be separated out, but I think what we have here is a fairly rare situation, not discussed in the guideline, but that supports spinning the material out. We have two articles on notable people (I don't think it would be controversial to note that Spector is more notable than Clarkson), and the material at issue is highly applicable to both articles.

In this case, I think it is appropriate to treat the material with a single short section, preferably one paragraph, in each article, each with a {{main}} template pointing to Murder of Lana Clarkson, with the heavy detail located there. In that way, a reader interested in either Spector or Clarkson is directed to the shared material. TJRC (talk) 20:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Very Confusing Article

I dont have any idea of what "wagnerian" or "walls of sound" are. This article doesn't serve to inform the reader in any capacity - it seems to only confuse them unless you're indoctrinated into some type of musical/elite club. 24.51.217.35 (talk) 11:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

EDIT - I guess "wagnerian" is a reference to Wagner. I don't see any similarity in the musical style between these two individuals whatsoever. "wagnerian" seem like a made-up word regardless. 24.51.217.35 (talk) 11:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

'Wagnerian' is a legitimate musicological term. Whether it applies to Spector's work is another matter. 2001:44B8:3102:BB00:4D80:CC63:582:9167 (talk) 08:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Wall of Sound <--- Click for more info. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 11:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Phil Spector. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110407031136/http://oldies.about.com/od/oldieshistory/a/april20.htm to http://oldies.about.com/od/oldieshistory/a/april20.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091130102156/http://www.vanityfair.com/fame/features/2003/06/spector200306?currentPage=6 to http://www.vanityfair.com/fame/features/2003/06/spector200306?currentPage=6
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050725082239/http://www.tabloidcolumn.com/phil-spector.html to http://www.tabloidcolumn.com/phil-spector.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Murderer

Obviously, the number one things that this article should be leading off with is the fact that he is a murderer (according to a court of law) and a repeated sexual abuser (according to several different women's sworn-in-court-under-penalty-of-perjury testimony, as well as the statements of his own children). The career is important, too, and it's fine that most of the article talks about the rest of his life. But there is no other murderer on Wikipedia whose act of murder isn't even mentioned in the lead sentences. And this is not 2000 or 1950 any more; we can't brush repeated, cited, well-reported (under penalty of perjury!) claims of sexual abuse under the rug. I'm opening this up for discussion to figure out the best way to start our article on the man who is the reason Lana's family never gets to see her any more. Red Slash 03:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The article already says Phillip Harvey Spector (born Harvey Phillip Spector, December 26, 1939)[nb 1] is an American murderer and alleged sexual abuser (including child sexual abuse),[3][4] who had previously gained fame as a record producer, musician, and songwriter. Bus stop (talk) 03:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

That's because Red Slash reverted the previous edit. --hulmem (talk) 04:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Red Slash, did you read the existing, extensive talk on this topic? From your last sentence ("...figure out the best way to start our article on the man who is the reason Lana's family never gets to see her any more"), it seems like you may have a bias that could make it difficult for you to objectively present an NPOV. It is Spector's music career that made him notable, not the murder of Clarkson; if he was not famous for his career, the murder (sad to say) would likely not be notable enough to justify a WP article on Spector. I'm not suggesting the murder should not be in the lead, but it would be hard to justify mentioning the murder before the career. The articles Jim Gordon (musician) and Lead Belly may be informative. --hulmem (talk) 04:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

His career in later life is overshadowed by the murder, but the lede does not gloss over the murder. We read "Later in his life, however, Spector became notorious for the 2003 death of actress Lana Clarkson, of which he was convicted of second degree murder" and "After allegedly using a gun to intimidate women in 1988, 1991, 1993 and 1995 who were rejecting his sexual advances, Spector shot and killed Lana Clarkson in the early hours of February 3, 2003. Spector was arrested but released on a $1 million bail, undergoing trial for her murder four years later. In 2008, he was retried and eventually convicted of second-degree murder. He is currently serving a prison sentence of 19 years to life and will be 88 years old before becoming eligible for parole." Bus stop (talk) 05:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

He is not most notable for being a murderer. I reverted the edit changing the lead. The article doesn't try to cover up the murder he committed or abuse in any way. A comparison would be the article on Roman Polanski — which lists him as a film director, etc. before a sexual abuser. Or the article on Varg Vikernes — which lists him as a musician before talking about his murder conviction. RoseCherry64 (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

• (re: "But there is no other murderer on Wikipedia whose act of murder isn't even mentioned in the lead sentences.")

Leadbelly, Sid Vicious, Joe Meek, Claudine Longet ... --Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

• Bus stop, the lede only mentions the murder and sexual assaults because I recently put it there. Ilovetopaint, none of those people were convicted of murder, except Sid, and fully half the lede is talking about his violence and subsequent legal issues. You could make a case for Joe Meek's crime needing more prominence, but we don't get as many reliable sources reporting on a murder-suicide than a murder while the killer is still alive. Again, we cannot simply put the murder as an afterthought at the end of the lede, which the article does now. Red Slash 22:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

"we cannot simply put the murder as an afterthought at the end of the lede" You're beating a dead horse. If this edit was the norm, then Wikipedia would be introducing John Lennon as a "an English alleged wife-beater and songwriter" or Michael Jackson as "an American suspected pedophile and pop singer". This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:38, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, if you cared to read further into their articles, Leadbelly and Claudine Longet were certainly convicted for homicidal crimes (I'm not sure why that makes a difference, if it was important then reliable sources still would have said all there is to be said about the subject).--Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

"the lede only mentions the murder [...] because I recently put it there."

I looked at edits from about 4 year ago and it mentions him being a convicted murderer. Didn't you just "recently put it there"? Why are you arguing from a dishonest perspective when anyone can clearly look at the edit history and see that it mentions the murder of Clarkson?

Spector wrote and produced the most popular American song of the 20th century (based on radio airplay). There are books dedicated solely to his work in music. He's not famous for murder or sexual abuse. RoseCherry64 (talk) 12:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Death information

Spector reportedly contracted COVID-19 about a month ago from his jail cell at the California Health Care Facility in Stockton, Calif., and was hospitalized, but returned to the prison. He relapsed and was rushed to the hospital, where he died Saturday, according to TMZ. MikaelaArsenault (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Yep, he's dead. Wyliepedia @ 19:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Death

Didn't this dirt bag just die? Why no mention of it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 240D:1A:8AF:4D00:9D88:ED19:A8AD:1875 (talk) 15:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

He only died yesterday, and this place is staffed by volunteers. And please be more civil. Britmax (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The man who made a comment is also a volunteer, and Spector was a convicted murder, so "dirtbag" is an appropriate expression. Why is civility more important to you than factuality? -SW

Navbox

A user removed "Productions" from Phil Spector's navbox, whicd is insane. He's a producer. As an example of how silly that left the box, Let It Be... Naked was left on it, which was a version of Let It Be with Spector's contributions removed, but Let It Be itself, which Spector produced, wasn't. I undid the changes.—Chowbok ☠ 20:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Song and album productions do not belong in navboxes, only something he conceived should be included. This material is far better left for category navigation, see Category:Song recordings produced by Phil Spector and Category:Albums produced by Phil Spector. --woodensuperman 14:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Again, that's completely absurd. Where did this "rule" come from?—Chowbok ☠ 08:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Since Woodensuperman has not responded to my question, despite being very active on the site since I asked it, I have restored the productions again to the navbox. —Chowbok ☠ 01:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

This is not an appropriate subject for a navbox as noted. Much in the same way that WP:FILMNAV works for films, these producers are not generally the primary creator of the material, but a facilitator. This is much better left for the category trees, and you'll be hard pushed to find other navboxes for producers, no matter how prolific. There are no {{Robert John "Mutt" Lange}} and no {{Brendan O'Brien (record producer)}} navboxes, etc, etc. --woodensuperman 10:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

That's an argument for getting rid of the navbox altogether, not to have the navbox and not list what he's most noted for. If you want to make that argument, fine, but as long as we have the navbox, it should have productions listed.—Chowbok ☠ 18:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Note that {{Dr. Dre}} and {{Quincy Jones}}, producers which do have navboxes, only have works included where they are the main artist. Checking against this list , most do not have navboxes, and the ones that do only have their discographies as artist. Maybe one or two have slipped through the net, but it is not our practice to include these, the same way we don't have navboxes for discographies of individual session musicians, etc. --woodensuperman 10:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Dre and Jones are at least as well known as performers and composers as they are as producers, so it's not the most apt analogy. Besides, why shouldn't they have sections for productions as well? This "no productions" thing is just a weird arbitrary rule that you've yet to justify or provide a consensus for.—Chowbok ☠ 18:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Could Woodensuperman give a link to where the idea that "This is not an appropriate subject for a navbox" has been discussed and agreed? Even if it is accepted that "producers are not generally the primary creator of the material", Spector, who was clearly the primary creator of many of the recordings previously listed, may be an exceptional case. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

It was discussed years ago, I can't remember where. I'd suggest an RfC at WT:CLT if editors really want to push for record producer navboxes. --woodensuperman 11:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why we need to set up a RfC if you can't even point to a place where this "rule" was established in the first place. I think the burden is on you to demonstrate consensus to leave them out. I'm going to assume this is just your weird personal preference until that happens.—Chowbok ☠ 18:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

"but it is not our practice to include these"

who is this 'we'? who put you in charge of wikipedia, mr woodensuperman? "it was discussed years ago" is not going to fly here, especially if you can't cite the instance or show where this is actually one of wp's guidelines. simply being proprietorial & bossy about it gets us nowhere.

198.147.19.1 (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• Spector was the "main facilitator" of everything he produced between 1960 and 1970 (i.e. virtually his entire body of work). There is no reason why the navbox for Spector, a music producer, should not contain his production discography. A literary author navbox lists an author's bibliography, a film director navbox lists a filmmaker's filmography, and so on. This double standard for music producers makes no sense. I find it interesting that Woodensuperman says "you'll be hard pushed to find other navboxes for producers, no matter how prolific." Template:Brian Eno and Template:Todd Rundgren were the first ones that came to mind. In the case of Rundgren, it seems like Woodensuperman had already gone through the trouble of removing the production work from that navbox as well. This crusade is really misguided. -Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

An amusing thing about this is that, for instance, Thriller is still listed in the Quincy Jones navbox and More Songs About Buildings and Food is still listed in the Brian Eno navbox--but they're listed as "collaborations" rather than "productions", which I guess is what spared them the axe. I suppose if we listed All Things Must Pass as a "collaboration with George Harrison" rather than a "Phil Spector production", it would be left in, which just shows how senseless this all is. It's not music-related, but I see that Woodensuperman also tried to remove the works Busby Berkeley choreographed from his navbox--which is ridiculous in the exact same way. He was quickly reverted over there.—Chowbok ☠ 20:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• Spector is a historically important main creator of the music he produced, so work as producer is considered primary to the recordings. There is an ongoing discussion about producers elsewhere, which links to this discussion, and in it woodensuperman reminded that George Martin doesn't have a navbox. Maybe someone on the music or Beatles projects can work one up. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

IMO, he is the archetype of a record producer. Before his crimes — that is precisely what he did; he set the bar for this type of activity. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

There should at least be a "murder conviction" item in the table of contents

That there isn't lends support to the complaint above that the murder is glossed over. -- 72.194.4.183 (talk) 09:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

There is: 1.6 2003-2009: Murder conviction. Jim Michael (talk) 09:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Death - COVID-19

Spector died of COVID-19 in prison, not of natural causes. 1 Blockhouse321 (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

A virus is natural causes, as opposed to being murdered. Britmax (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Until a coroner confirms, it's neither. Wyliepedia @ 19:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Philosophical acrobatics aside. It is now widely reported that he died of COVID-19, which is not a natural death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.200.4.34 (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Deaths from infectious diseases are a type of death from natural causes. Jim Michael (talk) 09:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The NYT article is saying complications from COVID-19. MikaelaArsenault (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

It is premature to state that Spector died from complications from COVID-19. The New York Times reported that his daughter said he died of complications of COVID-19. A TMZ article (not cited) also reported COVID-19 using unnamed sources. However, The Los Angeles Times said that Spector — although ill and hospitalized for COVID-19 — died of natural causes according to the CA Dept. of Corrections, pending investigation by the San Joaquin County Medical Examiner. The Irish Times article cited in the article concurrs. I essentially agree with Wyliepedia: The article should say natural causes until COVID-19 is reported by officials involved. Otherwise, we must add and clarify who attributed his death to COVID-19. — βox73 (৳alk) 01:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Steinman!

how can an article listing artists influenced or inspired by the wall of sound leave out JIM STEINMAN?! he is the ONE other composer/producer known specifically for this! reviews for his work often say "modern-day spector" "spector wannabe" "spector on steroids" etc etc. in fact, "jim steinman wall of sound" has some degree of usage...something which cannot be said for springsteen, or the stones, or some of the other questionable entries in that section. 66.30.47.138 (talk) 01:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Jim Steinman Bus stop (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

2003-2009: Murder conviction

First sentence of the third paragraph in the section:

"Spector produced singer-songwriter Hargo Khalsa's track (known professionally as 'Hargo') "Crying for John Lennon", which originally appears on Hargo's 2006 album In Your Eyes, but on a visit to Spector's mansion for an interview for the John Lennon tribute movie Strawberry Fields, Hargo played Spector the song and asked him to produce it."

Can someone clean that up. It sounds like Hargo talked Spector into producing a song that Spector had already produced. 2600:1700:B280:B1C0:BDB6:C309:8814:57A8 (talk) 10:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

It seems like someone did clean it up, but should this be in the article at all? We don't have an article for any of Hargo, the song "Crying for John Lennon", the album In Your Eyes, nor the Strawberry Fields tribute film. It seems to me this is simply trivia. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 19:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Cultural reference-- "Harvey Spector" is main character of Suits TV show

The main character of the popular TV show Suitsis Harvey Spector (Phil's first name). This should be added under the Cultural reference section.

2601:1C0:6A01:5DE0:BCF1:F9D9:E2C4:7DFA (talk) 05:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2022

Can you add the murder conviction and make it more obvious? I did not even believe it since the page mainly talks about his career in the music industry. This man is a murderer and should be named as such. It is disrespectful for the family of the deceased lady to omit such offense. 139.216.71.99 (talk) 07:08, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. It's already mentioned in the first sentence and the last sentence of the lede, and there is an entire section Phil_Spector#2003–2021:_Clarkson_murder_and_imprisonment on this. What exactly are you requesting? Cannolis (talk) 07:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Popular culture incomplete

Phil Spector appeared in the movie Easy Rider as a drug dealer possibly uncredited however he was in the movie none the less 96.61.93.92 (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Added. 2A00:23C7:E287:1901:1401:AB9E:DC3B:1EF3 (talk) 10:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Him being a murderer seems incredibly glossed over Suggestion

Seems incredibly glossed over and the whole article is wearing a large set of rose colored glasses. If we look to similar cases (I think Robert Blake (actor) is a good example of someone who had about the same level of fame), they have a dedicated section (with multiple subsections) about Blake's murder. Spector's simply has a subsection mixed with other stuff in the biography section. The lead of the article itself is four paragraphs and only half of one sentence actually talks about the fact that he's a convicted murderer. There's no doubting he has an incredible legacy as a music producer, but his lasting legacy for many will be the brutal murder he committed. The fact that maybe 1/10th of the article actually addresses that shows undue weight. I normally would tag this with maintenance tags, but I don't think that's going to be a good look right now considering the flood of views this page is going to get the next couple of days. I would propose that the fact that he's a convicted murderer have a more prominent mention in the lead and its own section, not just a subsection. I'll probably wait a week or two to do this as right now would be the wrong time for an overhaul and also would like other's thoughts as well. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. My edit last month to add "convicted murderer" the first sentence was reverted by User:ILIL for the reason that mainstream sources don't refer to him as a murderer. We can clearly see, in coverage of his death, that this is false. The test used by biased fans for excluding this has fallen away. Here's a collection of mainstream sources referring to this person as a murderer:

• Associated Press: Phil Spector, famed music producer and murderer, dies at 81
• NBC News: Phil Spector, famed music producer and convicted murderer, dies at 81
• NY Times: Phil Spector, Famed Music Producer Imprisoned in Slaying, Dies at 81
• Reuters: Music producer Phil Spector, convicted of murder, dead at 81
• WaPo: Phil Spector, lionized producer of 1960s pop and convicted murderer, dies

In addition, WP:RECENTISM does not apply to an event (conviction) that occurred over a decade ago. Celebrity examples of criminal convictions added to first sentence: Aaron Hernandez (murder), C-Murder (murder), Michael Jace, (murder), Oscar Pistorius (murder), Marty Bergen (baseball) (murder), Harvey Weinstein (sex offending), Bill Cosby (sex offending), Jerry Sandusky (rape and child abuse), Jared Fogle (sex offending). - Rustic / Talk 19:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• Per MOS:ROLEBIO, we introduce Spector by the roles that he is primarily notable for. He was foremost notable as a producer, songwriter, and musician; it was only much later in his life that he became a convicted murderer. This is how he is described in the lead, as well as in most of the very headlines you cited. Only tabloids refer to him as a convicted murder who produced music. ili (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

  @ILIL: WaPo and NYT aren't tabloids --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Guerillero: WaPo and NYT do not describe Spector as "a convicted murderer who was a lionized producer of 1960s pop" or an "Imprisoned Murderer who was a Famed Music Producer". ili (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

  ILIL, "It's only much later in his life that he became a convicted murderer" is just about as rose colored glasses as you can get dude lol. Bill Cosby didn't become known for being a rapist until much later in his life and we mention him being a sex offender in the first sentence of his article. He is primarily notable for murder, among those other things you mentioned, whether you want that to be true or not. The second part of your statement is completely fictional. The articles linked by Rustic are incredibly compelling and not tabloids as you suggest. Every article they linked says "murderer" in the headline, completely contriviatrary to what you said. Between the incredibly spun first sentence, the fiction of your second and third sentence, and the listed interests on your userpage I think you should highly consider removing yourself from this discussion. Sulfurboy (talk) 01:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Sulfurboy: I think Michael Jackson is a better comparison given that Cosby's lead is formatted completely differently from Spector's and thus makes no sense as a point of comparison. If Spector's opening paragraph consisted of a single sentence, then yes, I would support something along the lines of "Phil Spector is a producer, musician and songwriter who developed the Wall of Sound in the 1960s and was convicted of murder in 2009." ili (talk) 03:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

  ILIL, Absolutely horrible comparison. Jackson was acquitted of all charges. Spector was convicted of second degree murder. Any other wild ideas? Sulfurboy (talk) 04:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Sulfurboy: Cosby was convicted of three counts of aggravated indecent assault and accused by dozens of women of sexual assault. Jackson was not convicted of anything but was accused by dozens of committing child molestation. Spector was convicted of second degree murder. Now explain how any of these peoples' situations are supposed to be exactly the same between each other. ili (talk) 04:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

  ILIL, Because we don't call someone a child pedophile or whatever in a lead unless they're convicted. How do you not know these basic tenets of Wikipedia? Sulfurboy (talk) 04:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Sulfurboy: Yes, I know. It was a rhetorical statement. My point is that the comparison between Spector and Cosby was foolish to begin with. How do you not know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? ili (talk) 04:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

  ILIL, You're completely confusing OSE with MOS dude. This is hilarious. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

  I never suggested that OSE was a WP guideline. I just cited it because it was the fallacy you were invoking. This is getting tiresome, especially now that you're borderline-vandalizing the article. ili (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

  You have violated nearly every principle and policy of Wikipedia, and are now making false charges of vandalism and asserting bad faith. As for this "a role that he's not principally notable for" nonsense, he's principally notable as a famous music producer who committed murder. -- 72.194.4.183 (talk) 09:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

  Hyperbole much? Why'd you log out of your account? ili (talk) 12:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• No-one is suggesting that this article reframe him as a murderer who produced music. Don't argue in bad faith. My edit, which you reverted, put this point last: he was a producer before he was murderer. (Indeed, some may argue whether that sequence of characterizations is fair, but the precedent set by the articles I listed suggests it is.) Those "tabloids" (sorry to the Associated Press and Reuters for this new title) refer to him as a music producer first, and a murderer second. You're suggesting we don't refer to him as a murderer at all: you'd rather we not draw attention to it. There isn't a policy on this website that would support your position. Loosely citing them harms your case. I agree with Sulfurboy, you seem too close to the subject matter to have an objective perspective. - Rustic / Talk 02:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Rustic: I'm not suggesting we don't refer to him as a murderer (we already do). You're arguing to present the subject in a role that he's not principally notable for. The overwhelming majority of Spector's coverage in published sources, especially books and academia, is concerned with Spector the Musician, not Spector the Murderer.

Those "tabloids" (sorry to the Associated Press and Reuters for this new title) refer to him as a music producer first, and a murderer second.

That's precisely my point! And I never suggested that AP and Reuters were tabloids, that's you twisting my words. It is a fact that only tabloids describe him foremost as a murderer - half the time they don't even bother to mention that he's a producer.

MOS:ROLEBIO: The noteworthy position(s) or role(s) the person held should usually be stated in the opening paragraph. However, avoid overloading the lead paragraph with various and sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable. Incidental and non-noteworthy roles (i.e. activities that are not integral to the person's notability) should usually not be mentioned in the lead paragraph. ... In general, a position, activity, or role should not be included in the lead paragraph if ... the role is auxiliary to a main profession of the person (e.g. do not add "textbook writer", if the person is an academic).

The proper, objective, and encyclopedic description of Spector is a "music producer who developed the Wall of Sound, was extraordinarily influential, and was later convicted of murder." It is not "music producer and convicted murderer who developed the Wall of Sound and was extraordinarily influential." ili (talk) 03:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

ILIL, We would never put "extraordinarily influential" in a lead sentence of any article. That's once again your bias speaking. MOS calls typically for ungarnished nouns; e.g. Subject was x, y, and z. Extraordinarily influential is something that can be in the lead itself, but not the first sentence. Since there doesn't seem to be a disagreement any longer that convicted murderer belongs in the lead sentence that adjustment will be made. I'll await further consensus on other matters. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sulfurboy: Yes, I'm aware that "extraordinary" is a word to watch. I was simply using it as a shorthand. There is no consensus to interject "convicted murderer" in the first sentence. Other editors on this talk page have opposed such an addition (@RoseCherry64: @Hulmem:) ili (talk) 04:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@ILIL: Frankly, there is absolutely no contortion of reality that would support your view that he isn't "principally notable" for being a murderer. Every major news organization in the world has run headlines with the word "murder" or "murderer" in it. He could've written the collective works of Tolstoy; he also killed someone, and was convicted for it. The rest of the world sees him in this light, and I'm sorry you don't, but the Wikipedia wasn't written to cater for the interests and biases of one editor. It's frankly disturbing that you're so willing to describe his murder conviction as "trivial" and of "little significance". The addition of "convicted murderer" to the end of the first sentence is in line with MOS:FIRST, WP:RECENTISM, and MOS:ROLEBIO. A first sentence isn't overloaded by the addition of two words. - Rustic / Talk 07:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Rustic: Stop appealing to emotion, please. I'm not saying that murder is trivial. I'm saying that it's misleading to suggest that Spector is principally notable for murdering a woman when the overwhelming majority of published biographies, encyclopedias, history books, and academia - indisputably more authoritative and concerned with long-term significance than an obituary run by news publications who generate their revenue through clicks - are actually concerned with Spector from a musicological POV. Wikipedia is not written to right great wrongs. Joe Meek, Claudine Longet, and Lead Belly didn't write the collective works of Tolstoy either, but we don't describe those musicians as murderers as if their crimes were equally notable as their music. Indeed, if any of them had killed without having had careers in music, they would not have Wikipedia articles in the first place. Also, "the interests and biases of one editor"? Please, many editors before me have argued these same points in the last 10 years on this very talk page, and many of them have appeared here within the last 24 hours. ili (talk) 12:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Also, it's not so much that the murder is "glossed over", but moreso that his musical achievements by and large eclipse an event that happened at the tail end of his life and which has very little historical significance by itself. The lead already mentions that he killed an actress and spent the rest of his life in a prison cell — really, what else is there to say about the incident? And the reason why there aren't that many details about this murder in the article's body is because Murder of Lana Clarkson already exists. ili (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

  ILIL, A major music producer being convicted of murder "has very little historical significance"?!?!? Dude your lack of neutrality in this matter is glaring. Sulfurboy (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Sulfurboy: Yes, it has very little historical significant by itself - because we don't create Wikipedia articles for every murderer in history - and it's especially trivial when placed in the context of his musical achievements, which by and large eclipse an event that happened at the tail end of his life. Please don't twist my words. ili (talk) 03:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

  it's especially trivial when placed in the context -- no murder is trivial in *any* context, which is why *no reliable source reports it that way*. Your bias is evidently **extreme** and is not a result of twisting your words which is a false charge that you have made repeatedly. -- 72.194.4.183 (talk) 09:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

  his musical achievements by and large eclipse an event that happened at the tail end of his life and which has very little historical significance by itself -- this is your blatantly biased personal opinion that is not supported by the reporting of reliable sources. The plain fact is that receiving a life sentence for murder has extreme historical significance in anyone's life, which is why every report of his death mentions it. -- 72.194.4.183 (talk) 09:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Spector was notable as a record producer for some fifty years before he was convicted of murder. Indeed, the only reason this article exists is because of his notability as a music figure. Of course, the fact that he was a convicted murderer should be reported prominently and not "glossed over", but it should not appear to be the principal reason for his notability. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

  Ghmyrtle, Yeah I agree, it should not be the main focus of the article. I apologize if my original post seemed to suggest that. However, I do think it needs to be in the first sentence in line with Bill Cosby or others that Rustic mentioned above. It also needs it's own section. Sulfurboy (talk) 01:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Spector's role as a murderer should be included in the first sentence, after his music roles, consistent with MOS:FIRST. WWGB (talk) 05:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

What MOS:FIRST says is: "Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead." Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

MOS:FIRST should also "tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is". Was he not a convicted murderer? Two more words will not "overload the first sentence". WWGB (talk) 07:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, I'm fine with narrowing down the notable things mentioned in the first sentence. In doing so we should use the headlines mentioned above for guidance on the most notable things. All of those headlines mention two things, and it's the same two things, music producer and murderer. As such, if we reduce it, musician and songwriter would need to be removed. Sulfurboy (talk) 07:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Sulfurboy - Not so. We are a neutral encyclopedia concerned about long-term significance, not a newspaper seeking immediate sales (or clicks). Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, We're talking about Reuters and the Associated Press, pretty much as neutral, no thrills as you can get in reporting. I also would think most editors would view both of those entities as about as solid of a source as you can get. Your suggestion backfired. Now you're trying to pivot in a way that completely exposes that you too have an inherent bias in this matter. Sulfurboy (talk) 08:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not "trying to pivot", and please don't claim that I have an "inherent bias". See WP:NOTNEWS. You wrote: "..we should use the headlines mentioned above for guidance on the most notable things..." No, we shouldn't, when there are better, longer-term, neutral sources available that set out the reasons for his notability. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

What is "not so"? That Spector was convicted of murder and died while serving a life sentence for such is of infinitely long-term significance and that nonsense about "a newspaper seeking immediate sales" is a thoroughly disingenuous argument--an ad hominem against AP and other reliable sources. "there are better, longer-term, neutral sources available that set out the reasons for his notability" -- every single one of which mentions prominently that he was convicted of murder. Any source or person failing to do so is the opposite of "neutral". "See WP:NOTNEWS" -- it's not relevant; we are talking about him being a murderer, not about his dying. Not to say anything about you, but if I had an inherent bias and were arguing in bad faith, I would use your arguments. -- 72.194.4.183 (talk) 09:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

"Not so" is the claim that "..we should use the headlines mentioned above for guidance on the most notable things...". The opening sentence should set out what makes a person notable, and Spector was primarily notable for being an influential music producer, not for being a murderer. The sources we should use are not necessarily those that have been published in the last 24 hours. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, Ghmyrtle there's been sources calling him a convicted murderer for the better part of a decade. What sources would you like the use? Do you have a single source that directly state's that him being a celebrity convicted of murder is not one of the more prominent things he's known for? We have subjective differences of opinion on what he is primarily notable for. When there's a difference of opinion there's multiple ways we can address it:

1) Use established practice. In this instance we can look to other celebrities convicted of high crimes and how they are addressed in the lead sentence. User:Rustic did a great job of showing that the crime the celebrity was convicted of is mentioned in the lead sentence almost always across the board.

2) We look to how the subject is covered in third party sources for how to address them. Despite you suggesting the contrary, we regularly do this on Wikipeida. It's a guiding principal of WP:GNG, it's also how we decide whether to call someone by their birth name or nickname among many other things. We take subjectivity out by doing this.

3) Consensus, so far you are the only person to not concede at some point that that the lead sentence should mention he is a convicted murderer. Trying to continue to state there is no consensus, or that there has been consensus enough to REVERT other user's contributions is patently absurd at this point. You and your fandom do not WP:OWN this article.

4) The currently flowery, puff language in the lead sentence violates multiple tenets of WP:FIRST

I'm certain you know all of these principals, and I with all due respect believe you are completely blinded to what this subject is known for by the majority of readers and the world due to your undue admiration of the subject. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I have no "undue admiration of the subject". I do believe that his notability comes from the fact that he was (as all reliable sources indicate) a highly innovative and influential record producer, not from the fact that he was also a murderer - but I completely accept that the fact that he was convicted of murder and, indeed, that is "one of the more prominent things he's known for" - needs to be mentioned in the opening paragraph, but not necessarily in the opening sentence. We clearly disagree on that point - frankly, it's a fairly minor disagreement - but it is simply wrong to characterise me (as you have done on another page) as "edit warring" when all I have done is to revert a couple of edits to the short description which have clearly not been supported by any consensus on this page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Totally agree with this! The fact that he murdered a person should be highlighted a lot more! 2A02:A44B:8276:1:C547:AA6A:23BF:D86C (talk) 06:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Robert Blake is a two bit child actor and not even close to Spector's importance, he's outdone by Shirley Temple and Jackie Coogan as a first half twentieth century child actor in importance and is outranked by Carl "Alfalfa" Switzer in his own series. People like Weinstein are inherently tied to their sexual abuse because his role as a film producer was inherently tied to his crimes that in a way they are one and the same. Jared Fogle, Jerry Sandusky, Aaron Hernandez, Michael Jace, C-Murder, Oscar Pistorius and Marty Bergen (baseball) barely scrape by notability and will only be written about in a historical way for their crimes (if at all). Bill Cosby is different; as in his role in bringing Black families into the mainstream - will outrank in importance his crimes (and thus he'll be mentioned more in academia for his role in the normalization of Black people in pop culture more than true crime - the avenue for criminals). Spector is in a similar level; he has extreme historical importance in music production and twentieth century pop, rhythm and blues and rock production - thus the literature on him will be more based in music than in a True crime way; to change that here show's our inherent rush to the headlines style. Spector is inherently tied to the history of music production and twentieth century American pop music. There's no avoiding him; thus as crime is not treated in the same way as arts historically it's a leap to say the crime will overshadow his work. Caravaggio is a murderer and that article is not written in a crime first way (because he was never important historically for that and academia tends to not focus on crime); even in a lesser sense of historical nobility and a artist directly known for murder; Carlo Gesualdo is still not just a murderer on sites like Britannica ; which if anything shows that a "by the headlines" approach is not how this type of thing is normally treated; there's no evidence that Spector's main notability and academic worth is tied to crime and we are not a crystal ball. That's why his music stuff comes first. What will be written about in 2500 more? The development of twentieth century music or a murder? What will sources, if any will give more attention to? We have Caravaggio as a example and it seems crime/tabloidesque personal details come last to contributions and Caravaggio was massively controversial in his own time - to the point where he wanted a pardon from the pope; but all of that became irrelevant and there's no sections highlighting it; compare that with Justin Bieber - where every irrelevant controversy is added. Whether we like it or not; whether news sources that depend on clicks in this environment highlight crimes for profit; it never seems to be that controversies last in history and thus i think that no matter our personal opinion - to refocus this article in such a way contrary to everything would make us more like TMZ than a encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuzzyG (talk • contribs) 10:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

TLDR; The history of music will always have Spector; the history of crime will be filled with the likes of Jack the Ripper, Al Capone, Bonnie and Clyde, Billy the Kid and Charles Manson (a example of crime overriding his music contributions); but Spector will always be included in music histories first than crime; true crime has not latched onto his story at all and thus he is not written about that way and he is not a industry specific figure known to the mainstream for murder like Chris Benoit; he was mainstream for music and thus the crime should not be the main focus on here in comparison to everything else. We may disagree on that; but we have to go by the historical evidence and his historical contribution is not in crime but music. Figures like Bergen and Blake are irrelevant as they are not relevant as anything. GuzzyG (talk) 10:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Chris Benoit was a star on highly-rated TBS, TNN, Spike TV, USA, UPN, CW and SyFy(?) for years before the relatively niche true crime channels found him hanging. It's guys like Bruiser Bedlam and Rockin' Rebel who only broke through with murder. But yeah, of all the wrestler-murderers, Benoit comes quickest to mind, just like Spector does for producer-murderers. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I've been into professional wrestling since Souled Out (1998) and guess who wrestles in it - so i'm long aware of Benoit's status; my main thing is analyzing fame and importance in biographies and how their fame is tracked and pro wrestling is one of these main areas of mine; but let's not ever kid ourselves that wrestling isn't largely a relatively niche thing and it's reach is not as far as alot of things outside of kids; Hogan, Cena, André the Giant, Flair, Undertaker, Austin, Batista and the Rock are the only truly mainstream wrestlers and maybe Roddy Piper for his film role. WWE Raw and WWE SmackDown are not mainstream programs and your average person does not care about them in the slightest, being on relatively unimportant cable networks and the smallest main broadcast network (The CW); generally a teen network; means nothing to the average folk; your snarky Nancy Grace edit summary only proves this; that she has more mainstream appeal than WWE Raw is certain and how badly she handled it signifies how clueless the mainstream was on Benoit (and wrestling); but that was many people's first exposure to Benoit and it's delusional to say otherwise. We don't even need obscure wrestlers; Jimmy Snuka and Verne Gagne have also killed people; they're just as industry specific and unknown to the mainstream. Pop culture only references Benoit for the murder, ala Chris Benoit (song); thus he would be more widely known for murder to the average person. I monitor true crime (websites) as a data mine (i track fame in every field, remember) and he's not mentioned largely on them too. But Nancy Grace, The O'Reilly Factor and Greta Van Susteren all covered Benoits case and considering Fox is unfortunately one of the biggest channels; it's ridiculous to say the mainstream knows him mainly for wrestling, which was my point. Before anyone bites, obviously Fox and Grace are not the mainstream itself and they should never be, but it signals a relatively large audience, one that would be largly independent of Raw and SmackDown. GuzzyG (talk) 12:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not saying The Rabid Wolverine is mostly known as a wrestler. Just also as. However you want to compare WWE to other mainstream entertainment, the fact remains that it's in the same mainstream, just a click or two away from the competition (since cable itself has existed). You didn't find Souled Out by tape trading in unmarked alleys, didn't need the Internet, like you would for indy wrestling or indy music. In every town, you'll find people who've watched globally televised wrestling, with various results on their opinions. My stepdad hated watching along with me, but loved the parts with Austin, Benoit or Angle. He couldn't tell Batista from the next guy, I'm sure, pretty sure Dave's still for geeks only after Hollywood exposure. If you mention Chris Benoit to Joe Public, he'll think "wrestler who killed his family". Same with Phil, "producer who Snukaed that girl". InedibleHulk (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• @GuzzyG: Excellently put! ili (talk) 12:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• This is a biography. You are compartmentalizing his life. The subject of the article has a history of abuse to women, a mercurial personality, and a history of careless use of guns. Furthermore I take exception to "Bill Cosby is different; as in his role in bringing Black families into the mainstream". The absence of Black people in a given area of societal functioning does not confer "mainstream" status on that area of activity. Bus stop (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Ofcourse; would a music encyclopedia tracking the development of pop music in 2674 go into a paragraph on Spector's murder instead of just saying he was the first pop music "auteur"? Would that fit in a music encyclopedia? That's how he will be written about, anything else is speculation. I agree, something cannot be mainstream in the US (or the world) without Black people, but you know that i meant mainstream American TV, a area which is from top to bottom racist and exclusionary and that's what The Cosby Show's importance is cited as - breaking through that barrier erected by white supremacists, and in normalizing Black sitcoms on American TV, which is weird - because Sanford and Son and The Jeffersons were before it but i never see them get credit - another sign of this exclusionary white bias; but as i was speaking in terms of the literature, i speak of what i mainly see when i track the news/academic articles on Cosby. (i track information on about 50k figures as a hobby/website i am building). this is how he is written about and thus i was going by the sources, i just accidentally left out mainstream TV and that should be ovious. GuzzyG (talk) 12:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• Actually, this is an encyclopedia, and compartmentalizing is what we do, per WP:BALASP. It's unfortunate that Spector had a terrible personality, but it's not what he got famous for. However, I don't think it'd be wrong to add a mention that Spector was known for his eccentric behavior, per his AllMusic biography. It's just hard to work in considering the lead is already quite big. ili (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

What a disastrous and embarrassing application of Wikipedia policy and style that "was an American record producer, musician, and songwriter known for his innovative recording practices and entrepreneurship in the 1960s, followed decades later by his trial and conviction for murder in the 2000s" is somehow more acceptable to those (two) folks who have been supposedly against dramatic editorializing and who suggested the addition of two words would overload the first sentence. - Rustic / Talk 01:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

By removing murderer from the first sentence you diminish the life of Lana Clarkson. Spector abused women all his adult life. Why shouldn’t this be acknowledged? Ng999 (talk) 06:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I see that there has been no dialectical discussion since January 2021, thereby stalling consensus. Generally speaking, those making the argument against putting "convicted murderer" in the first sentence or paragraph are in the minority, and it appears that their point is based on not wanting to overshadow Spector's career as music producer. Personally, I think this infamy should. But trying to put personal opinions aside, adding mention of the trial and murder in the first sentence does exactly that: it makes an addition (and quite literally per the sentence, does nothing to erase from his other pursuits in life). Changing the sentence to: "Harvey Phillip Spector (December 26, 1939 – January 16, 2021) was an American record producer and songwriter, and convicted murderer" is a factually and legally correct sentence that is simple and undramatic.

Given the natural pause to this conversation two years ago, and the apparent consensus from this thread, I am going to make the above change. T 76.169.109.121 (talk) 08:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Two mug shots?

In an article about a person who did not lead a criminal life, two mugshots in the text is evidently too much. The only question is, which one should be kept, the 2009 or the 2014 one. Suggestions? -The Gnome (talk) 20:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• One mug shot taken down. -The Gnome (talk) 10:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)