Jump to content

Talk:Phil Spector

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

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)[reply]

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

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Him being a murderer seems incredibly glossed over Suggestion

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    @ILIL: WaPo and NYT aren't tabloids --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    ILIL, You're completely confusing OSE with MOS dude. This is hilarious. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Hyperbole much? Why'd you log out of your account? ili (talk) 12:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 [2]; 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • @GuzzyG: Excellently put! ili (talk) 12:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Death - COVID-19

[edit]

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

A virus is natural causes, as opposed to being murdered. Britmax (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Until a coroner confirms, it's neither. Wyliepedia @ 19:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Deaths from infectious diseases are a type of death from natural causes. Jim Michael (talk) 09:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.[1] 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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cromelin, Richard; Wigglesworth, Alex; Winton, Richard (January 17, 2021). "Phil Spector, music producer convicted of murder, dies at 81 after contracting COVID-19". Obituaries. The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved January 17, 2021.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

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

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

2003-2009: Murder conviction

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Steinman!

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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

[edit]

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)[reply]

:-P

[edit]
-P:-P:-P:-P:-P:-:-P:-):-):-P ? 24.34.202.66 (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2022

[edit]

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]
[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Murder of Lana Clarkson

[edit]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lana_Clarkson 2601:646:4000:479:6DA0:D65F:AEF:50D6 (talk) 00:14, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Lana Clarkson

[edit]

In respect to her family this topic should be highlight more and probably a whole section on this. Also he had a reputation of being brutal to women. You would barely know he was convicted of murder in this profile. 81.191.169.226 (talk) 11:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two mug shots?

[edit]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Phil_Spector&oldid=1246668554"