Talk:Phil Spector

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Dubious: Date of birth & correct first name[edit]

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

in hes personal page 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 where she has a link to spector official page, that means that the December 26, 1939 date is corect!

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

On Spector's homepage it says he was born on December 25, 1940. ( So what's the source for December 26, 1939? -- (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 (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 (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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 " 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. (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 ( ) 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 (talk) 12:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

3rd wife[edit]

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

Current picture[edit]

Does the current picture for the page have to be so damn creepy? Come on guys, surely we could come up with something better. (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?[edit]

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 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs)

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

Returning to photo question[edit]

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: [1]. 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. 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[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 18:37, 6 July 2013‎

Associated acts[edit]

Since this section looks a bit long and inconsistent I consulted

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 (talkcontribs) 19:04, 6 July 2013‎

His murder conviction and jailing belong in lede[edit]

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

(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[edit]

As of 2016, the top 5 Google results for Spector are his own website, this Wiki page, " 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)


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[edit]

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[edit]

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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


@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)
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[edit]

  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).
"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[edit]

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. (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. (talk) 11:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

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