Talk:Phil Spector: Difference between revisions

Template:Vital article

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 [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)

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 Template:Mdas that is precisely what he did; he set the bar for this type of activity. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:32, 17 January 2021 (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 contrary 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)

  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)

• 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)

• 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)

Death - COVID19

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)

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