Talk:Phil Spector/Archive 1

Beatles break-up
''Although viewed as a major creative comeback for Spector, it may also have contributed to the contentious Beatles breakup, as Spector added what some considered inappropriate choir and orchestral arrangements to Lennon's "Across the Universe", and Harrison's "I Me Mine". ''

The Beatles had effectively broken up by the autumn of 1969, well before Spector's involvement. Another nail in the Fabs coffin perhaps.

Just the way JWL wanted it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.107.111 (talk) 15:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Spector's Early Life
On the entry page, there was a properly sourced sentence that stated that Spector said in an interview that his parents were first cousins, and that it may have had something to do with his mental problems over the years. Now that is gone. Was the published article that it quoted discredited? If so, I can understand removing the sentence - otherwise, that is a very poor edit because it is quite pertinent to the man's biography, this litigation notwithstanding.

Visible Disfiguration
A recent picture posted on MSNBC.com of Spector leaving the court house shows that he is disfigured on his entire left side. What happened? Also, there is discussion of a new spouse. Are there any details?

He's not disfigured... just a bad picture. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.48.83.126 (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC). Actually,if you read the first paragraph in the section "Later Life" It explains how he was in an automobile accident and the injuries to his face required 300 stitches.That would certainly validate the possibility that he is indeed "disfigured" to some extent.The article goes on to suggest that he was wearing wigs to conceal damage from the accident. BrianAlex (talk) 04:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Judaism
Why is "Jewish" relevant here? Sfahey 22:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Some people might want to know what ethnic background he has. User:George


 * I agree, therefore I will put it back in there. Garion96 14:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, just looked in the history and saw that it was already a bunch of times removed and put back. Can we vote on this or something? Garion96 14:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * religious designations are usually included when they appear to have altered the person's career in other than the usual ways in which religion might. for example, sandy koufax's being victimized by anti-semitism and controversially not pitching on yom kippur. i didn't see the relevance in this article. Sfahey 16:40, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * But being jewish is not only a matter of religion, it's also a different culture in many aspects. It made him a different person than he probably would be if he came from a family if irish immigrants. Perhaps it's visible in his work, perhaps not. It's also interesting from the fact that many people in the entertainment industry were (are?) jews. There even was an expo about that in the jewish museum (New York) Garion96 01:53, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think anybody is suggesting that a biographical article shouldn't include information on the person's ethnic background, just that it shouldn't be part of the primary description of the person in the lead unless, as Sfahey suggests, it is a key aspect of their life and work. Jgm 02:01, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree, but in this article it's not mentioned in the lead. Garion96 11:44, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Apparently it got taken out again; I just put it back again. This ongoing attempt to omit Spector's ethnic background is bizarre. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 13:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Citing someones ancestral background is common in biographies here at Wikipedia. It should stay in. Jtpaladin 14:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP is extremely clear; Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual preference should not be used unless two criteria are met: I see no evidence of the former or the latter. WP:BLP is an extremely serious policy, and one can be easily blocked for ignoring it. Until both conditions above are satisfied, the category must go. Jayjg (talk) 03:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question
 * The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life


 * First, contrary to your comment, there is no "category" on Mr. Spector's religious beliefs. There is a one line sentence about his ancestry. Second, you are misunderstanding WP:BLP. You are using one section of WP:BLP in a twisted fashion to deny that Mr. Spector was born into a Jewish family. This is a an aspect of his biography since as you well know, being Jewish is not just a religious affiliation but can also be a racial one as well. As is very clear, this article does not discuss his "religious beliefs". This complies with WP:BLP and WP:VERIFY. Jtpaladin 15:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it is interesting that he was Jewish, and he produced a best-selling Christmas album. David Marcus

Citation for Jewishness
Sorry, I'm not up on citation procedure, and the WP:CITE is none too clear about the basic aspects. Anyway, is the external link I provided (to an article that mentions his being Jewish) good enough? If not, how can I properly cite the biography that also mentions this fact? Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 13:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Joe Meek
"immensely gifted" - ? I think the most compelling aspect of Meek's story is the way he overcame adversity and applied his creative mind to a field of endeavor that he wasn't exactly, y'know, "born to". I wouldn't say he was immensely gifted. Anyone dispute this? Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 13:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I would say Spector is gifted. First of all, he displayed his creativity early in his life. In High School he was already writing songs and by that time had discovered his perfect pitch. Before he was 20 he had an album that made him a million dollars. This was during the 1950s, and there was a lot of competition for the target audience he knew how to market to. Moreover, he crafted his songs in an innovative style. That style would be honed for decades and perfected through pioneering techniques imitated today. He was far ahead of his time in how he wanted songs to sound and how the studio would be used by rock musicians. There's not much in rock and roll that doesn't have his fingerprint on it in terms of production. Because you think he wasn't "born to" this field and he still succeeded makes it more of a feat, one that most would recognize as a result of genius.Sam Goldberg 03:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge

 * Discussion moved here from Talk:Wall of Sound. Hyacinth 12:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I oppose a merge with Phil Spector. This article is far too long to be a stub. Hyacinth 09:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * seconded. imo, 'wall of sound' has become more a generic term for a certain element of audio production that one can hear in many tracks from various genres these days, and i think there should be more references to later uses of the technique referenced on this article --MilkMiruku 10:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I think a merge sounds like a good idea. The Wall of Sound article is not all that long, and some of it is reptitious with the Spector article. The quote and other elements could easily be incorporated, as well as more examples if needed (I think there are enough to make the point). The chances the "Wall" article itself could expand significantly are pretty slim. One could include clarifications to the use of the term if needed, but the Spector context is the original and most common use of the phrase (AKAIK), and the others could be considered derivations.


 * Please Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks. Hyacinth 08:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The Phil Spector article only contains a paragraph about the technique (the first paragraph in Phil Spector). Hyacinth 11:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

A merge is a bad idea, Spector's technique is as seperate from Spector as the lightbulb is from Edison. I vote no on a merge.


 * Please post new messages at the bottom of a discussion, or indent (using a colon at the beginning of the line) so as to indicate your reply's place in the flow. Also, please sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks. Hyacinth 13:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I also oppose. I think the wall of sound is important enough to warrant it's own article. Garion96 (talk) 17:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Since only one person so far was in favor of the merge, I decided to remove the tags. Garion96 (talk) 02:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The Beatles' miscellanea
Check The Beatles' miscellanea to see if there is anything in it you can use. A lot of 'miscellanea' needs to be trimmed (as linked articles are improved) so please feel free to use anything before certain sections get zapped into the ether... ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 16:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Euphemism-Alarm
Phil Spector's son didn't pass away, he died. There's no problem with writing that, is there?

Associated acts
Is it really necessary to have that many people in the list? Starsailor and Ben E. King are the biggest offenders. Gene wrote and had songs produced by Spector but probably should not be there either. -LoserTalent 05:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from - there are ALOT of acts. But, Spector was "Associated" with these artists. Besides 'Stand By Me', the song 'Spanish Harlem' is King's biggest hit and Spector is credited as co-writer and producer on the single (despite questions regarding his alleged involvement with the song). Also, Spector did produce Starsailors second biggest hit and is credited as co-producer on their highest charting album. I agree with you that it is a fuzzy area because he worked with SO many artists - but, as mentioned earlier, the list is "Associated" artists, and Spector does have valid association with them all. -Hellobeatle 03:39, 29 June 2007 (EST) ... also, regarding Gene Pitney: Spector and Pitney were VERY much affiliated - Spector produced his highest chart placing single and the two of them have worked with The Rolling Stones as a credited duo on an earlier performance, very much making them "Associated".

Current Event?
Since when can a person be tagged as a current event? If so, shouldn't every biography of a living person be labeled as such? 128.36.62.212 20:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Only those who are currently at trial, or some similar current event. It's a current event as new information keeps coming out because of this trial. Hope that helps. - Jeeny Talk 21:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Who the hell is Robert Tirado?
In the influence section there's a reference to Spector asking some kid to borrow his parent's cuban recods, and how this later affected the kid's life in that he got enmeshed in the music industry. Well, I've never heard of Robert Tirado before, a google search doesn't turn up anything, and even if Robert Tirado is "enmeshed" in the music scene, it's not really relevant until he does something that garners some notoriety.

Hargo - "Crying For John Lennon"
I heard that Spector never got around to re-making 'Crying For John Lennon' because the murder trial came up. If the song exists, is it available legally or illegally? -Hellobeatle 13:09, 16 August 2007 (EST)

Spanish Harlem
Anyone have the date and chart placement of 'Spanish Harlem' by Ben E. King. Spector himself admits that his input in the song was overexaggerated, but he is listed as the producer and co-writer. -Hellobeatle 10:56, 12 September 2007 (EST)

Where is Spector listed as producer of this record? All sources I've ever seen (not to mention the record itself) list Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller as producers. Spector's only involvement was that he co-wrote the song with Stoller. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.163.171.172 (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Just refering to an article by Ben E King which he said that Spector did 5% of the production - Leiber and Stoller left an unfinished portion to Spector to add hooks and whatnot. I just looked at the 45 though and he is not listed as producer. -Hellobeatle 13:57, 17 September 2007 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellobeatle (talk • contribs)

Image copyright problem with Image:Beatles-singles-the-long-and-winding-road-1.jpg
The image Image:Beatles-singles-the-long-and-winding-road-1.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:


 * Image:End of the Century.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --09:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Genre
In purely a handling exercise of music files - c.2300 files take much loading - I've begun to genre-ise them into folders and rely on WMP to playlist them. So began the difficult task of defining artists/groups/bands in whatever genre they 'belong' to. It's impossible. The more inventive/creative span multiple genres - as entries will show. The entry for Spector indicates "Pop. Girl Bands.." and another category. Wall of Sound is a unique style or presentation of music- just as Beethoven is immediately identifiable so is Spector - whoever the artist performing the work is; Righteous Brothers or Ronettes. How does one delineate the works of Brian Wilson or Lennon/McCartney/Martin or Paul Simon. I could go on with an eventually finite and not too long a list of composers/performers who transcend genre slotting or maybe even warrant a category to themselves - pan-genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gr1bble8s (talk • contribs) 23:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Dubious: Date of birth & correct first name
(Note: This discussion was carried over to the current talk page; that is, Archive 2, when this Archive 1 was created on June 10, 2011.)

On Spector's homepage it says he was born on December 25, 1940. (www.philspector.com/bio.html) So what's the source for December 26, 1939? --84.142.189.184 (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You're clearly right that it was 1940, and not 1939. Sources seem to differ on whether it was December 25 or 26, though: Encyclopedia Britannica says December 26, while the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame says December 25.  I've left it as the 26 pending more definitive information. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please revert last change.Thanks

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


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


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

"Yes... It's Raining " 02:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


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

spector/dylan
The article says that Spector's work with Cohen was his second indirect work with Dylan. "Id Have You Anytime" on "All Things Must Pass" is co-written by Dylan.

24.177.122.243 (talk) 09:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Tyler

Semi protected
I've semi protected the article for BLP reasons because we've started to get a few unconstructive IP edits. The protection will last 3 days which should give enough time for things to settle down.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Criminal? or "Why is Phil Spector famous?"
'''OK, so now would you please change Mr Spector's Profile to criminal, we would but you seem to think this needs to be censored under your command. See http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Music_producer_Phil_Spector_convicted_of_murder'''

The 2nd Syzygy 13/04/2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.3.203 (talk) 00:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * First, thank you Ryan - that was a good and necessary call. Second, if I understand the above tortured and rude comment correctly, the IP is asking that the infobox be changed to "infobox criminal" - and if so, I very much object. Spector's overwhelming notability is as a result of his contributions to popular music. His conviction  is a sad denouement to a career that justifies this article on its own.  So we should leave the infobox and the thrust of the article squarely on the real reason for his notability, as it is now. Tvoz / talk 01:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I added the criminal infobox. As I explained in my edit summary this is how OJ Simpson's conviction is treated. Spector's conviction and present incarceration are currently highly notable to his bio. Modocc (talk) 03:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * How about a discussion first, seeing as an objection was raised? Tvoz / talk 04:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur with your objection to changing the main infobox to that of criminal, as it does not directly pertain to his most notable music career, however that does not preclude appending the criminal box as it is also of note. Spector is now, very obviously, a very notable inmate. Modocc (talk) 04:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, seeing as he was convicted today. But is that what he is known for?  I'm personally not a fan of multiple infoboxes, and don't really see what that one adds that the text doesn't adequately cover.  Let's be careful about recentism - Spector has been notable for over 40 years for his music, and his criminal conviction wouldn't be of any note without that career. Does it pass the 10-year test? OJ was a rather different phenomenon. Tvoz / talk 05:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps multiple infoboxes are not elegant, but is that not an issue that should be addressed elsewhere? Spector had a pop culture career and he is now notorious and will remain so, so recentism is not a concern IMHO. Regarding a proper presentation of the subject, the additional infobox information is appropriate biographical data. Its not a BLP's traffic ticket, so I'd add a criminal box for a murder conviction to any BLP regardless of the media attention the conviction received. But perhaps there are counterexamples elsewhere amongst the BLPs? Modocc (talk) 07:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to concur with including the criminal infobox. It may seem unfair: you have to produce dozens of pop hits to get a reputation as a record producer, but shoot just one actress through the mouth with a.38 caliber handgun, and you get labeled a murderer.  But that's kind of the way things are: sloppy bloody murders tend to get noticed.  There are a whole bunch of readers for whom Spector is primarily notable for being this weird-ass eccentric with violent tendencies who finally killed someone.  No reason that shouldn't be reflected as it is with most convicted murderers. TJRC (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no strong opinion on the infoboxes. But I just wanted to add, this was the second trial, and it's been lurking around occasionally making the news for years (whether 10 years I am not sure, but that's a rule of thumb), so is definitely not under the category of recency. Let it stand. SimonTrew (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: "There are a whole bunch of readers for whom Spector is primarily notable for being this weird-ass eccentric with violent tendencies who finally killed someone.":

Spector is notable as a record producer only. His eccentricities and "violent tendencies" would have passed utterly unnoticed had he not been a famous record producer, and his murder conviction would have been a very small back-stage story. (People are murdered every day.) Those "readers for whom Spector is primarily notable for being this weird-ass eccentric with violent tendencies who finally killed someone" are ignorant readers, and the very point of Wikipedia is to educate readers not to perpeturate and to enshrine their ignorance. TheScotch (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you also believe that O. J. Simpson is only notable as a football player and actor? TJRC (talk) 00:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If it wasn't for his career, the other issues wouldn't be notable at all. Personal life details should only take up a small percentage of the article text (about 15%). For people like OJ and Spector it could be bumped up to 25% coverage. — R  2  00:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's more or less true (some quibbling below), but they are notable. It shouldn't be the focus of the article, and it isn't.  But it should be acknowledged.  I think the murder would be notable even if Spector wasn't a producer.  It's notable not because of his producer status, but because he was a very wealthy man who had a reputation for threatening violence and it finally got someone killed.   If he'd inherited his wealth and never produced a single hit (or a hit single, if you prefer), the murder would have been notable; see, e.g., Lyle and Erik Menendez.  And remember, there was another somewhat famous person involved here: Clarkson.  Some readers who know her work as an actress may be coming to this article to find out more.  They may be only peripherally aware that Spector was in the music business.  If they seek information on the murder rather than on Spector's music career, who are we to label them as "ignorant" and decide how they should be "educated"?  Like it or not, this murder is a highly notable aspect of Spector's life and practices; it's worth noting in a secondary infobox. TJRC (talk) 00:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally I believe the criminal info box should only be used when it is the subjects primary notability, Spector is not primarily known as a murder btw. What about if he was convicted of speeding or shop lifting or a sexual offense instead? Would a criminal info box be necessary for those crimes? No. — R  2  00:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Also oppose the criminal infobox in this article. Spector is not primarly notable as a criminal but as a musician. I do agree that it is a notable aspect of Spector's life and is worth noting besides the main body of the article. Therefore it belongs in the lead of the article. Besides, two infoboxes in one article looks very simple. Garion96 (talk) 13:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The Carlo Gesualdo article is fine without any infoboxes. Rothorpe (talk) 13:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct, I love the classical music project. No infoboxes there. Garion96 (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing Was only trying to add to the discussion I started, but it looks like others out that like to feel wiki is their's and not the worlds. Thanks


 * Re: "'' It's notable not because of his producer status, but because he was a very wealthy man who had a reputation for threatening violence and it finally got someone killed.'":
 * No, it's notable because Spector is famous, and he's famous because he was a record producer. That makes Spector notable as a record producer only. (His "reputation for threatening violence", by the way, was very little noticed until Clarkson's death. If Leonard Cohen had known what John Lennon endured it's not likely Cohen would have chosen to work with Spector.)TheScotch (talk) 09:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Phil Spector was not "famous" because he was a record producer or because he came up with the idea of the "wall of sound". He was very SUCCESSFUL because of that, but not famous. He only became famous when he popped up on the national evening news in 2003 for murdering Lana Clarkson, i.e. he only became famous when he became a celebrity murderer. About the only thing that could be said about him being "famous" earlier in his career is that he was "famous" within the music industry - but once you start down that avenue, just about everybody is "famous" within some small group - I mean, you might be famous within your circle of friends for the prodigous quantities of alcohol that you can drink, and I'm sure I'm famous within my circle of friends for something. And there are administrators here at Wikipedia who are "famous" within that small band of Wikipedians who's lives revolve around Wikipedia and nothing else (hint). Personally, I don't know the names of any Wikipedia administrators, and I don't consider any of them to be "famous". Bottom line: Spector only hit the national evening news when he decided to become a celebrity murderer - THAT is what he is famous for - THAT is what he will be remembered for by the majority of the public. I realise that this is going to offend those of you are involved in the music industry, but you're just going to have to understand that while YOUR lives revolve around the music industry, most people's lives don't. Thus, the first paragraph of Spector's bio is misleading if it leaves out the one thing that he is most known for with the public, i.e. his being a celebrity murderer - it has to be in there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.156.83 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 15 June 2009

See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (infoboxes). Personally, I think you could replace the music box with the criminal box. - Denimadept (talk) 06:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I just reverted the addition of the second infobox because I hate infoboxes as it is. Putting two loud boxes with the name of the subject repeating as if readers are idiots who can't remember the name of the subject of the article from one line to another is simply my infobox nightmare. However I just saw this treatment is being extended to the OJ Simpson article as well. Obviously I cannot go on an infobox reverting mission, no matter how distasteful the infobox arrangement may be to me. So I leave it to the infobox proliferation experts to deal with this mess. Like Future Perfect at Sunrise once said: All infoboxes must burn in hell. But to achieve this we need consensus. Let's hope we'll eventually get it. Bye for now. Dr.K. logos 07:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can't discuss this like an adult, you're welcome to excuse yourself. I've already pointed at where the general discussion of this issue is happening.  You may join us if you can manage to keep it on an adult level. - Denimadept (talk) 07:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * An adult, in order to be a well rounded adult, must also possess a sense of humour. If you do not have it, so be it. But don't presume to teach adults what it means to be an adult if you do not grasp the concept in its entirety. Also you did not see the valid points I raised in my arguments above, in your rush to use your WP:NPA against me. Very constructive. Thanks . Dr.K. logos 14:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've encountered people with just that anti-infobox attitude, and I'm fairly sensitive to it. If you're not really that radical, then I apologize.  If you are that radical, then enjoy the shoe-that-fits. - Denimadept (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I see where you are coming from. I guess it was not easy for someone to discern that I was not completely serious. Anyway, now that I know the background of your reaction, it is my turn to apologise for my strong wording. But I reacted this way because I am a firm believer that no matter what, personal comments should be avoided. Anyway no harm done. And no, I am not a real "burn the infoboxes radical" but I am not a great fan either. Even more certainly, I am not a fan of multiple infoboxes. Dr.K. logos 17:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Then again, I ask you to participate in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (infoboxes) since we need more viewpoints. I've said what I think needs to be said on the topic over there.  Sometimes I can "see" multiple infoboxes on a page, but not always.  In this particular situation, I'd like to see either both OJ and this article contain both infoboxes, or neither of them doing so.  I have no personal opinion on this one, as I don't see infobox criminal as critical to WP.  OTOH, I don't think we should whitewash these guys either. - Denimadept (talk) 17:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the invitation. I will try to participate. I also agree with your points about aligning this article with the OJ Simpson article and with the point you made about whitewashing. I would also hope that we avoid using two boxes if at all possible. Bye for now. Dr.K. logos 18:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

(out) Another user has removed infobox criminal from the OJ article. Now we'll see if people complain there. :-) I have a suggestion for here: can we add "inmate" to the "occupation" entry here? - Denimadept (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to say I'm happy with the current situation. Spector & Simpson each have one infobox for the careers for which they are notable. Now, fame, that's another matter. Rothorpe (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

mug shot to post
here is a pix from LASO on the Smoking gun you can post. i don't know how. pretty scary!! Phil Spector mug shot

Furtive admirer (talk) 05:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder if this would be encyclopedic to add as well. -- Wh ip it !  Now whip it good! 05:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We rarely add mug shots to articles unless the image is really notable. Adding the image to this article would be done for the purpose of ridicule. We not add to the ridicule, per WP:BLP. — R  2  14:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting point. Perhaps it is notable in that it shows Spector without a wig (extreamly rare, as in never), with his real hair (he is substantially bald). Proxy User (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, if there's no other image available, a mug shot is an acceptable route. But I did a Flickr search and found a CC-licensed photo that I think passes muster, and added it here, so I don't think a mug shot would be appropriate. TJRC (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Possibly yes. — R  2  00:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Someone has just put in the mug shot, but I agree with the above post by  R  that it invites ridicule. I am inclined to remove it, but, first, any news of the 'CC-licensed photo that I think passes muster' mentioned by TJRC? Rothorpe (talk) 22:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed, if consensus is ever attained then it can potentially go in the article, but not in the bleeding info box, we are not a tabloid. — R  2  10:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

[Incidentally, the photo is now also published by the Los Angeles Times, credited to the Dept. of Corrections.] R2, that's "bloody", not "bleeding". Anyway, it is not valid even in general to object against a photo because it might invite ridicule. Here specifically, let's consider two rebuttals. (1) Phil Spector in this mug shot looks like many men his age who are not in public disgrace. The mug shot does not show him wearing a dunce cap, naked in a human pyramid, etc. Therefore, the only reason why it might invite ridicule is that this is a person who publicly enhanced his appearance for decades. But it's his problem that his dolling up has been nullified before the public; he brought it upon himself to be convicted of a felony and hence to be photographed for admission to prison. Anyhow, the fact that he enhanced his appearance with wigs is a valid fact for inclusion in the anyone's Wikipedia biography. (2) In this case, we are talking about a convicted murderer. You totally misunderstand BLP because the concern of the BLP policies is to filter out rumors and unsubstantiated claims. We're dealing with a person duly convicted of murder. Under the circumstances your argument constitutes censorship or a type that exceeds the BLP policies. You really are nobody to censor a photo with the weasel word "really". I do not accept the trick of being invited to argue how notable a photo is or whether it's "really" notable. Phil Spector is notable, and here's a photo of him as he truly looks now. Ergo, it's fit to publish. Hurmata (talk) 02:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Correction. It wasn't the Los Angeles Times where the photo was published, but rather KTLA-TV's Web site, linked to by the LAT. Sorry. Hurmata (talk) 02:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and for years Wikipedia has posted booking photos in the articles on Charles Manson and Susan Atkins. For Atkins, there's a second photo posted, a "nice" photo. If WP can obtain unencumbered photos of Spector from his past, we should use them and his booking photo, as with Susan Atkins and who knows how many others. Hurmata (talk) 03:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Because of Spector's reclusive reputation and the fact that he is behind bars, no other free image is available, and the mug shot with the toupée is all I can find. The German edition of Wikipedia uses it, and it's in Commons anyway, so I don't see why not for here. FotoPhest (talk) 15:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Commons does not have a neutrality policy; we do. I can't speak for de:wiki, but their standards may not be the same as ours. Just because it's a free image does not mean that it complies with our other policies, particularly NPOV and WP:BLP. It is of paramount importance that when writing about living people, even criminals, we do not ridicule them, and this image does precisely that- it may be a true depiction of how he looked on one specific occasion, but it is in no way representative of Spector's long career, considering that it makes him look like something out of The Simpsons. Existing consensus would in any event seem to indicate that it should not be the main image in the article, so I've removed it from the infobox, and it should stay removed unless and until exceptionally good reasons are given for giving such a negative image undue prominence. We are not forced to have images in articles. Rodhull  andemu  04:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As the "original" uploader of the mug currently here (I'm surprised I got it in at all ;>), I never would have tried to put it in the infobox, BTW. Very undue... Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 08:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to note that I failed to read this discussion before putting the one and only Commons portrait of Phil Spector in the infobox (sorry!). I'll remove it if there's consensus.Weedwhacker128 (talk) 23:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Some relevant previous discussion and/or procedures at English Wikipedia
Although the larger section is not about copyright questions, that might be a relevant issue. Therefore, I am linking to some previous discussions at Wikipedia which might be useful.

Here is a page for a discussion that was held about the booking photo of an executed California death row inmate. The page includes links to general policies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/index.html?curid=3272745

Here is an entry from WP's archive of media copyright questions. The topic is "Fair Use for Jack Daniels picture". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2007/October. There, it is claimed, "US state governments do not license their material in the public domain as does the US federal government. If you were to use this image it would need to conform to our non-free content policy. If you have any questions about specifics please let us know. - cohesion 03:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)"

Wikipedia:Upload; click "Other" > Upload file; in point number 1, click "ask" > Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions. Search term "state government" yields links to sections includings "State Government Images in Public Domain" and "Images from State Agencies". Hurmata (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Wounding to Lana Clarkson
I had an earlier edit reverted because I commented that Lana Clarkson had been found with 'injuries consistent with a gun being placed in her mouth and fired'. This was reverted by Realist2 on the basis that it was POV. My point here is that Spector's entire defence was that she shot herself - therefore it is inherently POV to say that when she was found she 'had been shot' as the previous revision said. If she 'had been shot', that implies someone else would have to have shot her, which at that point nobody knew for sure. The only certainty was that she was dead. I didn't write 'the body was found with brains splattered all over the floor' as that really would be POV - all I said was that her injuries were consistent with a gunshot wound inflicted in the mouth, which is factually true and avoids the suggestion that anyone in particular shot her - consistent with the findings at the time. Of couse, Phil Spector was later convicted of her killing, but that was not known when she was found! JulesVerne 17:21, 17 April 2009 (BST)
 * Actually that makes sense, pardon my error, I only woke up recently. — R  2  16:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Second Hand Love
Moved from :


 * Phil Spector wrote, but did not produce "Second Hand Love" by Connie Francis. This was verified by the song's co-writer, Hank Hunter, in an interview done for the 1996 Polydor Records box set Connie Francis Souvenirs. The track was produced in Nashville by Danny Davis. I, Don Charles, conducted the interviews with both Hunter and Davis.

Cousins
I believe that it's discussed in some of the sources cited that Spector's parents were cousins, and that Spector himself has said that he believes his 'insanity' was caused by inbreeding. The Squicks (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I have heard this rumor too. Due to the content, I would imagine a very reliable source is needed to post a fact like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.138.214.116 (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Rommie Davis, a high school classmate of Phil Spector, testified today... Davis reminisced for a few minutes about being in homeroom with Spector and seeing the budding star. "There is a garden at Fairfax, and he would sit there with his guitar and all of us hanging around him. When we were seniors we started to hear, ’To know, know, know him, is to love, love, him,’" Davis said, softly singing the words to Spector’s first hit record, "To Know Him is to Love Him." Davis said when they became re-acquainted in 2002, Spector confided to her his parents were first cousins, and he believed genetics might have made him both a genius and mad, like Mozart. "I think perhaps in the end that may be the sadness of what has happened. There may be a piece of madness in all those who are incredibly brilliant."
 * From the LA Times. The Squicks (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Spector also revealed that his mother and father were first cousins and that after years of not accepting it, he is facing it now. "I don't know, genetically, whether or not that had something to do with what I am or who I became," he said.
 * From a direct personal interview with an MTV journalist. The Squicks (talk) 23:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

"Murderer Phil Spector"
Can someone please get rid of that from the article? Even if true, it's not the appropriate way to mention his crimes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.226.93 (talk) 09:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. — R  2  09:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Mug Shot Redux
Let's revisit the Mug Shot question. It has been pointed out that mug shots are not generally included unles "notable". In the case of Spector, his mug shot shows him au naturel (sans wig), which is indeed very rare to non-existent. As it happens, he's bald, looks a bit like Vlad Putin if he where a junkie. Would such a picture be "notable"? Proxy User (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The larger question is if there should be a photo. There is no photo now, no wig photo, no mugshot photo.  Isn't there a free use photo somewhere??? User F203 (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Two points: in the biography of a person's life, getting charged with a major felony crime is clearly a notable event, particularly when it results in a conviction and significant jail time. A mugshot is a public document and effective way to illustrate this aspect of the biography.  Note that this is diffferent from including a mugshot of a person who had a one-time minor offense (such as a DUI) which does not constitute a notable event in the story of their life.  So I'm in favor of including the mugshot here.  On the other hand, I agree fully that a mugshot should not be the only picture in an article, or the main one.  I thought we had one before, anybody know what happened to it?  Jgm (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Sentence of "19 years to life" & "likely a life sentence
What does a sentence of "19 years to life" mean in California? Does that mean he has to serve a minimum of 19 years before eligible for parole? But usually, you're eligible for parole after serving a third of state sentences (i.e., 6-1/3 years in Spector's case). But that was standard 30 years ago - many states have now changed that to the federal standard of "you have to serve a minimum of 85% of your sentence" or "you have to serve a minimum of 85% of your sentence if it involved a violent crime". What exactly does this sentence mean for Spector? Thanks in advance to anybody that knows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.155.51 (talk) 06:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * CNN reports that he eligible for parole at age 88 so that would be 19 years minimum. User F203 (talk) 14:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * CNN is never wrong on the law, having graduated summa cum laude from Harvard Law... I wonder if there is a more knowledgeable source? -//- Proxy User (talk) 02:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What is the big problem with noting that Spector is most likely die in prison from this sentence??? This is now over-linked, but yet there is somebody out there (Realist2) who doesn't want it put in his bio that the media reports that this is most likely a life sentence.  I am just amazed at the peevishness of the people here simply because I put up that he won't be eligible for parole until he is 88 and that it is likely a life sentence for Spector.  I just can't believe that there is somebody out there that has a problem with this . . . . . . unless you are a big Spector fan - that's the only thing I can think of.  I just can't believe the peevishness and small-mindedness at Wikipedia sometimes (usually comes from people who spend all day reverting people's edits).
 * If you take a look at WP:BLP, you'll see that biographies should be written conservatively, with reliable sourcing, and against the principle of "do no harm". The media may report that this is "most likely a life sentence", but that's only their opinion since they are not actuaries. In that sense, there is an argument to be made that this should not be reported here, but in the interests of completeness, perhaps the opinion has some small merit. Moreover, as a tertiary source, merely reporting what is reliably reported elsewhere, we are not in the business of drawing our own conclusions. This is not peevishness, it's well-established policy, but if you want to do that sort of thing, there are myriad blogs and chat rooms out there- this isn't one of them. However, I am glad that you've found this Talk page- they are important venues of discussions concerning improvements to articles, and where consensus is normally discussed. FYI: No, I'm not married, at least not since my wife died. She'd have loved taking you on. Rodhull  andemu  21:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, dear, after almost an hour... Doesn't 'eligible for parole at 88' convey all the necessary information? Rothorpe (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course it does. Let's leave speculation to less responsible websites and just report facts here. Rodhull  andemu  22:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Right, thanks. I'll revert it and we'll see how many people complain. Rothorpe (talk) 22:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no need to add media speculation to the article, but if it is added, we need to highlight the fact that it is indeed only speculation. — R  2  23:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you don't have to do that - if you do that, it is redundant - the media articles state that it is "LIKELY" a life sentence, thus indicating that it is simply a statistical probability and NOT an absolute fact. Perhaps you missed the word "likely" in all the posts and in the media articles.  Yes, that must be it.  I mean, let's be blunt here - you didn't even like it that it was posted that he won't be eligible for parole until age 88 - initially, you were reverting even THAT.  You obviously have an agenda here.  I note on your bio page that you are heavily into music - that doesn't have anything to do with it, does it?  You don't have some sort of bias, do you???  Seriously, what you are doing is not appreciated at Wikipedia.  This is not your play toy.  It is people like you who run off people who make responsible edits.  All that got posted was that he won't make parole until age 88 (and you went off the deep end over that), and that the media reports that it is a likely life sentence (and you have gone off the deep end over that as well).  Just incredible.  It's not like this page was vandalised.  You initially kept deleting it because there were no links.  But it is so well known and has been reported so many times, maybe that's why the links were not intitially put up (besides, the whole thing is not controversial).  But instead of just doing a simple Google, you went off the deep end.  Now, it has 5 links, but you still don't like it when the short sentence simply notes what sourced media has reported.  I only occasionally edit, and only on subjects that I know - I don't have 41,000 edits like you do.  That is one of the great problems with Wikipedia - when people who DO know a subject post, it is often reverted by this 20-something busybodies who flit around all day on Wikipedia reverting on subjects they don't understand and banning (I see you banned some guy on this page a few hours ago).  Until Wikipedia solves this problem is busybodies, I think it has reached a plateau - I know I certainly don't bother putting up very many edits these days.  I mean, I could understand your behaviour if you were flitting around with your magic wand and reversing legitimate vandalism (and there is a lot of it at Wikipedia), but clearly there was no attempt at vandalism here - it was simply the insertion of a short sentence of what has been reported in the media, and the bit about it being a "likely life sentence" is, actually, a glaringly obvious conclusion - it will be a miracle if he ever gets out.  I will just say that I find this brouhaha over this short sentence which is a copy from linked media sources to be incredible, and childish.  But then, that's Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.156.83 (talk) 05:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to make any edits for the moment, but I have to say the success/fame point is a valid one. However, WP is not a tabloid, and the fact remains that Spector, though now a famous murderer, was and is notable only as a record producer. Does WP include all murderers? Rothorpe (talk) 13:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Anybody know which California State prison Spector is currently in???
Anybody know which slammer Spector is currently in? Also, is he in gen pop (general population) or segregation of some sort??? Thanks in advance to anybody that knows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.156.83 (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know for sure, but as far as i can tell by google: http://www.[DOMAIN BLOCKED DUE IT BEING ON WIKIPEDIA'S SPAM BLOCKLIST]/x-5745-Houston-Music-Examiner~y2009m7d31-Now-serving-time-in-the-same-prison-Charles-Manson-reaches-out-to-Phil-Spector

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/24/california.spector.prison/index.html GM250 (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Protection
Edit-warring is unhelpful. I advise all parties to review in particular WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE. This is a great shame, because I have today retrieved my book "The Record Producers" from storage after ten years and was about to expand this article according to that. I can no longer do that. OK, he's now been convicted of second-degree murder, but that was not the original reason for his notability here, but nor was it for O. J. Simpson. If you people would leave your agendas on the back burners for a while, and take a wider view, maybe the article would fairly represent the whole guy's life and career. I despair. Rodhull andemu  23:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think WP:LEAD sums up how we write leads at Wikipedia, the community has already reached consensus on that. — R  2  23:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think this page needs to be protected, as there is only one user causing the problem. And the page has been left as he wants it at the moment, giving undue prominence to Spector as a murderer. Rothorpe (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A review shows that you are correct, but I don't see that one editor engaging in discussion here. However, I am prepared to remove protection, but I will make it clear to that (so far) lone editor that he needs to comply with policies and guidelines here. Rodhull  andemu  00:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, please. Rothorpe (talk) 00:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Moved back to semi-prot. Rodhull  andemu  00:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Restored, but the lead actually needs expanding further. 3/4 bulky paragraphs are needed. — R  2  00:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

"Record producer" section
Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller, doing oral history, or more likely flogging their joint autobio, were rebroadcast or excerpted today on Bob Edwards Weekend on NPR (and apparently Sirius) of or from what was presumably their Wednesday, July 1, 2009 interview. They say that Spector had the keys in order to sleep in their offices, at the time of his departure, and a sentence more that (per a search on the Amazon preview reader for it), is fleshed out (at p. 177) at least with something close to "Even more alarm...ing was the fact that the contract was somehow missing. Someone ... apparently removed from our files the binding agreement giving us ... the publishing rights to whatever Spector wrote." Amazon membership apparently will give access to more context. BLP rules of course apply: we don't know the facts, and can only report that Lieber and Stoller say that .... --Jerzy•t 19:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Small TAG error in the Murder Case section.
Prior to and during the first trial, Spector went through at least three sets of attorneys. Defense attorney Robert Shapiro represented Spector at the arraignment and early pretrial hearings and achieved his release on $1 million bail. Bruce Cutler]] represented him during the 2007 trial, but withdrew on August 27, 2007 claiming "a difference of opinion between Mr. Spector and me on strategy." Attorney Linda Kenney Baden then became lead lawyer for closing arguments.[27]

GM250 (talk) 17:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed now.

GM250 (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Ambiguity due to syntax
The article says: "Spector was married to Veronica 'Ronnie' Bennett, former lead singer of The Ronettes, a girl group that he had managed and produced, from 1963 to 1974." If this sentence is supposed to mean that Spector was married to Veronica Bennett from 1963 to 1974, it should read "From 1963 to 1974, Spector was married to Veronica 'Ronnie' Bennett, former lead singer of The Ronettes, a girl group that he had managed and produced." As it stands now, it could appear that Spector managed and produced The Ronettes from 1963 to 1974. Can someone who knows the facts please clarify? Thanks. Alpheus (talk) 00:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no ambiguity: the comma after 'produced' closes the parethesis: ...The Ronettes (a girl group that he had managed and produced) from 1963 to 1974. Rothorpe (talk) 01:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this sentence should be rewritten, it has a somewhat complicated flow due to the extensive comma usage. Maybe look for alternative ways to get the info out, rather than use three commas to add to nonessential parts of the sentence.GM250 (talk) 06:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

wrong category in 2.10 Influence
This is miscellany. I don't see anywhere it belongs, and I don't want to start a "Miscellany" section. "The character of Ronnie "Z-Man" Barzell in Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, a 1970 Russ Meyer film, is based upon Spector, though neither Meyer nor screenwriter Roger Ebert had met him." gnomeselby (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Current Location can be linked to
California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.189.202 (talk) 10:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

anglicised
interesting how he "anglicised " his name when spector is a latin word, not english. in fact, the word spector is not found in the english dictionary, nor are there any british people with the name spector.


 * What is meant is merely that the spelling 'Spector', as in 'inspector', is more English-looking than 'Spekter'. Rothorpe (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Children
I do not think Phil and Ronnie adopted five children, as the article suggests. When the last pair of twins was adopted, Ronnie had already been gone for about a decade. I am not sure about that, however. Maybe somebody with more knowledge could verify that!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.152.188.108 (talk) 06:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Infobox picture
Shouldn't we put a less crazy picture of Spector in the infobox? or does he always look like this? I don't think we are following the principle of least astonishment on that one. Laurent (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * per WP:BLP, it's demeaning and unrepresentative of his whole career, so removed on that basis. Rodhull  andemu  04:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Death information
Spector reportedly contracted COVID-19 about a month ago from his jail cell at the California Health Care Facility in Stockton, Calif., and was hospitalized, but returned to the prison. He relapsed and was rushed to the hospital, where he died Saturday, according to TMZ. MikaelaArsenault (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep, he's dead.  Wylie pedia  @ 19:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Death
Didn't this dirt bag just die? Why no mention of it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 240D:1A:8AF:4D00:9D88:ED19:A8AD:1875 (talk) 15:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * He only died yesterday, and this place is staffed by volunteers. And please be more civil. Britmax (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

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