Sakura Cartelet (talk | contribs) |
86.162.233.230 (talk) |
||
Line 188: | Line 188: | ||
:::::The [[Carlo Gesualdo]] article is fine without any infoboxes. [[User:Rothorpe|Rothorpe]] ([[User talk:Rothorpe|talk]]) 13:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC) |
:::::The [[Carlo Gesualdo]] article is fine without any infoboxes. [[User:Rothorpe|Rothorpe]] ([[User talk:Rothorpe|talk]]) 13:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC) |
||
::::::Correct, I love the classical music project. No infoboxes there. [[User:Garion96|Garion96]] [[User talk:Garion96|(talk)]] 13:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC) |
::::::Correct, I love the classical music project. No infoboxes there. [[User:Garion96|Garion96]] [[User talk:Garion96|(talk)]] 13:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC) |
||
Ok so I guess you all don't want Mr.Sepctor to be classed as a murder/criminal(which he is). If there was any justice it would be changed, along with G.W. Bush been convicted and profiled as a war mongering, slave driving, Dollar diluting, civil right destroying, mass murderer. If we look back in time, Charles Manson never really murdered anyone but he has been coined as a mass murderer? |
|||
One thing that you got to remember is how Mr.. Spector treated Ronnie(house arrest) and how he threatened and ruined the lives of lots of other women. I do find it extremely disturbing and odd that the ones above want to protect deviant, womanizing individuals like this, and it really does make me ask this question: |
|||
''''What the hell happened to your soul? The evidence shows that he point blank, murdered an unarmed women by blowing her head off and you think it's not worth changing his profile to criminal? What about if that woman was your sister or mother?'''' |
|||
I know that soul and journalism doesn't mix and how the press love to believe that their opinion is god's, but I'm here to remind you it's not. We the people of the world see past the propaganda and sewage that you have printed over the past two centuries and are fully aware of newspeak been practiced in the mass media on Terra. If you want a frontpage story, then why don't you go and write about all the millions of trees that have been destroyed for your worthless, fearmongering, bad news to be printed on? |
|||
Also, are you not a little concerned about the course of justice been seriously perverted here? This case has dragged on for just over six years! If I was an American I would question and demand an answer into why the justice system can been abused by your elite.... Why on earth do you want to protect these criminals? |
|||
2nd Syzygy |
|||
p.s Just for the record, Tvoz, it's not "rude" to want to voice a public opinion. It is rude when some one thinks your are not worthy of a voice. Wiki is for the public to contribute and edit, three days have passed and so now I demand this article to be unlocked. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.162.233.230|86.162.233.230]] ([[User talk:86.162.233.230|talk]]) 16:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== mug shot to post == |
== mug shot to post == |
Revision as of 01:07, 17 April 2009
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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).
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#Use_of_categories is extremely clear; Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual preference should not be used unless two criteria are met:
- 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
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)
- 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#Merge with Phil Spector?. 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 Wikipedia: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#The Wall of Sound). 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:
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia: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)
Date of Birth
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)
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 PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Infobox Criminal?
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- How about a discussion first, seeing as an objection was raised? Tvoz/talk 04:05, 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)
- 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. — R2 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. — R2 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)
- 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)
- 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. — R2 00:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok so I guess you all don't want Mr.Sepctor to be classed as a murder/criminal(which he is). If there was any justice it would be changed, along with G.W. Bush been convicted and profiled as a war mongering, slave driving, Dollar diluting, civil right destroying, mass murderer. If we look back in time, Charles Manson never really murdered anyone but he has been coined as a mass murderer?
One thing that you got to remember is how Mr.. Spector treated Ronnie(house arrest) and how he threatened and ruined the lives of lots of other women. I do find it extremely disturbing and odd that the ones above want to protect deviant, womanizing individuals like this, and it really does make me ask this question:
'What the hell happened to your soul? The evidence shows that he point blank, murdered an unarmed women by blowing her head off and you think it's not worth changing his profile to criminal? What about if that woman was your sister or mother?'
I know that soul and journalism doesn't mix and how the press love to believe that their opinion is god's, but I'm here to remind you it's not. We the people of the world see past the propaganda and sewage that you have printed over the past two centuries and are fully aware of newspeak been practiced in the mass media on Terra. If you want a frontpage story, then why don't you go and write about all the millions of trees that have been destroyed for your worthless, fearmongering, bad news to be printed on?
Also, are you not a little concerned about the course of justice been seriously perverted here? This case has dragged on for just over six years! If I was an American I would question and demand an answer into why the justice system can been abused by your elite.... Why on earth do you want to protect these criminals?
2nd Syzygy
p.s Just for the record, Tvoz, it's not "rude" to want to voice a public opinion. It is rude when some one thinks your are not worthy of a voice. Wiki is for the public to contribute and edit, three days have passed and so now I demand this article to be unlocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.233.230 (talk) 16:17, 16 April 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 [1]
Furtive admirer (talk) 05:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I wonder if this would be encyclopedic to add as well. --Whip it! Now whip it good! 05:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)