Talk:Phil Collins/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

and Brian Eno

No mention in the article of Collins's drumming on Eno's classic albums *Another Green World* and *Before and After Science*. He drums in his characteristic way and very impressively (hollow sound, very competent) on both of these very 'credible' albums. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.222.98.37 (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Politics

I'm pleased to see the nonsense about Collins moving to Switzerland because of Blair's win has been removed.

Collins has posted comments through the webmaster of the www.philcollins.invisionzone.com, and here is one from 2005:

Hi All, I wrote this a while ago after reading the Gallagher's talking about voting Labour if only to keep me from coming back to England. I took offence at that and wrote this, but sat on it... however in the light of the Mirror piece I'm prepared to post it and be d**ned....

Before I say anything.. let the minutes of this meeting show brothers, that I like a fair bit of what THE OASIS do. They remind me of BEATLES.... a great band and I like being reminded of BEATLES. If you were there the first time round, you might think THE OASIS were a bit similar, what with that Liam and his attitude and his brother Noel... thinking they are as good as them BEATLES. Fact is.... they are a bit pale compared to them BEATLES..... I am, we all are.... Now Liam is just a clot... bop him round the head, and wake him up... Noel is smarter... but only just.... Just because they write a tune or two that reminds us of BEATLES we swoon a bit and reminisce.... but it's only nostalgia really.

Now....

I'd like to grab an opportunity to finally lay to rest a much quoted untruth about my Political leanings. I have never been a Conservative, or at least not since being a young teenager. My Father voted Conservative, and even his doing that was a hangover from the 50's and 60's, which may have been an influence on me. I'm sick and tired of being thrown in that same old box... "he's got money.... so he must be..." I once said that if taxes were put up to a level where the Government took home more than me, then I would consider moving out of the Country. The Conservatives were in at that point and I mentioned Labour... if Labour had been in, I would have mentioned Conservative. It was said to make a point over 15 years ago. No one’s asked me since. I don't care if Noel Gallagher likes my music or not.... I do care if he starts telling people I'm a wanker because of my Politics.... an opinion based on an old misunderstood quote.

I live outside the UK purely because my wife lived here when we met.

End of story.

PC

Ordinary Person (talk) 02:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how reliable that particular website is, but the mai n reason this information was removed from the article was because it wasn't properly cited. Thanks AreJay (talk) 00:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

List of Phil Collins awards

Hi, can someone put that article in the right way, with wikipedia standards, best in table form, because it could be cancelled.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.213.90.183 (talk) 15:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

phil collins

tot va ser un montatge el no composava —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.50.108.247 (talk) 11:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

£17M

The article says that Collins paid £17M to his second wife. Is this 17.000 or 17.000.000 pounds? Someone from out-of-England like me won't know! FAThomssen (talk) 09:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

In currency a capital M means million. and K = thousands. Confusing with french Mille etc, but it is standar in English.Yobmod (talk) 10:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

"In the Air Tonight" Rumour

The main article states, "This path was inspired by the death of his good childhood friend, Patrick Michael Fithen, who drowned a year before in a pond outside of London." This would lend evidence to the rumour that "In the Air Tonight" is based on a true experience from Phil Collins life. Snopes.com (2006) provides the complete rumour and variations on it, and also marks it as false. I have seen at least one interview in which Mr. Collins denies the rumour is true, saying he has no idea where it came from. Unfortunately, I cannot cite the interview properly. I can only say I believe I saw it on the American Ovation Channel. It was a rather recent interview, having taken place in the last few years. I will try to locate the source and post it if I can.

While providing a complete name of the child who supposedly drowned in the article gives the appearance of credibility, the sentence should be removed until references can be provided. There's just too much evidence to the contrary.

References Snopes.com (2006, July 30). In the Air Tonight. Urban Legends Reference Pages. Retreived November 21, 2008 from http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/intheair.asp

--Mdgill (talk) 16:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Collins has also said that he doesn't know what the song was about on two television specials. "VH1's Storytellers" and "Classic Albums: Face Value" are the two. I believe that the sentence should actually be removed, since it is unsourced and seems extremly dubious. In fact, I've followed Collins' career for a while, other than Wikipedia I've never heard of that before! I'll remove it, and if anyone can provide a citation or proof, feel free to add a reference. CarpetCrawler (talk) 18:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Operation

I just heard on Fox News Channel that Phil may have to give up his career because of a vertebrae operation. Should I put that in then? FotoPhest (talk) 22:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Early Life citations

I notice as a general feature of Wiki biographies that early life events often lack citation. Here, we have the statement that Collins (and elsewhere, Steve Marriot) performed the role of The Artful Dodger in the original London production of Oliver! No citation, however. I can only find a reference to Marriot having been in the cast (a Jonathan Collins appears in the orphan/Fagin's gang list) in the Guide to Musical Theatre website. Can anyone produce evidence that these are facts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvingrung (talk • contribs) 13:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Someone should lock the article.

Someone keeps "vandalizing" this entry saying Phil Collins "eats babies". Collins is not a cannibal of any kind. This needs to be locked to prevent further editing.
--205.214.245.185 (talk) 12:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

An addition to Collins' Work with other artists

In 1989, Phil Collins played drums on Woman in Chains, Tears for Fears' second single from the album Seeds of Love. A socially involved song, to say the least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.164.244 (talk) 07:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Honorary President of Accrington Stanley FC

I don't know the exact dates, but in the mid 90s Collins was honorary president of Accrington Stanley FC. He is listed as such in match programmes of the time.MidlandLinda (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Collins drumming contributions to Robert Plant solo albums.

No one has mentioned Collins' drumming on Robert Plant's first two solo albums or that Collins played drums for the supporting tour of the second album even though he was quite successful as a lead in Genesis and his own solo carrer at the same time. It is well covered in the Robert Plant article and album articles but should at least be mentioned here. As I am a wiki novice, I leave it up to experianced wiki wizards to make any changes to the article. I will provide citations from the other wiki articles. You folks can research actual sources as these must be in the other wiki articles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Plant

"Although Plant avoided performing Led Zeppelin songs through much of this period, his tours in 1983 (with superstar drummer Phil Collins). . . "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pictures_at_Eleven

"Pictures at Eleven is the debut solo album by former Led Zeppelin singer Robert Plant. Genesis drummer Phil Collins played drums for six of the album's eight songs." "Phil Collins - drums on 1-3, 5-6, 8, 9 & 10"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Principle_of_Moments

"Genesis drummer Phil Collins played drums for six of the album's eight songs (as he did on Pictures at Eleven)." "Like Plant's first solo album, Pictures at Eleven, the songs departed from the hard rock of Led Zeppelin. Following the strength of these albums, Plant launched a successful tour in 1983. Phil Collins was the drummer for Plant's band on this tour. Collins was content to perform in the background, despite his own enormous success as a solo artist at the time." "Phil Collins - drums on 1-3, 5-6, 8 + all the bonus tracks on the 2007 reissue."

Bobroberts248 (talk) 09:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this is fairly irrelevant. Collins was a session drummer for several singers/banks including Jethro Tull, Plant, Clapton, etc. That's already mentioned in the article. There's no need to go into any great detail on this. AreJay (talk) 00:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Phil Collins In The Air Tonight audio sample: Year Incorrect

The hit «In The Air Tonight» from the Face Value Album was officially dated 1981 from Atlantic Records, and not 1980 as stated before. In fact, later on the full article «Face Value (1981)» is written. So I thought a correction in this sense must be made. Regards.-Juanjaviermartinez (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Written and released in 80 as a single, released on FV in 81. FV was written over the previous 1.5 years. Srobak (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Help with Citing

I've just added info about Phil filming an ITV special to the 2009-present section but cant work out the code for citing correctly, can someone fix it for me please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adw uk (talk • contribs) 23:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually your reflink was to a one-off site without any verifiability. I also checked PC's official website - which in your contribution to the article you said indicated the filming - and there is no such content anywhere on the site. As a result, I have reverted your edits and would advise citing the actual sources of claimed information in the future. I would also urge you to not conduct editing tests on live articles as the result of your ref contribution today was bad formatting on the page. To learn more about proper use of citations within articles, please see WP:CITE. Thanks. Srobak (talk) 03:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is this page semi protected?

I wanted to add something from an interesting article I read but I couldn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.164.145.221 (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at the recent edit history and you can clearly see why. Go ahead and create a user account and you will be able to contribute relevant content. Srobak (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Tobben & Ero

Hi, i'm not very active in english wikipedia, that's why i wanted someone to write something for me.

"When Genesis was visiting Norway in 1976, Collins met up with the Norwegian duo "Tobben & Ero". He contributed drums on the track "Skammens terskel" on their album "Gi meg et hus" (Give me a house), released the same year. "

Would really appreciate if someone edited this information into the article. Thanks! 195.134.59.103 (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect Birthdate

Has anyone noticed that the DOB is wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.161.50.32 (talk) 20:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Only cause some anon ip deliberately changed the dates once again - which is a common problem on this page. I'll be fixing it in a moment. Warning issued to the anon IP. Srobak (talk) 01:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Reports of his retirement are greatly exagerated.

Link here, [1], shows that the recent media articles are a little distorted. 134.117.254.248 (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Some of he reasons might be off, but he reiterates in this very reference that he is stopping. MrMarmite (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Dating gossip

Following a recent BLP noticeboard report, I decided to take this discussion here. There has been, unfortunately, issues with regards to Collins' family. Despite being warned not to add gossip or rumours about Dana Tyler and Phil Collins' relationship status, Kwumkat (talk · contribs)Kumkwat (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly adding the relationship status as current and/or continuous despite multiple warnings on his talk page. I feel that we should sort things out here. The sources in question do not have any current nor continuous relationship between Collins and Tyler. Should we keep the sources, or just remove them entirely? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

This can really be simple: if the sources have a date, then say so. I don't see much of an issue here, it's not like anyone's accusing him of something horrible. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I looked at this.[2] Compared to his career, and using WP:UNDUE, it's borderline. While it is also WP:BLP, I don't think that should be the tiebreaker. Not sure what is best. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The sources are dated in excess of 5 years ago. At best it should be noted "In 2006 Phil and Dana were dating" or somesuch, and cited. Anything beyond that is purely speculative, and is conjecture. Srobak (talk) 14:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

When I first refused the disputed content, the article stated that Collins and Tyler had been a couple since 2006. The cited source was a 2006 report that the couple had been "dating" for a few weeks. The claim was plainly not supported by the reference, and was therefore properly removed. A second source was later added, a vague mention from 2010 that Tyler was then Collins's "girlfriend." That didn't support either that the claimed relationship was either current or continuous. Celebrity "dating" histories are generally not encyclopedic content. In the absence of a credible claim of significance (eg, child, engagement), or of significant impact on the subject's notable activities, the content doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I almost agree - but the significance of PC's relations has already been established through-out the rest of the article. To omit another that is of particular notoriety would not really be consistent, no? Kwumkat wants it listed and identified as "current" - which I can't agree with. You seem to not want it listed at all - which I also can't really agree with... hence my idea of "splitting the difference" above of listing it, citing it, and dating it so it is clear to readers that it is historical info, like the others already there. Srobak (talk) 16:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused what part of the article establishes 'the significance of PC's relations has already been established through-out the rest of the article'. I've read the personal life section and there's definitely nothing there. The rest of the article appears to be about his career and appears to establish he's known primarily for his music not for his relations. I'm also confused which ref establishes that this relationship is of particular notoriety. Nil Einne (talk) 03:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The first 3 paragraphs of Personal Life go into his relations, as well as mentioned significance in Solo Career. As both people involved in the relationship in question are public figures and pass WP:NN, by definition that gives some degree of notoriety. Srobak (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The first 3 paragraphs which I read and referred to earlier go in to this significant relations. They don't establish the significance of any and all of PC relations, or establish that PC's relations are that significant to his notability as you seemed to suggest earlier. The solo career section establishes the significance of own particular relation to his career at that point of time (as well as some vague mention of family life), but again, it doesn't establish the significance of any and all of PC's relations or establish that any and all PC's relations are that significant to his notability. The 'notoriety' of 2 people dating at one point of time is rather limited in itself even if they both pass WP:NN and you've provided no evidence to the contrary. This is fairly obvious in some cases where the number of such reported relations we can add is quite a few. Perhaps in the PC case it is less so, which may suggest it's more significant but this hasn't really been established. Nil Einne (talk) 19:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: the user is Kumkwat not Kwumkat. I have corrected the user links in the first comment. Rich Farmbrough, 11:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC).

phil collins official page

I hope I am doing this right but http://philcollins.co.uk/ does not respond (at least today 30.1.2012 (his birthday..)). Instead www.philcollins.com is ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.249.237 (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Interest in the Alamo

the current edition of American History magazine has an interesting article about Phil's interest in the Alamo. He has an extensive collection of artifacts and documents related to the Alamo, and he feels that he is the reincarnation of a soldier that was at the Alamo. Perhaps this could be added to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.73.125.166 (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Change that awful picture!!!!

As the subject says. The picture is not of Phil Collins the artist. PUT A DECENT PICTURE UP!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.175.201 (talk) 20:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Six instead of five Brit Awards

Hello, I am the one who has changed some things. By the way, in the main article, it is said: "Phil Collins has received five Brit Awards." This is wrong! He has received six Brit Awards: Best British Album 1986, British Male Artist 1986, British Male Artist 1989, Best British Single 1990, British Male Artist 1990 and what most people don't know: Best British Soundtrack Album 1989 for Buster Soundtrack. This is the written source. This is the video evidence of Phil winning this award. Yes, he was the one who held the award in his hands at that ceremony. I changed it to "Phil Collins has received six Brit Awards", but someone has changed it again. But it's definitely wrong! And I will tell you something else: I don't want to write any things about subjective views, like "He had huge or medium or little success with that."! I want to write just facts, nothing else. I know there must be sources for all these facts, I tried to find sources to get them in. Maybe I couldn't fix it the way it has to be (formats, etc.). I hope you guys will fix it better! But please believe: He has won six of those Brits! (Excuse me, English is not my mother-language.)

Have a nice day141.2.185.13 (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Collins is a Freemason?

The article claims that Collins is a Freemason, a member of "Soho Lodge #3" in London. Such a lodge does not appear to exist anywhere in the world, except in the numerous internet lists of Famous Freemasons, none of which are ever cited. Googling "Soho Lodge No. 3" only pulls up page after page of such lists, yet all seem to be little more than copy-and-paste jobs of each other's content. There is definitely no Soho #3 in London, England, at least under the UGLE (according to the 2012 edition of the worldwide List of Regular Lodges book that I consulted) -- as the original Apple-Tree Tavern Lodge No. 3 is apparently extinct, Lodge of Fortitude and old Cumberland, No. 12 its successor.

I would suggest that references to Mr. Collins's Masonic membership be removed.

Arĉjo Adams 01:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Good research..be bold in your editing and delete away MrMarmite (talk) 04:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure the information is correct, although the number could be wrong, or the Lodge may be defunct. Christopher Hodapp lists him in Freemasons for Dummies, and his research is good. I will see if he can give me his source, so let's leave it for now, and if it's not accurate, we can take it out again. I would note that UGLE has renumbered lodges several times over the centuries, and that doesn't take into account mergers and such, so it isn't as simple as reading a current list. Lane's Masonic Records lists five Lodges with that number at some point in their histories, and it ends in 1894. MSJapan (talk) 03:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

UPDATE: This has been challenged at Talk:List of Freemasons. While the claim is repeated on all sorts of US based Masonic Websites... it turns out that there is no "Soho Lodge, No. 3" located in London (No. 3 is Fidelity Lodge... and has been since before Collins was born). Collins' membership may be an internet myth that has been picked up and repeated by well intended American Masons (perhaps basing their information on Wikipedia itself). I have marked this as being "dubious" pending further investigation. Blueboar (talk) 15:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Simon Collins

I removed the edit regarding Simon Collins and his affiliation with Sound of Contact. This type of editing has been brought to your attention before, Vuzor. Numerous times. The article is about Phil Collins, not his son and not Sound of Contact. If people want to know more about Simon Collins and what he does, they can click on the internal link and go to the article on him. If they want to know about Sound of Contact, then they can click on that internal link at the Simon Collins article. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 03:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I added the information about Simon's occupation as his sibling, Joely, is also mentioned by occupation. Phil's music career had a strong influence on Simon. Thanks for the help. Please don't condescend, though, Winkelvi. That's not needed and has been addressed to you as well. Thanks again. Vuzor (talk) 00:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Please don't condescend? I'm not being condescending, just speaking the truth. You've been told numerous times what can be included and what can't. You've had links to articles on how to edit in Wikipedia and how not to edit in Wikipedia given to you more than once. I have no idea if you've read them, but can say it appears you either have not read them or don't care what they say by the way you continue doing the same things over and over that end up being reverted or corrected. In regard to "Phil's music career having a strong influence on Simon" -- you talk as if you know them. If you do, there might be a WP:COI issue. If you don't know them, then I have to ask if you have a reliable reference to support that or if you plan on adding it as original research. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove from intro

Although one of the world's best-selling music artists, Collins has attracted a great deal of negative press.[11][12][13][14] In 2000, the BBC noted that "critics sneer at him" and "bad publicity also caused problems" which "damaged his public profile".[15] In 2011, he was dubbed "the most hated man in rock" by the UK's Daily Telegraph.[11] While he concedes his status as a figure of contempt,[11][12] Collins has denied speculation that his retirement from music in 2011 was "because of the bad press over the years".[16][17][18][19]

Since we can't agree how this should be phrased, valid cited material which is quoted EXACTLY is constantly being removed and it didn't used to be on the page, perhaps it should be removed completely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.21.104 (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that Wikipedia policy suggests criticism should be limited and in its own section or avoided altogether. We have a criticism section, as others have stated. A portion should not be repeated verbatim in the intro. Just because it has inappropriately (IMHO) been there is not an excuse to leave it in. I have reduced it in the intro to eliminate the repetition, and seeming emphasis that would violate NPOV (neutral point of view).Prosecreator (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

::Lede should summarise; the Telegraph quote does that. Myriad major, third party sources have covered Collins' unpopularity. It's not just going to go away. And I'm not sure Prosecreator has the correct, diplomatic mindset for editing Wiki, given these blatant WP:OWN and WP:CIV violations: [3][4][5]. Прискорбные (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Please stick to talking about the article and edits, not editors, Прискорбные. From what I can see, Prosecreator is looking at this in an objective manner and from the aspect of what's appropriate content-wise and section-wise.

The opening paragraph should summarize, but a few things need to be considered before this content is kept. "THE most hated man in rock"? I only find that at the Telegraph article. While Collins is listed as "ONE of the most hated men in rock" at a few lists available online, only The Telegraph names him as such. Moreover, in those other lists, he doesn't rate at #1. Since the Telegraph is the only source online found with this moniker for Collins, I think it's obviously not a definitive listing and doesn't make it notable enough to be found in the "lede". Secondly, there are other people listed as "The Most Hated Man in Rock" when you do an internet search. Apparently, there are others who have rated this title from other publications and websites. Logic dictates that if you have more than one listed as such, Phil Collins obviously isn't THE most hated man in rock. Taking all this into account, the title barely deserves a mention in an encyclopedia article. Certainly not in the opening paragraph, which is supposed to be the defining, summarizing content that represents the article subject. I say it can go in the body of the article, but definitely not the opening. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 23:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

::::I've softened the lede somewhat. I do believe that the dislike of Collins has been written about in major publications to the extent that it must be mentioned. Прискорбные (talk) 23:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Proscreator is correct, "Wiki policy is to avoid criticism if possible entirely, and if allowed, limit it to a separate section." Since this is a WP:BLP, this article is treated differently than those not about living individuals. I am taking it out of the opening paragraph. Right now, according to policy AND consensus, it should stay out of the "lede". Please do not put it back in. Doing so will force the attention of administrators and others who lurk at the various Administrator noticeboards. Do we really want to go there? -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 23:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

::::::It's not possible. The Telegraph, Rolling Stone, NME and other major sources have explicitly written about the widespread dislike of Collins. If you like him, good for you. That's nothing to do with Wikipedia. Прискорбные (talk) 23:42, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Assuming my edits at this article have anything to do with liking Collins has nothing to do with Wikipedia, either. Please cease edit warring, attacking other editors, and changing/adding content inappropriately in a BLP. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 23:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Winkelvi for your help, I'm glad we're refraining from turning this article into an attack piece. I'm proud of the contributions I've made to other articles in the face of inappropriate edits, I don't know where the vitriol from Прискорбные comes from. Prosecreator (talk) 15:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I know this discussion is long dead and I see the other editor involved is a persistent sockpuppety but I thought I should clarify some comments here since they may affect how this article is written if allowed to stand. There is no policy or even guideline on wikipedia which suggests we should "avoid criticism if possible entirely, and if allowed, limit it to a separate section". If you believe there is such a policy or guideline, please provide a link to it.

However all articles must be written in accordance with WP:NPOV, this means amongst other things that we have to be careful to weigh all material and consider whether it's appropriate to include in the article, and if we do, how much discussion of it there is, based on prominance of that viewpoint (or significance of the fact), as supported by reliable secondary sources. We must take care not to give WP:UNDUE weight to anything, including criticism.

In some cases, this may mean we should exclude criticism if it's so rare that it's clearly not significant enough for the article. In other cases we may mention it but only briefly. Yet in some cases there may be a fair amount of criticism if this is supported by prominence in reliable sources. Note that this applies to praise as well, in other words an article which is unduly positive is also unwanted.

And we should also be careful not to let viewpoints of the subject of an article overwhelm coverage of the subject. (Yet on the other hand, some viewpoints may be more significant that coverage of the subject, even if that coverage is not particular negative or positive. For example, in a case like this, every concert subject has played at or every person he's dated, as I mentioned above, may not be significant enough for the article.)

In the particular case of WP:BLPs we do have to be particular careful with negative material, making sure it's properly sourced and we aren't giving undue weight to such negative material. But none of this means we should avoid criticism if possible. We should only avoid criticism if that 'avoidance' is supported by coverage and prominance in sources although if we aren't sure it's usual best to take the material out while a discussion is held. (And we should also avoid anything else if that 'avoidance' is supported by coverage and prominance in sources even if it's not so urgent.)

Also the claim that criticism should be in a seperate section is definitely not supported by any policy or guideline. Actually, as this essay Wikipedia:Criticism attests, dumping criticism in a seperate section is often considered a sign of poor writing and also often becomes a magnet where people dump excessive criticism. Integrating criticism in to the article where it's most relevant is often (not always) a better idea. And even if we have seperate section, it's often better to have a general one for viewpoints of the subject rather than one devoted to criticsm. In other words, as the essay says, there may be cases when a criticism section is okay, but it's definitely not something we always strive for.

There seems to be less misunderstanding on this issue but I'll mention it just to avoid any other confusion. About the WP:LEDE, it's supposed to summarise the article. This means it should not include stuff which isn't in the article. And only the most important stuff should be in it. This often means viewpoints of the subject including criticsm are barely covered if mentioned at all. So it's true often we don't have criticism in the lede. (And again, we have to take particular care with BLPs to get it right.)

Still it may sometimes be the case that it's okay for there to be criticism in the LEDE even for a BLP, see e.g. George W. Bush which says "Internationally, he was a highly controversial figure, with public protests occurring even during visits to close allies, such as the United Kingdom" and "His presidency has been ranked among the worst in recent surveys of presidential scholars, although as with most former presidents, Bush has been viewed more favorably by the public since leaving office" in the LEDE.

To be clear, I'm not arguing for or against the inclusion of anything anywhere in this article, simply pointing out there seems to be some serious misunderstanding about what our policies and guidelines mean when it comes to criticism.

Nil Einne (talk) 01:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

BLP

Can I just remind editors here that as an article on a living person, this article cannot use tabloid journalism for verification. I've trimmed out some stuff that was sourced in this way; it should not be restored unless better sources can be found. Thanks a lot. --John (talk) 10:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

TV Concert Special

Seriously...Phil Collins on September 8, 1990

• viewers: 6.3 million
• household rating: 4.4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.148.24.73 (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Question about nickname

Over the last several years there have been repeated alterations of Big Phil to either redirect or serve as a disambiguation pointing to Phil Collins. These changes have exclusively been made by anonymous IPs, many of which have few other contributions, and are often reverted. I'm not sure if this is a joke or legitimate attempt to improve Wikipedia. From casual browsing, Big Phil should rightly redirect to Luiz Felipe Scolari, per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, as he is widely referred to as such in various news outlets, and I can also see potential justification for creation of Big Phil (disambiguation) to cover minor uses such as a producer on Purple Drank (album) and a limited edition Vienna Philharmonic (coin). The salient question though, is whether Phil Collins is or has ever been referred to by this nickname in reliable sources, to help determine inclusion on any dab page. Thanks in advance, --Animalparty! (talk) 18:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Associated acts: Dave Greenslade

I was about to add 'Dave Greenslade to the 'Associated acts' section but saw the "Please do not add to this list without first discussing your proposal on the talk page" note. So here I am. Phil Collins was the drummer on Greenslades 'Pentateuch of the Cosmogeny' album. Should I go ahead and add this, or if not could someone explain why (so I know in future)? kimdino (talk) 14:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

The Phil Collins hangover

There has been humour on an animated series Pasila about the Phil Collins hangover, which is when you are so hang over everyone looks like Phil Collins. I wonder if Mr Collins has suffered from the consequences of such superstition such as hang over finnish people starting to scream at the sight of him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.76.73.120 (talk) 03:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Song lyrics as a source

We currently have two fairly negative factoids about this living person sourced to song lyrics. An IP has been removing them and it was brought to my attention. Here they are:

The Paul Heaton and Jacqui Abbott song "When I Get Back to Blighty", from their 2014 album What Have We Become?, made reference to Collins as "a prisoner to his tax returns".[178]

and

On the closing track of their 2014 album What Have We Become?, titled "When I Get Back to Blighty", former Beautiful South collaborators Paul Heaton and Jacqui Abbott included the lyric: "Everyone around us agrees that Phil Collins must die". MusicOMH critic David Meller remarked that the line "is delivered with willing, almost pleasurable conviction by Abbott".[178]

What do people think about this? Why? --John (talk) 23:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with its inclusion under "criticism from other artists". Paul Heaton is a well-known songwriter and performer in the UK and there isn't any issue with the source either. The music reviewer highlighted the line too. Rodericksilly (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi John, thanks for involvement. Yes, I see a problem here. The fact that some Paul Heaton (which I never ever heard about before, though very much interested in popular music) is well-known in UK is really unimportant. Adolf Hitler was also well-known at time (and even still is in some circles) and it also means nothing to consider the views he published were scum (I can also post a source - "Meinkampf"). In my opinion saying (even as a joke) that "Phil Collins must die" is a promotion of hate. That song and "artist" should have got to do with the procurator but it's a different case. I simply suggest to remove such substance from wikipedia.

Regards, Maciek 217.149.252.162 (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree that there is too much criticism about Collins in the article. Especially an exaggeration is quoting some bullshit about wishing Collins to die etc. I see that some people constantly agree with it and only one single Rodericksilly is against, giving himself the right to create this article according to his own views. Why, are you some usurpatory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.172.239.30 (talk) 13:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I strongly suspect this IP is the same person using different accounts. I've come across it a lot on Wikipedia. At least I've bothered to log in. Rodericksilly (talk) 14:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose it must be very comfortable to hide behind suspicions and constantly brag that you are logged in. But it's boring and it doesn't change anything in the context of the article and the scope of criticism about Collins, which is exaggerated. This game you play is really not wise, but if you like it, I may like it too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.248.155.135 (talk) 16:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not comfortable at all, in fact it's very boring and tedious to be getting into edit wars with people who hide behind multiple IP accounts. But I've come across it before on other pages. Rodericksilly (talk) 17:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, why mention Heaton at all. It adds nothing. The fact that Collins is a tax exile etc. is mentioned elsewhere. The Heaton quotes are more to do with Heaton himself, his personality, his politics, and his willingness to push his own socialist agenda. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 14:34, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Because he's a very well-known songwriter in the UK and mentions Collins in one of his songs. That seems like a good enough reason. Lots of people will have heard this song. Rodericksilly (talk) 11:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Phil Collins has won 8 Grammy Awards during solo career

Phil Collins has won 8 Grammy Awards during his solo career because of the Grammy Award for Best Performance Music Video for the video album The Prince's Trust All-Star Rock Concert. That award went to the performing artists (Elton John, Phil Collins, Midge Ure, Eric Clapton, etc.) and the video producer (Anthony Eaton). Phil Collins performed his solo song "In The Air Tonight" and played drums almost the whole recorded concert. So he was part of the awarded performance and therefore he has not only won 7 but 8 Grammy Awards in his solo career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.20.171.32 (talk) 09:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Missing quotation mark

“Rolling Stone wrote that Genesis had managed to turn the possible catastrophe of Gabriel's departure into their first broad-based American success."”

It seems the first occurrence of the " has somehow been lost—and the supporting link is now dead. I'm sure any help from someone who can access a copy of that issue of RS would be appreciated. Harfarhs (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Duplication of the word 'the'

Hi,

I’m a member of the Wikipedia Typo Team, and one of my current projects is to correct duplications of the word ‘the’. It’s an often duplicated word – sometimes because it’s simply overlooked, other times because it’s on both sides of a link, and other times, as in this article, it is inserted incorrectly.

There is a misconception by some that in English, the word ‘the’ should appear twice either when an adjective preceded by ‘the’ used with a noun also preceded by ‘the’ or when two nouns with ‘the’ are used to make a compound noun. Spoken English is much more forgiving than written English, but even using ‘the’ as a consecutive word in spoken English is so awkward that it often forces the speaker to stop. Correct English, both written and spoken, is to use only one ‘the’.

So just as we don’t watch “the the first Lord of The Rings movie,” Phil Collins wasn’t part of “the The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway tour”. But he was in “The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway tour.”

I have used the talk page of this article to discuss this topic even though it's not relevant to Phil Collins, the subject of this page, because the user who made the change seems to be watching the page but doesn’t appear to have an account on the English Wikipedia, and I don't want to make it seem like I'm starting an edit war and not explaining my redeletion.

Ira

Ira Leviton (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Am I "the user who made the change" referred to above? I have an account on the English Wikipedia (and several others).

In this case there is no "misconception" by me. The name of the tour referred to is "The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway Tour", taken from the title of the album The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway. The only viable ways, in this instance, to avoid consecutive uses of the word "the" would be:

a) to use an incorrect name for the tour - "..the Lamb Lies Down on Broadway Tour". While this would pass muster in informal English, as most abbreviations do, that is not so in formal English.

b) to adopt a periphrastic rewording of the sentence, such as "..the tour to promote The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway". While in this case it might be tolerable, periphrasis always sounds odd in English and ought to be avoided where possible.

The method used in the edit which I reverted is to remove the definite article (as distinct from the first word of the title of the tour) from the sentence altogether, which is plainly not a viable option in formal English.

As I said in a previous discussion on my talk page, there is no necessity to avoid consecutive uses of the word "the" where the word "The" is the initial word of a title. Harfarhs (talk) 19:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Recreated Album Photos

Hello, I am currently enrolled in a class where I must contribute to a Wikipedia article. After reviewing the Phil Collins article I noticed that when the section "2015-present" mentions he redid the artwork for his albums the text doesn't state that he posed the same way as he did when the originals came out. It seems important to mention this since it sets Collins apart in terms of remastering albums. Here is my current addition to the sentence in the brackets: "Collins redid the artwork on his albums [to look the same as the originals, but with an older Collins on the cover], except for his most recent, Going Back, which featured a new cover". I'd love to hear feedback, and I hope to be a helpful contributor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewJMicus (talk • contribs) 04:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Greetings, AndrewJMicus. It's good to have you on Wikipedia. One thing people sometimes mention is that you should feel free to be bold, meaning, if you've got a valuable contribution to a page... go ahead and do it! If others don't agree with your edit, it can be modified or reverted. Through this process, a better Wiki page eventually emerges. However, with your specific edit, I (or others) might caution you to avoid "original research" in your edits. What you wish to add--about Collins 'looking the same as on the originals, but with an older Collins,' except on Going Back--seems to just border on original research. It would be great to find a reliable source which mentions these facts so that the research can be attributed to that reliable source. In any event... welcome again. Enjoy your stay and your editing!Mark Froelich (talk) 07:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Criticism is Too Long

Hopefully this is just elaborate vandalism, but the criticism section is way over the top. What happened here? It goes on for pages. That section alone is longer than the majority of articles about people on WP. It is grotesquely unkind and not at all appropriate. Public people are still people and some are just as fragile as anybody else. Imagine if your life was put under a microscope and all of your failings published like this. If this is not in violation of the letter of various WP editing guidance such as the BLP guidance, it is certainly in violation of the spirit. I just checked the page on Charles Manson and the word 'criticism' does not even appear in the article. I don't know enough about this person to fix it, but hopefully somebody with a sense of proportion will find their way here and correct it. I like schadenfreude as much as the next guy, but this is just bad manners. DeepNorth (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't be daft, Collins has fully acknowledged on numerous occasions going right back the the 1980s that he is held in very negative opinion by most music critics and many fellow artists, aside from his drumming abilities, which are highly regarded. The section covers both negative and positive takes on Collins from numerous independent sources and is entirely appropriate to an encyclopaedic article. Rodericksilly (talk) 01:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. It seems like a decision was made to include every critical public statement ever made about Collins with a few "oh but this person says he's okay" statements. It's too much and is bad manners. I also hope it was simply vandalism because I can't believe someone thought this was encyclopedic. PTR (talk) 14:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Most of it, I believe, was added by "The abominable Wiki troll" through the years. He tried to justify his additions as an IP above (which I reverted as block evasion). The section is a mix of good faith additions and trolling. Nymf (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Can I just say, the comparison between Manson and Collins is ludicrous. Collins is known for being a musician, Manson is known for being a murderer and a psychopath. Manson is only famous for negative reasons, but the point is that many independent sources have criticised Collins for his musical output and his work, which he fully acknowledges. Despite his huge success, Collins is not widely respected in the music industry in the way of a Beatles, Elton John, Pink Floyd, Rolling Stones etc. etc., that's why the significant criticism of him and his work is unavoidable for a comprehensive profile of the man. Rodericksilly (talk) 00:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Rodericksilly, no-one is arguing whether criticism should be included, it's the sheer volume that is an issue. I've often felt the criticism is hugely disproportional. The criticism Michael Jackson has received over the years dwarfs that of Collins (and far more damning too), yet his biography doesn't delve anywhere near as deep into the critique afforded to Collins. The "pop star that nobody likes"..."most hated man in rock"...both opinions are bollocks. Excessive weight is given to each and every opinion....the Gallagher brothers have what musical authority for instance? Oasis were widely viewed as a third rate Beatles rip off act, but that isn't plastered all over their biography. Collin's awards, global sales and continuining global popularity blow them out of the water. Specific criticism belongs in an album review...good, mixed and bad reviews, not a bio. I'd trim pretty much every individual opinion, and basically just give an overview....Collins was ubiquitous, some got tired of him as a result, tax exile...condense it into the main points. Trim all the opinionated waffle. Carlos Rojas77 (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

"the Gallagher brothers have what musical authority for instance? Oasis were widely viewed as a third rate Beatles rip off act, but that isn't plastered all over their biography." Except by George Martin no less, who has called Noel the greatest songwriter of his generation. Whatever you think of Gallagher and Oasis (believe me, I'm not a fan), they are one of the most acclaimed and influential British bands of their generation and for such an acclaimed and influential modern musician as Noel Gallagher to have frequently cited Collins in a negative context, which Collins admits affected him, is clearly significant enough for this page. Rodericksilly (talk) 13:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I fully agree with you people and I'm glad not to be the only one who thinks that the scale of the criticism of Phil Collins here is far too big. I tried (maybe in not entirely proper way, I admit) to remove some of the most hateful informations (i.e. "Phil Collins must die") but it was reverted. Seems that Rodericksilly is deaf for all the arguments and will not allow to change anything in that scope here. I will not hide that I decided not to donate Wikipedia this year. I think it works in not the most appropriate way, just because of some "long term editors". Pity :(

217.149.252.162 (talk) 12:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Having just looked at this article, I have to agree with the original post above. This criticism section is seriously excessive and disproportionate to the length of the article and importance of its subject (we're not talking some world-shaking controversy here, just a singer!). Besides anything else, it's just repetitive: it looks like an indiscriminate list of everyone who's said something bad or good about Collins. 'Criticism' sections should be avoided in BLPs for this reason (the criticism should be woven into the article as appropriate rather than lumped into one section), but if we must have one, it should be much shorter than this. Probably no more than a couple of paragraphs are needed, saying 'some notable people have praised Collins, others have criticised him' and give a few examples. The vast majority of what we've got is, quite frankly, irrelevant. Robofish (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I have already reduced several quotes in this section and moved specific criticisms (Jimmy Page on his Led Zeppelin performance, the heavy criticism of Another Day in Paradise) into other parts of the article where it is more appropriate. Rodericksilly (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I can tell you I'm not a PC (music) fan, but the whole criticism section here is OTT. It seems to be a mix of opinion, jealousy, and showboating. No doubt as each individual statement was made it might have been seen as funny/ amusing in context; but amassed here (tit-by-tat) it takes on the colour of a full blown hate campaign. Nevertheless its all been said. I wonder if it should be taken away from here entirely and made into an article of it's own; leaving only a very short summary, of vitriolic criticism having being levelled. Or if not significantly pruned. I have to say that without having read this article, I was aware of him falling foul of musical snobbery (not least from myself); but this article leaves me with the idea that he's the the subject of an orchestrated hate campaign which is not the case in reality. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 14:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with others here that the criticism is over the top, and am glad to see some pullback. I'd like to remove this line from the introduction to continue this trend: "Despite his status as a respected and influential drummer, music critics are divided in their opinion of his work and he has publicly received both criticism and praise from other prominent music artists." This seems like an attack belittling Collins more than anything, besides Collins is much more than a "respected and influential drummer." Prosecreator (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Missing: Phil Collins paid for David Crosby's liver transplant

Among the profuse criticism & justified praise for Phil Collins, I was shocked that no mention was made or background given that he paid for David Crosby's liver transplant in 1994. I read about this fact in an article about Crosby & again on Crosby's Wikipedia page, but only an acknowledgement was made without an explanation. I came here thinking there would be more said about the matter - and found it is not even mentioned! It would surely be a worthy & interesting addition to his profile.

David Crosby's current worth is estimated between $40 and $60 million - more than Stephen Stills & Graham Nash. Even though this occurred in 1994, why would he even need someone to pay for his transplant?Dirty Dan the Man (talk) 03:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Phil Collins seen!

he is a Bulgarian metalworkers for Rittal company.

https://da.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Collins Wikistallion (talk) 11:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Joely adopted

User ‎72.76.221.203 changed the fact that Joely was adopted by Collins on both this page and the one about Joely. I am reluctant to revert, because my one source of information is Collins' autobiography Not Dead Yet. But I do know that in the autobiography Collins more than once stresses the fact that, although Joely was adopted, he sees her as his own child. Should it be reverted? Can a reliable source be found? Is it relevant enough? Mark in wiki (talk) 08:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I decided to revert both edits. The adoption was mentioned in the ref that was already there, but I decided to add another ref from Not Dead Yet. I am not sure I formatted the ref correctly, as the page is not numbered. It is on the photo page opposite page 81. Mark in wiki (talk) 14:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Retirement

In 2022, Collins confirmed that he had retired from music for good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.5.122.1 (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

That info is not in the source you mention. The source mentions an emotional statement that that was the last concert with Genesis - he said nothing about solo performances. For now, I suggest we wait for a more substantial statement, and a more substantial source. Mark in wiki (talk) 20:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

There is also an interview he did leading up to The Last Domino? Tour where he stated that Genesis hadn't considered writing again, but said "Never say never" meaning there is the chance they could write/record again, and if they do, Daryl Streumer and Nic Collins on guitar and drums, respectively, will most likely join them in the studio due to Collins inability to drum. Collins himself could even record a new solo album (with his son Nic most likely drumming on that, too). Regardless, no official statement on Collins permanently retiring, or that even Genesis has broken up (even though they called The Last Domino? tour their last), has appeared yet, so it's best to wait and see what plays out. Moline1 (talk) 01:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

References

The Phil Collins Big Band

I noticed that The Phil Collins Big Band isn't listed under "Formerly of", even though he was very much a member of the band. I feel this should be listed since he formed/fronted/drummed for the project. Moline1 (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

My Phil Collins editing

I will neaten the occupation section by editing and or adapting the page but it keeps getting changed back and this annoys me since that my edit(s) make perfect sense and are correct.

What do you think about this?

(Please respond) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.90.137 (talk) 09:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)