Talk:Gary Glitter

Older threads have been archived here

Religion

Paul Gadd became a Buddhist so the description of him as a Protestant who attended a Catholic school is inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.67.87 (talk) 09:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Er, no. Many people change their faiths later in life. In relation to his childhood, it's correct. --Rodhullandemu 14:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Paedophilia

Maybe the infobox should include the information that he is a sex offender in Vietnam and in the UK Something like the Template:australian criminals and select sex offender

That's a bit sensationalistic IMO but Category:United Kingdom criminals] is already there. --Stlemur (talk) 08:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Point of order. "Pedophilia" although used in the US (why am I surprised?) means FOOT lover, if anything. It's paedophilia folks...etymology is our friend (as is a knowledge of Greek and Latin :-).

Untrue. See Pedophilia. 24.16.106.217 (talk) 18:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree. The word you're looking for is "podophilia". --Rodhullandemu 18:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't you think the first intro line to the article should also specify that he is a convicted paedophile? like this:
Paul Francis Gadd (born 8 May 1944) is an English glam rock singer and songwriter, and is better known by his stage name Gary Glitter. He is also a convicted paedophile.
--78.86.58.151 (talk) 12:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)nickpr53

Do you have a reliable source that he is a paedophile within DSM-IV-TR? --Rodhullandemu 13:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

---Being a pedophile isn't a crime, child sexual abuse is. Look who's taking etymology. 98.217.245.137 (talk) 22:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed the reference to his conviction from the first line, as it is not relevant to his fame - people know him as a musician, not as a sex offender. Metsfanmax (talk) 04:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

But this article isabout him not his fame. Besides it is very much a part of his fame nowadays. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 04:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

People receive encyclopedia entries because of their contribution to humanity; it is unusual that people who are not famous receive entries because they have contributed little to humanity. Thus, any article should be a holistic description of the person in question, but should focus on the area in which they were notable for contributing. For instance, the article on Albert Einstein includes only his contributions to physics in the introduction, even though he was a noted pacifist and was offered the position of President of Israel, among other things. See the article on Tupac Shakur for reference - although he was a sex offender, this fact is included later on in the introduction, not in the first line. The opening sentence should focus on what the person's main contribution to humanity was, not other incidental facts of his life. If Gary Glitter had not been a musician, he would not have an encyclopedia entry; this fact alone should dictate that this is an article about a musician, which includes important parts of his personal life, but this should not be considered a main facet of this article. Before you edit this again, I ask you to give an example of another notable article which uses this template, as justification for including that fact in the first line. Metsfanmax (talk) 04:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Contributions to humanity? Is that why we give Ian Brady an article. We give people an article based on their notability and Glitter is one of the most notabkle sex offenders in the world whereas Einstein wasn't really notable as a pacifist, please see WP:N, our notability guideline; your contribution to humanity is not included. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 04:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Your response doesn't really answer what I was saying. Consider my main point - Gary Glitter is known to the world as a musician. As a result of that fame, his later sex offenses brought him infamy - but as I pointed out, he would not have an article if he had never been a musician. Also, your knowledge of history is somewhat lacking - Einstein was VERY notable as a pacifist, he spent the last 20 years of his life warning about the dangers of nuclear weapons and was a key figure in the Zionist movement, and he was offered to become the second President of Israel. The fact that you are ignorant of history in this regard does not make you correct. If you cannot respond to my Tupac Shakur example, which is EXACTLY analogous to this example, I request that you stop reverting my edit. Metsfanmax (talk) 01:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

History=Einstein? I dont think so. And I am actually more knowledgeable about pacifism, albeit within a Europan and not US context, than you think. Yes of course I knew about Einstein oppposing the bomb but that isnt of itself pacifism, and indeed calling me ignorant is a violation of our WP:CIVIL policy, dont do it again, name calling other people just embitters the atmosphere which is why people get blocked for it. The reality is Glitter is infamous as a sex offender, quite notable enough in this regard to merit mention, so please stop edit warring and stop insulting those who disagree with you. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 02:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The convicted sex offender info belongs in the lead; when a public figure is convicted of a serious crime that is notable. The first page of Google results for "Gary Glitter" brings a link to a CBS news report of the crime and conviction, that's because it's important and directly relevant. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Squeakbox - I did not violate the civility policy, I simply said that you were ignorant of a particular piece of history, which is evident based on your response to my comments about Einstein; I did not call you ignorant in general and made no remarks which could reasonably be construed as being rude to you, I only pointed out that you should not be making arguments like those if you are unaware of the context. The fact is, Einstein certainly was a pacifist, and even if you somehow do not believe that opposing the building of nuclear weapons is not a pacifist action, the fact remains that this is just one example of how he was a pacifist. If you disagree with this, you clearly have not read Wikipedia's own article on Einstein. As for Jack-A-Roe's point, I do not disagree that it belongs in the introductory section, I simply argue that it should not be in the first line. Again, I ask you both to look to the article on Tupac Shakur, which is undoubtedly about a more famous musician than Gary Glitter. In that article, the information about Shakur being a sex offender is included in the introduction but not on the first line. This point has consistently been ignored but is the most important and salient point in this debate - please stop avoiding this point as you have been, Squeakbox. Even if you don't buy this example, consider the article on Michael Jackson, another direct parallel - perhaps even better because Jackson was not really famous as a musician after the early 1990s and was much more in the public eye for his alleged sex offenses. Again, I insist that you give me a counterexample - I have been quite consistent in using actual examples on Wikipedia to prove my point, whereas you are using your opinion - that's not how Wikipedia works, we have policies for a reason. If you cannot provide a counterexample, there is no fair reason for you to continue reverting my edits. Also, you have incorrectly accused me of edit warring - read WP:3RR. Metsfanmax (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe those other articles you mentioned need to be improved also, but we're working on this topic here. You've agreed the info should be in the lead, though you don't want it in the first line. OK, I'll go long with that. I've added a second sentence for an intro to those issues. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

<outdent. This all seems a bit back-to-front to me. WP:LEAD makes it clear that we should explain up front why the subject of the article is notable. Were it not for the sexual abuse and CP charges, his sole notability would be his musical career from the 1970s. Without that, he would just be another sex offender and utterly non-notable. He is only notable, remembering the principle that fame and notability are not interchangeable here, to younger readers, because of the fuss made by the press- and that wouldn't have happened without his previous musical career. So, we are in danger of losing sight of the wood for the trees and concentrating solely on the elephant in the room. This is short-termism. OK, mention it in the lead, but we should not give it undue weight; I think we largely get it right in Chris Langham in that his conviction contributes to, but does not define, his notability, and we certainly don't label him as a paedophile. Less tabloid hysteria would be welcome here. Rodhullandemu 22:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstood me. I meant that the information should not be in the first paragraph at all, and should remain as it is, at the end of the introduction. There are a host of Wikipedia articles written in this style: Pee-wee Herman, Marv Albert, Mike Tyson, R. Kelly, Roman Polanski, Joe Son, as well as the already mentioned Michael Jackson and Tupac Shakur articles, are all examples of celebrities who had sex offense-related scandals. In some of them, the sex offense isn't mentioned at all in the introduction, and in all, the sex offense is not listed in the opening paragraph. As a result, it only makes sense to change this article to be in line with those mentioned. Metsfanmax (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It's been over a week since these last two edits and no one on the opposing sides has responded. If no one responds in 24 hours, I'm going to edit it back. Metsfanmax (talk) 03:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe the lead should at least have a statement at the end along the lines of "Gary Glitter has also received publicity for a series of arrests and court cases involving accusations of child sexual abuse". also, i put in a parenthetical comment necessary to explain why the article mentions "after the arrest" before mentioning the details of the arrest. im sure someone can do better than what i did, but it fills an absolutely necessary gap in article timeline and structure. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparent revert fight

There seems to be a revert war going on between IPs and non-IPs and exemplified with this diff. What is going on? --Stlemur (talk) 11:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, I've got no response to this query and an apparent edit war over the template formatting continues. If there really is a serial vandalism problem from multiple IPs on this page, request it be protected. If this isn't the case, then what exactly is going on? --Stlemur (talk) 01:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI

http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSHAN21294020080814?feedType=RSS&feedName=entertainmentNews Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

AFP Article

[1]

"Glitter had said he hoped to move to Singapore or Hong Kong after his release"

Yikes!72.209.246.97 (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if HK would be willing to take him, but I doubt that super-strict Singapore would let him in. The last thing any country wants is a high-profile kiddie-raper.67.188.79.209 (talk) 08:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Age of Vietnamese girls

There seems to be some confusion about the ages of the two girls he was convicted of molesting. Two different BBC pages have them as '10 and 11' and '11 and 12'. [2][3] Earthlyreason (talk) 06:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Unlock this page

Un project this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.250.228 (talk • contribs)

You need WP:RFPP but I wouldn't get your hopes up. Meanwhile anything in particular can be requested using {{editprotected}} --Rodhullandemu 11:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Or just request it on this page. As the person who initiated the semi-protection I am very willing to edit by proxy for those who cannot. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Source/truth about other stage names he rejected?

I bring this up because I remember reading an article in the 1970's about his early career, and remember Terry Tinsel, but NOT Vicky Vomit (sounds very unlikely to me, far too harsh for the pre-punk era), and also remember Harry Hydrogen being listed as a rejected name. The source of info for the names is a BBC article, but can anyone provide a better source or some real info here? Drwhapcaplet (talk) 16:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I would agree - he wouldn't have considered the name "Vicky Vomit" in the early 1970s. For one thing, Glitter's stage persona (whether he actually achieved it or not) was supposed to be that of the super-sexy glamorous male pop star for all the girls to scream over....hardly likely to achieve that calling himself "Vicky" was he? Also, as the above poster says, the idea of using "Vomit" and other similarly "unpleasant" words as names didn't come about until the late 1970s, when comedians often used it (Kenny Everett's "Gizzard Puke" etc). I don't think any real punk bands or singers ever actually did use it, with the exception of "Rat Scabies" from The Damned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.198.33.252 (talk) 11:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I remember GG being interviewed in the 70's and recalling Vicky Vomit as one of his possible names quoting "Its one we threw up at the last minute". Whether it was a serious suggestion or just so he could do the joke is another question. 86.148.182.168 (talk) 08:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

BBC Interview, undue weight and recentism

The BBC interview has undue weight and recentism, it takes up too much space on his biography for a relatively minor thing that lasted 1 hour max. — Realist² 04:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Now in Hampshire!!!

Glitter has recently been spotted shopping in a sainsburys in a place called warsash in hampshire, where he is hiding out with a friend and living. surely this should be worth a mention??? here's the link- http://www.thisishampshire.net/news/hampshirenews/display.var.2433729.0.shamed_gary_glitter_in_hampshire_village.php Simonyoung69 (talk) 22:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No. This could change on a daily basis, particularly if the tabloids maintain their surveillance. And this is an encyclopedia, not a news service, and certainly not a monitoring service. It's irrelevant. Unless he's seen having a drink with Lord Lucan --Rodhullandemu 22:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok calm down, I was merely trying to improve the page, there's no need to get all touchy about it...and don't patronise me either!Simonyoung69 (talk) 13:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect RV

This revert is incorrect as he is a paedophile! Bwfc (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

In your eyes, perhaps; but original research is not permitted, and it ain't that simple. If you can find a reliable source for a DSM-IV-TR diagnosis, fine. Cite it. --Rodhullandemu 14:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I was looking for an article about gang leaders in general.

But when I looked up Gang Leader I found this guy I don't know a damn thing about. I am wondering, could someone put up a headnote? Thank you very much. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 11:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

News Article about Cavern Club Brick

Is this worth including? BBC News Article or is it all getting too dull for words? DavidFarmbrough (talk) 04:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Discography

I think we should create a discography page for Gary Glitter, so the bottom on the page isn't cluttered up with that list. I'm also in favor or whipping that TV appearances section. Notable events should be sourced in the pro's. — Realist² 16:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Discography: Pro- Unclutters this article; Anti- Another target for vandals? TV appearances: Minor guest appearances almost always fail WP:N. Keep any notable ones and prosify. --Rodhullandemu 16:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

There is that, but a major recording artist such as Glitter would normally have a discography. I'm no expert on his career however, I wasn't alive when he was topping the charts and too young to remember his early 90's revival. — Realist² 16:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the TV and film apperances should be removed, it is infomation about Glitter and is not availible elsewhere, it compliments the article and as it is at the bottom it hardly makes it difficult to find the other information. 74.77.160.135 (talk) 00:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

TV and film appearances would be in a filmography, if there were enough of them. What we are talking about is his musical releases. --Rodhullandemu 00:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Gary Glitter addition to Comeback section

{{editsemiprotected}} Also in 1991 Gary Glitter went on tour with the musical A Slice of Saturday Night for 6 months. He played the part of ageing rocker Eric "Rubber-legs" De Vere.

MrPW (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC) Philip Woolford

 Not done Please provide a reference to an appropriate reliable source, and re-request.  Chzz  ►  22:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The Execution of Gary Glitter

OK, this seems like some sort of very tasteless joke on the part of the channel, but Channel 4 have commissioned, filmed, and are about to broadcast a drama imagining a UK with Capital Crimes Against Children legislation and the subsequent trial and execution of Gary Glitter - [4]. Is this worth a mention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.224.99 (talk) 22:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I see that it's been added - I actually think it's worthwhile to have it mentioned. The show itself was pretty well described the Radio Times (I found it quite disturbing)!Snorgle (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Glitter Circus

No mention of his touring Britain with 'Gerry Cottle's Glitter Circus' (and I mean a real circus - clowns, acrobats, tent, living in caravans, moving from town to town - the lot). This must have been at the very lowest point in his music career, and my recollection is that it was for several years, in the late 1980's early 1990's.

79.65.120.58 (talk) 11:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)