Talk:Gary Glitter

Spice World (film)

maybe a mention that he was supposed to be in the spice girls movie too, but was edited outs after he got arrested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.53.197.59 (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

"Suspected child abuser Jimmy Savile"

I rather think we can dispense with the "suspected". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.45.253 (talk) 01:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Archive

Older threads have been archived here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)

Everybody stop argueing over whether or not he is a dirty, disgusting PEADOPHILE. A court has already ruled he is. The deviant should be treated as such and nothing else. He chose to live outside of ordinary decent society and took the path of a disgusting lowlife. The only arguement anyone should be having is if he should be shot or not! I know which side i am on.English n proud (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

There is great confusion over the difference between pedophilia (desire) and child molestation (behavior). An adult may be a pedophile but never sexually molest a child; or an adult can sexually molest a child whether or not he or she is a pedophile. Mr. Gadd has been punished for criminal sexual behavior, not for his desire. Nicmart (talk) 05:32, 3 April 2012 (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)

About time too. Can this protection level be made permanant, please? Hardylane (talk) 10:56, 29 November 2010 (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 1970s 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 70s 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)

I think that a never-ending list of news reports about his whereabouts is unproductive and seedy. It is not news, it is just an excuse for the media to continue to hound him. Wikipedia should not either encourage or support this. I will delete additions which pertain to this issue. Hardylane (talk) 13:21, 4 June 2010 (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)

What about this? --143.252.80.100 (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

We can't use a Google search as a source. Most of the items seem to be YouTube videos which are often problematic. I see an article from The Daily Record, but that's a tabloid that is not considered a WP:RS. Try to find a single good source? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Why are Youtube vids problematic? They are clips of him being interviewed on TV-am about the show. Is that not a legitimate source? Did anyone spot a young Denise Van Outen in the show? --2.25.128.124 (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

It's usually unclear whether or not copyright has been breached. If the interviews have been uploaded by the television station itself, as with BBC YouTube videos, there is no problem. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

How about [4]? --Egghead06 (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

That looks a much better source than a video. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2015 (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 - [5]. 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 1980s early 1990s. 79.65.120.58 (talk) 11:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Editsemiprotected

{{Editsemiprotected}}

Please remove the Creative artists who have served time in prison link from the ==See also== section (it is now a redirect to Prison). 92.1.93.82 (talk) 10:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Done Thanks. Celestra (talk) 14:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Radio ban?

I can't remember when I last heard one of his songs on the radio. Can anyone confirm if there is an official or unofficial ban? If yes, that info would add to the completeness of the article. EdX20 (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course there isn't a ban, stations just don't want to play his records now he is tarnished for ever with the stain of child abuse. Credulity (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Minor point - spelling mistake

In the section "Nowhere to go", "yaght" should be changed to "yacht.

Image

Can somebody please get a more recent picture of Glitter to display at the top of the page? This one is very old, and the picture should represent how he looks as close to how he does now as possible.

I'd probably try to find an 80s/90s picture if I were you. Because of the continuing surveillance and invasion of privacy being carried out by the UK press, he adopts many different "looks" of late, to try and avoid attention. One with the arched eyebrows and big wig would be good. Hardylane (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Gary Glitter had a couple of Independent hits in the 80s

Just thought i would mention that Gary Glitter had a couple of Independent hits in the 80s Singles chart http://www.cherryred.co.uk/books/indiehits/g.htm WHATCHA MOMMA DON'T SEE (Eagle ERS 004) position 23 7wks 13/12/80 ROCK'N'ROLL / OH NO, NOT JUST A PRETTY FACE (Illuminated ILL 60) position 31 5wks 4/5/85

I think is worth adding in his discography that is far from complete.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.248.244 (talk) 02:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC) 

Career first...

...Birth - somewhere down the line. Kind of punishment? Or is it only me for whom the article looks like its been beheaded? -- Evermore2 (talk) 13:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed Jim Michael (talk) 22:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from 91.85.142.222, 19 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

"During his comeback period of the 1980s, he did less tours"

...incorrect grammar. Should read "fewer" not "less".

91.85.142.222 (talk) 10:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done CTJF83 chat 15:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 80.65.242.116, 10 March 2011

I would like somebody to change the Years active, it currently reads: Years active 1960–2010, This is incorrect and besides of which where is the source to back "2010"–up, Glitter is no longer performing and has not done so since 1999/2000, so 2010 would suggest to me that he has been releasing records, which he hasn't been, his "Years active" should remain as 1960–2000, until we can find a source to suggest otherwise.

--80.65.242.116 (talk) 09:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

This article suggests that last year he was trying to get a Gary Glitter musical going and this article suggests that last year he tried to audition for The X Factor (TV series). In addition, one of his songs is about to be performed by Gwyneth Paltrow on Glee (TV series) so although he may not have done any big concerts or released new music, I think he's still actively working away -- I don't think he's retired yet. If you'd like any further help, contact me on my user talk page. You might instead want to put a {{help me}} template up on your own user talk, or put the {{edit semi-protected}} template back up on this page and either way someone will be along to help you. :) Banaticus (talk) 05:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

News of the World

Would it not be appropriate to remove any News Of The World citations from this article? This so-called "newspaper" is now deceased, and is totally discredited in the eyes of the British public thanks to this. Also, all articles have been removed from the website, and the links now point to a "thank you and goodbye" page. 87.112.96.230 (talk) 18:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

1961 Paul Raven single: Walk on Boy, not Walk on By

The article mentions Walk on by as a Paul Raven single in 1961. However the correct title was Walk on boy (I have it on my IPod). I do not know how to make the correction in the article myself. Gerard Peet, Hilversum, Holland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.171.203.231 (talk) 13:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Record sales

It's clear that Gary Glitter as a performer has more or less disappeared from the public eye and been replaced by Gary Glitter the sex offender. You don't hear his music much these days. But do we have any sources that would enable something to go in the article about the extent to which he is still selling records. Do the major shops still stock them? Is his fan club or whatever still active? Credulity (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Gary Glitter's song title is actually "I Love You Love We Love", not "I Love You Love Me Love"

121.74.47.194 (talk) 05:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Totally untrue Hardylane (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Saville sex offences connection

"On 28 October, police announced that Glitter had been taken from his central London home that morning into custody for questioning about the allegations;[55] he was released on bail in the afternoon."

The citation merely states "BBC News (TV)" which isn't really good enough. Furthermore that's not actually correct the police never confirmed it was Glitter as stated in this BBC article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20114378 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.100.234.9 (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

That article you just linked is plenty good enough to source the sentence. BBC stating it as fact is strong enough that we don't need to have "police announced". Glaucus (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

This sentence reads like a newspaper account and could be considered to be overdramatizing the situation where a person has been questioned by police but not charged (yet). I have simplified the sentence to improve its tone and prevent any accusation of sensationalism. Alfrew (talk) 20:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The source article for the recent allegation against Glitter details an account by someone claiming to have seen another girl being assaulted. This woman says she did not have a clear view of that encounter. I don't feel that this constitutes a "direct accusation" against Glitter. Bearing in mind the sensitivity of biographical material, I have removed the word "direct" and restructured the sentence (now two sentences). Alfrew (talk) 20:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Request

In legal history/child pornography arrest and conviction section, could someone fix the atrocious sentence "In November 1997, Glitter was arrested after pornographic images of children were discovered on the hard drive of a Toshiba laptop that he had taken to the Cribbs Causeway near Bristol branch of PC World for repair."?

Because, it reads badly, needs commas to separate, near Bristol, or surely just "that he had taken to a branch of PC World for repair", who gives a monkey's which branch of PC World it was, surely this is not relevant, encyclopaedic etc.?

cheers! 78.112.254.109 (talk) 22:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Now tweaked. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Name

In various places in this article, he is referred to as "Glitter", "Gadd", and "Raven". Should we not show some consistency, to minimise confusion, or at least clarify here which name should be used in which circumstances? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

He appeared in court and was charged as Gadd. [6]. --Egghead06 (talk) 08:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

MOS:SURNAME says: "After the initial mention of any name, the person should generally be referred to by surname only..." Given that he is most widely known as Gary Glitter, that implies that, if we agree that "generally" applies to this article, he should be referred to in the main text as Glitter. But I think that is silly in this specific case. Before the early 1970s, he was known either as Paul Gadd or Paul Raven. Since criminal investigations started, he has been known to the wider public as Gary Glitter, but in legal terms he has been known as Paul Gadd. The word "he" can be used where there is no risk of confusion with anyone else. In my view, we should avoid terminology like "Glitter was convicted..." - Paul Gadd was convicted. There is no simple solution, but we should not be too afraid of referring to him by the most appropriate name in each case, so long as there is no risk of confusing readers. Thoughts? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

It may be a daft name, but I think it's Gary Glitter who has gone to jail. The other names are part of the biography, but 'Glitter' is the common one. Rothorpe (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not quite that simple and clear-cut. For instance, this report says: "Glitter, whose real name is Paul Gadd, was sentenced for attempted rape...Sentencing, Judge Alistair McCreath said he could find "no real evidence" that Gadd had atoned for his crimes.... Judge McCreath told Gadd it was clear his victims "were all profoundly affected" by his abuse of them....Sallie Bennett-Jenkins QC, defending, told the court that Gadd had been subject to a "very high degree of vilification"... Gadd, from Marylebone, central London, had denied the allegations ... Judge McCreath described Gadd's abuse .... He noted that in 2011 Gadd sought professional help... The allegations against Gadd came to light only years later.... Scotland Yard confirmed that it had received other information in light of Gadd's conviction... Operation Yewtree, said Gadd was a "habitual sexual predator.... Mark Castle, chief executive of charity Victim Support, said: "This prison sentence is testament to the courage Glitter's victims showed..." That's 10 "Gadd" and 2 "Glitter". Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

We make it clear at the outset that his birth name is Gadd. There are at present only six mentions of 'Gadd' in the article, which is only really about one man. I don't think it's a problem. Rothorpe (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Drink driving

Re this deletion: [7] I agree it's now "comparatively trivial". But it still happened, and I'm not sure it should be deleted wholesale. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The passage from the summary has been moved to an appropriate point in the text. Obviously, even multiple drink driving convictions are not fatal to a career in the way sexual offences are. Philip Cross (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure that's true. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC) Most people don't even want to touch this article.

Years active

The year 2000, mentioned as the conclusion of Glitter's career, seems to have been drawn from thin air. His last single, a cover of "House of the Rising Sun", was issued in 1996. Per his AllMusic bio, upon his 1997 arrest, "Stores throughout the U.K. withdrew his records from the shelves, concerts were canceled; overnight, one of Britain's most adored icons became public enemy number one". All of his subsequent output consists of compilations, as well as live performances and unreleased tracks recorded prior to his first arrest. I can't find a formal retirement statement from Glitter anywhere on the web, so to me 1997 seems a sensible year to point to as the end of his active career. Karyn Devlin (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, quite agree. That AllMusic quote seems to make an excellent source to support that. Might even be able to give a month. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Per cite 78 [8], it seems that Glitter's last gig was played in 1997 too. Karyn Devlin (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

His last album was "On", it had some recordings until 1997. 1997 seems sensible. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Done. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I hate to be the dissenting voice here, but as was recently remarked on Talk:Rolf Harris, Glitter didn't deliberately stop being a musician just by being arrested, even though his output became totally unmarketable following his arrest. The article states he was uncovered living illegally in Vietnam after he was spotted singing in bars - which implies he was still trying to be a musician. Still, 1997 does seem a "sensible" cut off date where popular opinion and sources switch from Gary Glitter the glam rocker to Gary Glitter the sex offender - in fact there's almost a bright line where it switches. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

"A bright line", that's so glam. Singing in Vietnamese bars doesn't sound that "active" to me, but I agree with what you say. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The article says that he "offered to sing in local bars", not that he did so. Karyn Devlin (talk) 03:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I used to know this crude bit of rhyming slang at school, "I bet he takes it up the Gary Glitter", which seems far more sinister these days. Anyway, his musical career is still largely unsourced. I'm sure I've got a biography somewhere in the loft that will give a brief overview of his career (the main topic in pre 1997 books is remarking how long it took to get going) that can fix that. I've never been a particularly big fan of his music anyway, but it can't just be written off as irrelevant. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Anyone who has a hit with a song about the Kenyan tribal uprising, needs to be taken seriously. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

London Palladium

Buddy Holly appeared at the London Palladium in 1958, so we can safely say that when Glitter performed there in 1973 then he was was not the first Rock 'n' Roller. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.181.223 (talk) 20:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Text has now been changed to read: "It was a sell-out concert and made him one of the first performers from the rock and roll genre to appear at the venue." Martinevans123 (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Anonymous "Computer retailer"...

The opening para of the 1997 conviction section presently opens "In November 1997, Glitter was arrested after pornographic images of children were discovered on the hard drive of a laptop that he had taken to a computer retailer for repair". Anyone who reads any of the press reports or the court records will know instantly that this was when he took his non-working laptop for a clean-up at PC World at Cribbs Cause Way, Bristol. Someone seems to editing out this simple and well document fact - even though it appears on the current version of the PC_World_(retailer)#Controversies article. Why is someone editing this out? The disgrace of being associated with Glitter? How about the good news story of finding and reporting illegal images? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.101.103.112 (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

What is your source for PC World at Cribbs Causeway? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised. I was working for a different branch of PC World at the time, and there was palpable horror at having such a crime associated in any way with the company. The manager and staff of the store were disciplined for not 'referring it upwards' before taking action... and a big memo sent out to all stores about how to handle such situations in future. In other words, the company only though of themselves and their image, rather then helping to bring a criminal to book. Hardylane (talk) 23:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Correction required

The Comeback and business interests section incorrectly names a KLF track as "Doctoring the TARDIS", the title is Doctorin' the TARDIS (see https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3e/Doctorin%27_The_Tardis.jpg) unable to amend due to article being locked. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.79.34 (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Birth year

According to the General Register Office. England and Wales Civil Registration Indexes, accessed via Ancestry.com (and publicly available), Paul Francis Gadd was born in 1944. Sources that give a different year of birth appear to be in error. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gary Glitter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060618141059/http://vietnamnews.vnagency.com.vn:80/showarticle.php?num=01CAS180506 to http://vietnamnews.vnagency.com.vn/showarticle.php?num=01CAS180506

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Gary Glitter fan-site

• Gary Glitter official fan-site
• Gary Glitter unofficial fan-site