Talk:Gary Glitter

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2017

Please change the end of the lede from...

Glitter is now "a public hate figure".

to...

Glitter was described by Alexis Petridis of The Guardian as a "public hate figure".

Thanks. 2A02:C7F:8E0C:6600:440C:5F5B:A3C7:8EB3 (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done Seems perfectly reasonable. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: Marking as answered. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 20:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Gary Glitter Photo.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Early personal life

This edit [1] created a problem. It removed a ref for content without either tagging it as unrefed or removing it. The source for the next sentence, which with the edit people are likely to assume supports the content did not. I don't know if there are any refs in the article which supported the content, but clearly if they were it was almost impossible for anyone to know which ones.

The proper way to handle this would have been either to remove the content, or tag the ref with {{Unreliable source?}} ideally along with {{not in citation given}} (for reasons later outlined) or similar tags. If it was really felt the ref was bad enough to warrant removal but for some reason it was okay to leave the unreffed content (I don't think there was such a justification even if it was a deprecated source), at least tagging it as {{citation needed}} would have been the correct course.

I initially remove the content [2]. But after some searching was able to find 2 sources which sufficiently support it except for the divorce month which I removed (and doesn't really seem to matter) and according to WP:RS/Perennial sources aren't primarily known for tabloid journalism. (The nature of the subject means that many sources are somewhat sensationalistic so it's difficult to evaluate the specific article.)

So I added it back [3]. Note the sourcing does require WP:CALC for the birth year of the son, but IMO is sufficiently clear to give a definitive year. BTW, there may be some confusion over the fact one source says "The marriage lasted only another four years." implying a date of 1970 or at latest 1971 as this seems to conflict with the 1972 divorce. But my read from other likely non RS is 1970 is when the marriage broke down, 1972 is when they divorced which would make sense. And the Daily Telegraph seems to clearly say they divorced in 1972, whereas what the Evening Standard means is unclear. If there is doubt I suggest the Sunday Mirror is added back.

I was going to add back the Sunday Mirror since I didn't see sufficient grounds for removal (it's primarily known for tabloid journalism but is not currently deprecated so can be used along with better source) and I was hoping it would be simpler. But when I looked at it [4] found a problem. It actually doesn't mention the divorce month only year, doesn't meant marriage date at all (i.e. not even year) and only gives ages so would provide a 2 year range for the birth year of the children. So it actually adds very little unless people are concerned over the divorce date. Note that the link was dead, but of course that doesn't invalidate it as a ref if sufficient info is given to find it again (even offline) which it was. (But the other problems may be added grounds for removal but again of the content along with the ref, there's still no reason why removing the ref without tagging the unsupported content actually improved the article.)

Nil Einne (talk) 10:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Tabloid references not good - WP:BLPSOURCES.--Egghead06 (talk) 10:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

What sources are you actually referring to? Neither Daily Telegraph nor The Evening Standard are primarily known for tabloid journalism per perennial sources, as I outlined above. (The Evening Standard reliability is unclear so should be used with caution, but it is generally considered more reliable than most British tabloids and middle-market newspapers. so it's not automatically out as the only source for the material.) Still I won't object if someone wants to remove the names of the son and daughter and birth years although the existence of a son and daughter by 1966 is supported by Daily Telegraph. I don't think the marriage year, or even month, is sufficiently contentious or private to warrant removal unless it's clear we cannot trust the Evening Standard's fact checking which from previous discussions doesn't seem to have been established. (Practically, a search of historic sources especially from before Glitter got into trouble will probably find better ones too if someone has the resources.) The Sunday Mirror is primarily known for tabloid journalism, but I didn't add it back and even if I did, BLPsources does not say they cannot be added, but rather they cannot be used as the only source for material which still wouldn't be the case. Nil Einne (talk) 10:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Should clarify that although I don't really think there is justification to remove the marriage month, I'm not going to actually fight it if someone really feels the need. The year should IMO stay, since it's the sort of basic biographical material which isn't especially contentious or private for a high profile public figure and gives a better idea of the subject than some vague, "he married Ann Murton sometime before 1966 and divorced her in 1972". I'll less object to the removal of the wife's name although other than being in Daily Telegraph it's all over the place so I'm not sure there's any real reason. Nil Einne (talk) 11:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Just realised I had misremembered our text wrong. It actually says something very similar to Evening Standard so it isn't even really CALC but simply whether the text conveys the same meaning. From these examples, [5] [6] [7] of the article around the time of the publication of the Evening Standard article, it doesn't look like a case of WP:Citogenesis. It could be a WP:close paraphrasing. But I don't know, the's sort of the way to present the content and I wonder how it got into our article anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 10:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Well done for your work. --MarchOrDie (talk) 12:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

categories to be added

[[Category:British male criminals]] [[Category:English criminals|Male]] [[Category:English men|Criminals]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.204.102 (talk)

This is all covered by [[Category:English male criminals]] and I added it. Thanks for pointing it out. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 13:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Joker

Gary Glitter is on the front page of The Sun today. It says that he is due to receive royalties because the song "Rock and Roll" is used in the new film Joker. Cue the obligatory round of tabloid outrage.[8] The song may have been chosen to parody warm ups at American sporting events as the Joker goes into action for the first time, but if the film had been British, various people would have spotted the problem. The Sun isn't a suitable source, though.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Here's a better source - I expect there will be others. I've added a mention at the end of the Career moves since 2000 section - for which we may need to find a more appropriate title, as there are a couple of mentions of the use of his work which he has not instigated. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I was wondering exactly how much a "Movie fortune" is these days. The Grauniad (dutifully quoting The Sun) tells us it's "hundreds of thousands of pounds". But not how many hundreds, of course. Still, as he's resident at HM Prison The Verne ("Britain’s ‘Paedo Alcatraz’ prison where Gary Glitter and 580 sex beasts play giant chess and watch koi carp") at least Mr Tax Man will be able to get his cut? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

All of the other news articles, eg Yahoo! are repeating what The Sun said, so this is churnalism. The makers of the film must have had to pay something to Glitter (and possibly the estate of Mike Leander) to use the song in the film, but how much is a matter of conjecture. Incidentally, the flight of steps used in the Joker's dance sequence to the tune of "Rock and Roll Part 2" and on the advertising posters are real and are here in the Bronx. This is widely regarded as the key scene in the film, but the use of Glitter's song is controversial.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Apparently Glitter doesn't get paid as he sold the rights over 20 years ago.[9] This isn't unusual, Lionel Bart sold the rights to his work so he didn't get paid either. If the truth be told, "Rock and Roll Part 2" is probably about 90% Mike Leander and 10% Glitter anyway.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Pleased to say I still have my original 7" vinyl BELL 1216 and do not intend to sell the rights! One of the finest pop singles of 1972. .... ah, that John Birch star guitar!! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

As I've said before, nobody has banned "Telstar" because Joe Meek killed his landlady. But Glitter is another matter.-♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2019

Change age of consent in Vietnam from 16 to 18, source www.ageofconsent.net 86.189.232.253 (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

•  Not done The BBC News and Washington Post sources both say 16. These news stories were written in 2005 so the age of consent may have changed since then. 18 is also given here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Done The existing BBC source says this: "There are conflicting reports as to whether the second girl had turned 18 - the legal age of consent in Vietnam." So I have gone ahead and changed it. If you want to change it back, you'll need to also swap that BBC source. The third source also says "16", by the way. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC) p.s. might be nice to establish what is factually correct, of course.

It's always a problem when the reliable sources contradict each other. The BBC source here says 16 and is used at Ages_of_consent_in_Asia#Vietnam. The first hand source is Article 145 of the Vietnamese Criminal Code.[10] This says "Any person aged 18 or over who engages in sexual intercourse or other sexual activities with a person aged from 13 to under 16 in cases other than those specified in Article 142 and Article 144 hereof shall face a penalty of 01 - 05 years' imprisonment." This appears to confirm the age of consent as 16.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ian. So was that Article 145 of the Vietnamese Criminal Code current in 2005? Also - sorry I had already made the change before I saw your response here. I realise we now have conflicting results. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: Why did you change the article to read 18 as the age of consent? It has just been confirmed that it is 16. I see no consensus to change. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Richard-of-Earth: The first source provided in the article, from the BBC in 2005, is this one. It says: "There are conflicting reports as to whether the second girl had turned 18 - the legal age of consent in Vietnam." I thought that was pretty clear. What do you think? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

If the truth of the matter is unclear, then the bit about what the age of consent is should be taken out. The accusation is he had sex with young teenagers, but he has only been charged with possessing child pornography. Mentioning the age of consent is trying to make him look more or less guilty of something he has not been charged with. We should report what is known. The age of consent in most of the US is 18, but I have seen statistics that show about half of Americans, male and female, have sex before they turn 18. Since half of Americans are not in jail for that, is it really meaningful? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

No objections to removal. I think the age of consent, if it could be agreed, would still provide useful context for the age of the girl in question. The age of consent in the US, or the UK for that matter, is somewhat irrelevant here, although it does feature in some "sex tourism" cases. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I have removed it for now. My point was the legal age of consent is moot if it is not enforced or only enforced when it gets in the newspaper or it is politically adventitious to enforce it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 00:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the removal because the RS have messed up on this. The current age of consent in Vietnam is probably 16, but what matters is the situation in 2005.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:09, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2020

References to "Child Pornography" should be removed in favour of "images of child sexual abuse". Markdemanbey (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

•  Not done: Child pornography is the name of the Wikipedia article, and this would lead to a WP:PIPE. Also, the Guardian source says child pornography.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2020

Since he is convicted of child pornography and multiple sex offences, it should say “and convicted sex offender” beside “English former glam rock singer” TorontoMapleLeafsFan (talk) 03:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. His primary source of notability comes from his career as a pop star, and the child sex convictions are mentioned prominently in the opening paragraph of the WP:LEAD. It isn't necessary to put this in the opening sentence.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Page Emphasis

Shouldn't this page have the title of the individual's actual name, rather than his stage name. The stage name could redirect to this page.

Currently, the page reads as being too focused on the individual's stage name and career, rather than the facts of a convicted sex offender. As a result, it reads as though the current convictions relating to child sex offences are secondary to the individual's stage name and life, which often was used to hide his activity. The article could be inferred as demurring to the career rather than the seriousness of the offences for which the individual was found guilty. Nickstopforth (talk) 16:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. While the pub quiz buffs could tell you who Paul Gadd is, an average person could not. The article makes clear that his career was ruined by the sex offence convictions. As an example, this BBC News story from 2015 says "Gary Glitter jailed for 16 years" although he was charged under the name Paul Gadd.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

While I agree that the article should remain Gary Glitter, and I am fine with the majority of the wording of the introduction, I would be in favour of rewording the first sentence of the introduction to the same style as Ian Watkins, so as to make it clear from the outset what he is famous for now (which is just as notable as his musical fame). This would be something like:

Paul Francis Gadd (born 8 May 1944), known professionally as Gary Glitter, is an English convicted sex offender and former glam rock singer who achieved success in the 1970s and 1980s, known for his extreme glam image of glitter suits, make-up and platform boots, and his energetic live performances.

I strongly disagree with your claim elsewhere that he is primarily known for his musical career in the present day and age, for the record. He is - to anyone under the age of around 35 - primarily known for his child sexual offences. The fact that there is precedent for such a layout is notable, too.Theknightwho (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Alvin Stardust, Elton John, Barry Blue, Sting, Lulu ... and many, many more (not suggesting they were sex offenders, of course). Martinevans123 (talk) 16:55, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

We've had this type of debate before with Jimmy Savile and Rolf Harris. I'm not yet on a Zimmer frame but can remember when Savile was famous as a disc jockey, television personality and charity fundraiser. Same thing with Rolf Harris doing cartoons of kangaroos and playing the Stylophone. It was only after Operation Yewtree in 2012 that their reputations fell apart. The article has to show some historical perspective and allow for the fact that some people actually can remember the 1970s.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Having historical perspective is fine, but I have two issues with the current layout:

1. MOS:FIRSTBIO states that the first sentence should have "[o]ne, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person is mainly known for, avoiding subjective or contentious terms." Regardless of whether or not you believe Glitter's former success as a former glam rock singer outweighs his current fame as a convicted sex offender, his fame for being a convicted sex offender is undoubtedly a "role that the person is mainly known for". See also MOS:ROLEBIO, which states that "[t]he lead sentence should describe the person as they are commonly described in reliable sources."
2. The opening paragraph does not gel with WP:WEIGHT or MOS:LEADREL, particularly given that modern sources will invariably refer to Glitter by reference to his sex offences (or at best with qualifiers like "disgraced" that implicitly recognise it). Currently, the article mentions no less than five of Glitter's musical achievements across two sentences before there is any mention of his sexual offences, which feel tacked on at the end. Note that WP:WEIGHT states that prominence of placement can be a cause of undue weight, and I would argue that at present the opening paragraph is in serious danger of misleading a casual reader who may only look at the initial description.

As an aside, I do not see what reasonable objection there could be to this change, given that it doesn't detract from the article in any way. One user sums it up very well on the talk page for Ian Watkins:

"Notability is not assessed chronologically; it's by degree. Looking him up online will show you that every article published since his conviction talks about his crimes. Besides, he is no longer a singer, and while normally WP:RECENTISM would apply this happened 7 years ago and it's quite clear that no RS shows any interest in his past career. We follow RS, where he is overwhelmingly noted (and thus notable) for his terrible acts." Theknightwho (talk) 18:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I think it's fair that his musical achievements come first, as that is the correct chronological sequence. If he had not been a pop super-star, his later convictions for sex crimes would have been wholly non-notable. Maybe the word "disgraced" could be used in the first sentence? We ought assume that most readers are capable of reading an entire single paragraph, rather than trying to snatch at a headline in the first sentence. I am unaware of any policy on biographical articles which says e.g. "the subject's entire life should be summarised in the opening sentence." Martinevans123 (talk) 19:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

To repeat the above quote: "Notability is not assessed chronologically; it's by degree." Using the word "disgraced" in a WP article is a weasel word (and certainly against MOS:DONTTEASE), as it is vague and at risk of being misleading, and I simply do not see the harm in using the wholly accurate description that he is a convicted sex offender, as it amounts to the addition of a few words at most. You are simply ignoring the plain language used in MOS:FIRSTBIO about the opening sentence.

Aside from that, saying that readers are capable of reading a paragraph is fine, but given that the opening paragraph goes on to list numerous musical achievements with qualifiers, it is fair to say that a casual reader may stop reading at that point if they feel that they have the gist of who the person is. I know that I might. It is absurd that all of this should appear without prefacing the reason for his last 15 years of fame:

He sold over 20 million records, had 26 hit singles which spent a total of 180 weeks in the UK Singles Chart; twelve reaching the Top 10, with three charting at number-one. He is listed in the Top 100 UK most successful chart acts.

Theknightwho (talk) 19:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, it might be fair to compare Watkins and Glitter in terms of child sex offences. But in terms of pop notability, there really is quite gulf between the two. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I think you need to give WP:Wikipedia is not a fan website a read. I'm going to put this on the WP:NPOV/N, as I don't think we're likely going to reach a consensus on this. Theknightwho (talk) 19:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Theknightwho seems to have a very firm opinion that he is more notable for being a sex offender than for being a pop star. I don't believe that is correct. There are thousands of sex offenders, of whom the overwhelming majority do not have articles. Gary Glitter was one of the most successful pop performers in Britain for some considerable time - and very few people can claim that degree of notability. Were he not notable for being a pop star, this article would not exist. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The question of whether he is more or less notable for being a sex offender is separate to the question of whether his status as a sex offender should only be left to the fourth sentence of the article instead of being mentioned in the lead. Whether he is described as a "former glam rock singer and convicted sex offender" or a "sex offender and former glam rock singer" is a separate discussion. Theknightwho (talk) 19:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

It's generally agreed that "the lead" is the entire first section of the article, not just the first paragraph or the first sentence? Cheers. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

MOS:FIRSTBIO makes a distinction between the two, and is very clear on what should go in the first sentence. I would also note that the current layout means that Google results omit any mention of the convictions, too, given they only show 20 words or so. Theknightwho (talk) 20:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, let the encyclopaedia become the slave of Google. Great idea. Perhaps we could squeeze every article into 280 characters too? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

What kind of argument is that? You might as well say formatting is irrelevant at that point, and we both know that it isn't. Theknightwho (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, I thought you might have recognised undiluted sarcasm. As I'm sure your are well aware, MOS:FIRST also says: "Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead.". Martinevans123 (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I had recognised that, but you were using hyperbole to imply that Google results are irrelevant, when we both know that they aren't. The idea that the words "convicted sex offender" would overload the first sentence is hardly worth addressing, as it is self-evidently wrong. Theknightwho (talk) 20:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

You asked "What kind of argument is that", but it seems you knew exactly what kind. Sorry, I don't see why we need to fit into some Google search engine algorithm straightjacket Martinevans123 (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Because it's how a large proportion of people are going to find the article in the first place, and amounts to the inclusion of four words (including "and"). Can you please present an actual downside to the change? Theknightwho (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

How large a proportion is that, exactly? I've not seen the stats. I'm sorry, I don't generally tailor my editing just to suit Google LLC. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd be curious to know the percentage of article hits from Google results, but given that this article is the top result on Google I suspect quite a lot. It's also nothing to do with suiting Google LLC, and entirely to do with suiting the general public who use Google for over 92% of their web searches. Theknightwho (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the reading tip. I must get those treasured silver platforms out again, one of these days. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Common name applies. He is too widely known as Garry Glitter. I also think that yes he is still more widely known as a pop performer, just one who is also a pedo.Slatersteven (talk) 20:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

It seems the original thread has been effectively hijacked. It's no longer about his name, but about his relative status as a child sex offender. But I agree with you. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I ansewred that too, I still think he is more famous as a pop performer.Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Slatersteven. The current balance of the lead, which does give significant emphasis to his crimes, seems about right to me. DeCausa (talk) 12:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I think we can add after " former glam rock singer" "and convicted pedophile".Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• Note: we now have a split of comments and opinions between this discussion thread and the thread at WP:NPOVN. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I've now modified the lead, per what appears to be a consensus at WP:NPOVN, taking on board Ritchie333's suggested wording. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Much improved. Succinct with much better readability and seems to address all opinions! Good job. DeCausa (talk) 08:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, good job.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Very happy with this. The opening cuts a good balance, and the juxtaposition between paragraphs 2 and 3 is very effective. Thanks everyone. Theknightwho (talk) 14:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Use of surname "Raven" in the article

The current version of the article refers to the article's subject by the surname "Raven" in a number of places. "Paul Raven" was a little-known stagename that was neither his real legal name nor the WP:COMMONNAME "Gary Glitter". The article should use either "Gadd" or "Glitter" for the surname, depending on whether or not the activities during his period of musical fame are being discussed.

Martinevans123 reverted my edit with the message "but he wasn't called Paul Gadd at that time, he was called Paul Raven: that's the name used for all the activities mentioned? It's chronologically correct." This is a slippery slope to insanity; for example, consistency with the use of "Raven" would insist on the use of "Monday" during the brief Paul Monday phase, or even more pathetically, to the use of other pseudonyms in Wikipedia's voice.

For this reason, I'm going to remove the use of the "Raven" surname again; if you disagree, please discuss here instead of re-reverting. -- The Anome (talk) 09:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to opening a thread here. I think the Monday period was too brief, and the mention in this article too small, to warrant similar usage. I have no intention of reverting you again, although per WP:BRD I think discussion is required here before changing again? I'm prepared to risk the insanity thanks. Happy to hear other views. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree the Monday period was too brief to use the name in Wikipedia's voice. My point is that the Raven period was similarly non-notable; I'm fairly sure that absolutely no-one thinks of him as "Paul Raven", a name under which he was neither famous nor notorious. -- The Anome (talk) 10:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Nobody thinks of him as "Paul Gadd" (except perhaps the CPS). He issued quite a few records as "Paul Raven". Cheers. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

It's an "early work" section, which is a continuation of the "early life" section. Little-known stagenames are neither legal names nor WP:COMMONNAMES, and adopting them on-the-fly makes that article more difficult to understand. Using "Gadd" first, then changing to "Glitter" when the WP:COMMONNAME is adopted makes more sense. -- The Anome (talk) 10:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I fully understand your point, thanks. But it's been this way for how long?? I think you should respect WP:BRD until a clear new consensus emerges here. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it's been that way for a long time. But I don't see that as consensus generated by discussion but as a flaw in the article that's flown under the radar for too long. If there's been discussion here, or in an RFC, previously that resulted in consensus to support the use of "Raven", I will happily revert my edit.

I'd also invite you to replace the word "Prince" with File:Prince_logo.svg through the parts of the Prince (musician) article dealing with the period June 7, 1993 to May 13, 2000, for consistency with the use of "Raven" here. -- The Anome (talk) 10:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

One editor's "floor" is another editor's ceiling, I guess. WP:Other Princes exist. As I said, happy to hear other views. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

He was known as "Paul Raven" all the way through the 1960s, and was certainly quite well known under that name to followers of British pop music - maybe not passing the threshold of WP "notability" but that is not relevant. I would suggest a judicious use of the name "Paul Raven" for clarity, and as many uses of the simple "he" as would maintain readers' understanding. I don't think the use of Gadd in this one section is justifiable in any way. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC) PS: I've now made a few edits accordingly. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I think that's a big improvement, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I've tweaked it very slightly to say "Gadd's recording career as Paul Raven stalled": this prevents any confusion caused by using the name Paul Raven directly, and I think we can spare one more use of "Gadd". Part of this might be because this is a sentence that starts off with George Martin as the subject ("Martin produced..."), which meant that using an unfamiliar name for Glitter made me have to think for a second about who the "He" at the beginning of the next sentence could be referring to. Theknightwho (talk) 17:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

AllMusic biography source

Can anyone else see a striking similarity between some of this article's content and the AllMusic biography by Dave Thompson here? I can't see a date for the AllMusic piece, but is it safe to assume that it came first? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? There are snapshots on archive.org of the allmusic Glitter article dating to 2013. One could compare and contrast. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, which bits did you think were very similar?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:40, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I was looking the "Early work as Paul Raven" section. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I couldn't see any glaring copyvio here, but was worried that the entire paragraph beginning "A year later" has no sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:52, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

No sure, no coyvio. Just that either one could be a paraphrase of the other. Or can we assume Dave Thompson found everything in better sources? AllMusic never gives sources, does it. Just wondering when that piece was published. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Have you checked back to see whether earlier versions of this article made inappropriate use of elements of the Allmusic article? That is the more common problem. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Haven't earlier versions of this article now been corrected to remove any inappropriate use? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2022

"On 5 February 2015, he was found guilty of attempted rape, four counts of indecent assault, and one of having sex with a girl under the age of 13 between 1975 and 1980". Instead of "having sex", this should be classed as rape (ie: raping a girl under the age of 13). Minors are unable to consent and therefore any 'sex' with a minor is rape. Graciep1994 (talk) 18:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done The text follows the BBC source. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

If it follows the BBC source to the letter, it should be in quote marks. If it doesn't and is just describing the same events as the source "having sex" can be changed to "molesting" or "raping". 78.150.129.45 (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Graciep1994 78.150.129.45 (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

The Guardian says of the February 2015 convictions that Glitter "was found guilty of one count of attempted rape, one count of unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 13, and four counts of indecent assault."[11] Wikipedia goes by what the reliable sources say, not what you think they should say.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I have tweaked the sentence in the lead section, in line with this and added that source from The Guardian. As these are non-controversial facts, I guess the sourcing could just go in the main body? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit semi-protected

In the intro, please delete the line “and his performances on the BBC One music show Top of the Pops are never included in repeats.” There are no sources to back this up. 2600:100C:A21B:9ED1:D8AB:C339:EBED:46BB (talk) 04:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

It's cited later on in the article, there isn't a need to cite it in the lead section per MOS:LEADCITE. The BBC has binned all TOTP appearances by Savile, Dave Lee Travis and Glitter.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Location of Gary's Glitter Bar (Leader of the Snack)

I lived in London in the early 90s and as a fan of Glitter's went to the Snack Bar in Leicester Square (west side) a number of times. I even bought a t-shirt there. I have tried to modify this article to specify the location of the Bar to "Leicester Square" rather than "the West End". The moderator has knocked this back saying, "The Telegraph more useable [SIC] here that your personal t-shirt, sorry". Firstly, this is condescending. It is not my tshirt. It is firstly my memory and secondly a fact. If I have been the writer of this page from the outset, I wouldn't be asked to prove it was Leicester Sq. It also ignores the fact that specifying Leicester Square is a qualitative improvement over "The West End". I would like a 3rd party to adjudicate. I can see why the Moderator is highly sensitive about this page but I believe he / she is overstepping their role and the page is suffering as a result. Geekpie (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

The Telegraph source says "Glitter opened a restaurant in London’s West End in 1991" while this blog source says it was "on the corner of Leicester Square. If I remember rightly, it was a tiny little sandwich bar opposite the slightly more impressive Planet Hollywood." The problem is that the Telegraph is (or is supposed to be) a reliable source, while a blog isn't. The blog may well be right but it isn't suitable as a source. There is a home video of Glitter opening the snack bar here, and someone selling the t shirt here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

The building in the video at 14:30 can also be seen in this street-view - https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5104297,-0.1314808,3a,75y,289.14h,97.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZRXJ7kUGphFNK0Xfv5iVLg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

From the camera angle in the video at 14:30, we can see that the Snack Bar was at the junction of Whitcomb St and Coventry St where Pret a Manger is now. Earlier we see Gary dancing in front of one of the corbel-pillars on the first-floor above Pret. I would like permission to update this Wiki page to read, He opened a restaurant just off Leicester Square at the junction of Coventry Street and Whitcomb Street in 1991... Geekpie (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

This is too much WP:OR and also a bit too detailed; it doesn't really matter exactly where the snack bar was. I had guessed that somebody might know where the video was shot, but saying that it was near Leicester Square is probably enough.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I have changed "in Leicester Square" to "near Leicester Square"; I am happy that this is a qualitative improvement over "in the West End". Geekpie (talk) 09:08, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Occupation

Is it appropriate to change to an English convicted sex offender and former glam rock singer? FireDragonValo (talk) 07:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Not in the infobox. Being a convicted sex offender isn't an occupation. Also, the consensus is to establish why Glitter is notable in the opening sentence. His career as a glam rock singer made the offences notable, not the other way round.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2023

Content 6.2 "2012 allegations, 2015 conviction and release"

Date is incorrect on recall to prison. States 13 March 2013. Change to 13 March 2023. LukePJ25 (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

 Already done MadGuy7023 (talk) 22:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2023

Gary Glitter has four children not three, his daughter Truc Ly should be added to this article 81.100.77.10 (talk) 20:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Here's a source [12] Plenty more available. 86.187.169.9 (talk) 07:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2023

Gary Glitter was released from prison in February 2023 but it still states he’s imprisoned under the “criminal status” section. 2601:602:8706:117C:3CDC:775E:5796:F750 (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

According to the article he was put back in prison in March 2023. RudolfRed (talk) 19:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)