![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
There are no references or images. slambo 10:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
The "Musical Legacy" section seems to be completely made up. How on earth did Gary Glitter influence early punk rock, and where on earth does the Adam and the Ants connection come from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.182.62 ( talk) 09:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Gary Glitter a buddhist?? hmm. Glam Rock and Buddhism just don't seem to go together to me. If someone can put something in the artickle about how GG got into Buddhism, I would be pleased.
Please spend some time looking at some of the articles of other celebrities, disgraced or not. If the religion of Gadd can be cited, it ought to be added, and if it was a conversion it is doubly important. 172.201.140.11 ( talk) 05:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
His new career fell apart on November 18, 1997, after he took his computer to UK computer store PC World to be mended. The staff there found pornographic images of children on the hard drive and called the police.
In general, in order to "mend" a computer (whether in hardware or in software), one seldom has to go browse the data files of the machine. Were the employees of that store just some kind of peeping Toms, enjoying browsing through the files of some pop star? Has anybody asked them why they had to look into those files? David.Monniaux 23:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
But we dont know if he even had sex with children do we, after all he was sent to prison for child ponography, not a sex offence.
Now the latest is that he is living in Vietnam in Vung Tau Beach where many Ex-pats live.
I think we have to be careful here as ongoing criminal charges are pending in Asia. Maybe it would surprise people to know that he had thousands of pictures on his computer, including rape of children of approximately 2 years of age including torture of toddlers. (Richard and Judy Channel 4 UK). On BBC3 on the 5th Decmber 2005 a documentary was shown called "Come Home Gary Glitter." The reporters had been shadowing Glitter for several months as they were very concerned that a convicted paedophile had been allowed to emigrate to Vietnam, which has a very large if underground child sex ring. The officials of Vietnam and Thailand, including the Minister for Information were trying to track Glitter but he was being exceptionally elusive. He had been to an orphanage to play with children and had been telling people he was a doctor. This is disgraceful and shows his complete sociopathic behaviour. Hopefully now he will be locked up forever.-- drmike 01:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Glitter wanted in Vietnam over teenage sex claim
Vietnamese authorities want to question Gary Glitter on reports that he had sexual relationships with girls under 16, the age of consent. The foreign ministry told the Guardian that the former pop star, real name Paul Francis Gadd, allegedly shared his home in Vung Tau with girls as young as 15. Police have reportedly interviewed one 15-year-old found living at the home, although her relationship with him was unclear. Sexual abuse of children has a maximum penalty of death in Vietnam.
Of interest.
I searched and read a number of press stories on Topix.net, and found there's considerable disagreement about the facts surrounding the arrest. Various news sources put the age of consent at 16 or at 18 in Vietnam. Almost all of the press reports seem to agree one of the alleged victims is 12, but the other alleged victim has been tagged at age 15, 17, and 18. So until this factual matter is resolved in the press, I think it's better not to give a particular age as an accepted fact within the article. David Hoag 02:53, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Is there someone who can vouch that this is an actual song title that's listed in his singles? Considering this is the only hit that comes up on a search of the phrase on google, and considering the current news, it sounds a little dubious to me.
I think this statement is a massive understatement. Sure he still releases records, but this is on the internet. I can't imagine that any (British at least) high street stores would dare stock is records now. He didn't tour or make any TV appearances following the 1999 conviction, and I think it is very unlikely he will do so in future. -- Ade myers 03:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I noticed this comment was changed again to "destroyed", which I have reverted. While it's true he's no longer playing to sell out crowds of many thousands or having UK top 10 hit records (something that he hasn't done since 1985, let alone since getting out of jail in 2000), his new released DVDs and CDs are still selling well via the fan club online. Yes , this may "just be the internet", but the internet is a form of medium just like Television, Radio, Newspapers and traditional mailing fan clubs. Furthermore, I have never seen a reliable source or a quote from Gary Glitter himself that says he has retired and has no plans to make new music in the future 205.188.117.66 18:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
How did he meet these girls, and convince them to have relations? I imagine it was consensual as the charges were dropped, though in the case of the 11/12 year old that word may lose considerable meaning. Were they prostitutes or what? Dsol 14:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
The answer is money. We've had a similar case here in La Ceiba, Honduras. There is so much hunger for money in these less developed parts of the world that I imagine that, given he had the desire, it would have been easy to procure subjects, and that he was probably in that town precisely because he knew there was the possibility of procuring young girls. Unfortunately it is depressingly easy for men to find young girls in vast numbers of very poor communities throughout the third world. And of course these "scum at the bottom of the barrel" give all us "first worlders" a bad reputation here in the third world, SqueakBox 14:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
If that is the case why do so many people say the girl who did it with Rorman polanski was not motivate dby money or fame and he didnt do anything wrong and she infact wanted it and all this stuff? or they say he was entrapped, or that its ok that she did it for money/fame cause she wasnt violently raped?
Does anyone know who made the song Baby, please dont go? I always thought it was GG but after a google-search for lyrics i found out that many artists (Sting, ACDC, Aerosmith etc) made versions of it. Slipzen 16:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
It's an old 1950's rock n roll song, Glitter coverd it in the 1970s, but he recorded it long before all the acts you just mentioned.
credited to Timelords only...Gary Glitter's tune only sampled along with Dr Who, Sweet and loadsamoney - should be removed
No it shouldn't. Just because he wasn't credited it was still his record (I believe later copies even included his voice). There are lots of acts who didn't get a credit on a record (I.E Cher on her record with Meatloaf), but they still count as a hit for the artists.
Left single in, but put it under the heading "Misc". LarryM 20:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I removed some pretty gratuitous descriptions of the sex acts (“ejaculated on breasts…”) in the discussion of the latest conviction. Is it really necessary? I’m sure someone will put it back, and I don’t really care enough to follow up, but come on. It adds nothing (but maybe titillation) to the article. Jake b 20:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
this entire article is extremely poorly written
Improve it then, seeing as you seem to know what's better.
Removed once again. Hardly essential. PAT
We don't censor content because it's distasteful and we don't withhold facts because they're undesirable. -- Stlemur 13:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
It's not about censoring, it's about necessity and it is not needed in the article at all. It is pointless. Sorry to disappoint you. 69.204.6.21 13:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Stlemur if you really want all the nitty gritty information of Glitters case, then why don't you do what was suggested at the start of this debate and do a full court record of Glitter's trial. This is an article about Gary Glitter, the singer. While it will of course mention details about the case, it is not a case of doing it to the degree that every stone, regardless of how pointless be turned. So anyway why don't you do a full court report on it's own wikipage i.e Gary Glitter Trial, if it means that much to you to have this information out on Wikipedia. I have even given you a link you can start with. 69.204.6.21 13:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Not at all. This is an article on the person and every nook and cranny is not up for inclusion, as already discussed in this debate. If you are concerned about the inclusion of all the facts on the court case thery make the wikipage and do that, if not, and all you8 care about it this one piece of information, then don't expect everyone to just let it be included. If you serious about getting all the facts on the court case down, then write the page. If not, then stop adding this one piece of (what i still consider to be) titillation, that alone has no need to be here.
69.204.6.21
16:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. How about adding to the Elvis Presley article detailed information about bloating and problems with the digestive system, as Elvis sufferd from both late in life. Complete tabloid journalism that has no place here. 69.204.6.21 16:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Indeed and those quotes from the Presley article do not go into exact detail, they just say what he had and give a brief overview, it doesn't have a break down of all the details of what Presley's body would have been doing, which is the point that was being made. 69.204.6.21 18:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Why do people keep removing this one word and claim it's because content was removed? If people check the edits, they will see only one word was added, nothing has been removed. To say this isn't an allegation is POV. SAM SMITH 3-5-06.
Indeed. We can and must put in his denials of guilt but that doesn't mean it is still alleged; it isn't, SqueakBox 13:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
As with all convicted criminals who have pleaded not guilty. Alleged is always and only used when someone hasn't actually been found either guilty or not guilty so far and is pleading innocent, which was Glitter's case up till a few days and now isn't anymore. This is common usage of the English language, SqueakBox 16:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe so, nevertheless the way it is written, regardless of the use of the langauge, may been seem by people are saying point balnk he did it. While I don't believe he is an innocent man, I still think it should be somehow written in a way that says "he was found gulity of... but he denies it".
No matter what he may have or not of done he is still a very good entertainer & whether you hate him or like him he has done some good music.
He was a good entertainer indeed and I used to love his music when I was 12 years old. His was the first album I ever bought, SqueakBox 21:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Sure, his music rocks. His songs such as "Superhero" and "Leader of The Gang" are amoung the best music ever put on. (TED)
Well I wouldn't go that far nor do I remember "Superhero" but he certainly had something good going that would have lasted him right into old age (Mick Jagger, Bruce Forsyth etc), SqueakBox 13:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
While I do not condone his private life, I would have to agree that Gary Glitter was one of the best stars around in the 20th century & was one of the best showmen in rock and roll. He had a lot of hit records over the years and was always on the radio and TV. He had the crowd eating out of his hands at Wembly in 1997. If he hadn't have got up to those activites that put him behind bars in 1999, he'd still be a huge star today. 152.163.101.7 18:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Will anyone here buy his new autobiography when it comes out, I've got his old one and I will get this new one he's writing.
Lets wait and see if it gets written and published first. Perhaps Google will then steal it and we will be able to read it for free online, or maybe he will publish online himself (all his problems began with a computer so he must know something about them). Do you think he will be repentant? Perhaps re-finding his Buddhist roots (overcoming desire) in jail like Jonathan Aitken. Or perhaps not. I will certainly be following the soap opera of his life, SqueakBox 19:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
does anyone here own the CD?
You can still buy it on the UK website of ebay.
I clarified details of his Cambodian stay based on these two articles, from non-tabloid sources, specifically the CBC and BBC:
-- Lisasmall 00:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Should Glitter Denies Wrong Doing be a subsubsection of 2005-06 Vietnam underage-sex arrest and conviction? -- Stlemur 15:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Does every paragraph in this article have to begin with a date? It's completely unreadable and the exact dates are mostly inconsequential -- 87.82.23.233 21:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Of course the period of time, or even the dates are notable. They are historical information. I don't think this article is unreadable, I think it's one of the best on Wikipedia. It's not too fan-hyped like a lot of other artist's pages and it also gives even balance (meaning it is very well written in a NPOV way) to every issue. 74.65.39.59 00:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I read that Glitter's song "Rock and Roll" has been played at every hockey game for about the last 25 years - what kind of royalties does he get for the playing of that song? R o gerthat Talk 08:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I doubt anyone will know for sure, but it has been reported that Glitter still earns 100,000 UK pounds a year in royalties for all his songs world-wide. Glitters total net worth in 2004 was around 10 million UK pounds, according to various media. 205.188.117.66 14:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Not really. That may be true for other rich people, but because of the high profile of Gary Glitter and his case, they will want to make it look like they are above board. His money won't help him. 74.65.39.59 20:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Come to think of it, British Tabloids would be able to pay a corrupt governemnt more money to keep Glitter behind bars. 74.65.39.59 12:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I've reverted content added by an anonymous AOL user twice now. The deleted text was: Fans from all over the world are wishing Glitter luck, some think he is innocent, some don't, like a lot of non-fans, but hope that he can turn his life around. Many other members of the public are hoping Glitter remains in jail. The debate about Glitter and serious crime as a whole rumbles on.
This just doesn't seem like something that belongs in an encyclopedia to me. It doesn't add any new insight to the topic, and seems like a covert way for this user to re-insert his prior edit wishing Glitter luck in his appeal. While this is certiantly an improvement, and I'm glad that this (presumably) new user is learning his way around wikipedia, this content doesn't belong in its current form.
If you're the AOL user, feel free to contact me here, or on my talk page. Squigish 18:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello there. Surley this does belong here. It is about the public perseption of Glitter. It gives even balance to the article. It is an Netural statent too. I didn't know the rules at first, I didn't look at them, just though it was a fan page we could add into, but I read the rules today and now know I can't just say "Good luck" or whatever else, so I changed it to be a netural view as I feel it is indeed important to have the publics persception in it. from Tony Rodgers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.6 ( talk • contribs)
My gary collection includes The Ultimate Gary Glitter, The Best Of Gary Glitter, The Gary Glitter story VHS, Live VHS, and a couple of LP, glitter, GG.
There does appear to be a concerted effort in the British media to write Gary Glitter out of the history books, despite his hugely successful musical career. His songs are never played on the radio, and 1970s retrospectives do not include him. The BBC police/time-travel drama Life on Mars, despite being set during Glitter's heyday, did not feature any of his records. His performances were edited out of the BBC show Sounds of the Seventies when that particular series was given a repeat screening.
It bothers me because this treatment is not even-handed at all - other famous people who have committed similar or worse crimes have got off pretty lightly by comparison. Glitter attracted derision by blaming the media for all of his problems, but... maybe he has a point.
I had to wonder whether such deliberate bias had crept onto Wikipedia when I saw an earlier version of the Mike Leander article. Until recently, this article did not even mention Glitter, which on the face of it, is absolutely absurd - imagine a Bernie Taupin article which did not mention Elton John.
Whichever way you look at it, this sort of thing is pretty unfair. This article is a testament to the fact that, despite his appalling crimes, Glitter's professional achievements were (and remain) phenomenal. AdorableRuffian 10:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
They should remember gary for what he use to be, the biggest british glammer of all time
*He's not written out, he turns up in cheap nostalgia programmes regularly, sometimes with veiled references to more recent events. Slade however were more popular in the glam era.
Now I doubt this deal will ever be pulled off. I'm sure many of us would like to see Glitter comeback as a reformed figure and start making something of his life (and music) again, but i think it is unlikely, nevertheless this should be mentioned. 64.12.116.6 18:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I put an article on wikipedia about it but someone took it off.
Well of course this will never happen, if you wish to add it as the wishes of a now incarcerated man then go ahead. TOTP may return, but Mr Glitter will not be hosting it.
I've snipped the following:
In December 2006, a BBC film entitled 'Come Home Gary Glitter' alleged that Glitter had been masquerading as a doctor during his time in Vietnam, in order to get access to young children in an orphanage on the outskirts of Phnom Penh.
In late-2006 rumors appeard on the internet that Glitter was preparing to return to the UK and host an all-new series of Top Of The Pops. [4] [5]
The former I've snipped because it seems speculative, the latter because they're "internet rumors". -- Stlemur 12:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
We can simply changed it to "reported" if you like, or even just state it as fact. It was called a "rumor" to sasify evryone, and try to be a NPOV as possible. however it is sourced and therefore can be included in the article. 74.65.39.59 21:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes they are. They are just as reliable as many other sources on this site, Wikipedia dosen't just source from the BBC and CNN 74.65.39.59 11:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
We must put his conviction in the opening sentence, otherwise the article is POV in defence of a convicted paedophile, SqueakBox 02:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
There is a contradiction in the article as to whether he is in prison in Thailand or Vietnam, could someone find out and correct it.
He is clearly far better known as a paedophile as he is now known worldwide, eg his case has surfaced in vast numbers of newspapers throughout the world whereas when he was a popstar he was only known in the few countries in which he was famous. We arent writing a British but an international encyclopedia so we must put the most notable fact first, SqueakBox 22:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
That's fine, SqueakBox 22:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The difference is that OJ Simpson was found not guilty. You say in the edit summary he was first known as a popstar, yet Tony Blair was first known as the opposition Home SEcretary but we dont pout that first, we put whta he is best known for now, ie PM. And its the same with Gary Glitter, and given he brought his own fate on himself I dont think we can be that sympathetic nor do we break WP:BLP, whereas given OJ was found not guilty if we highlighted thaty first we probably would be breaking BLP, SqueakBox 16:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I could give you a lot of sources that contradict this. In many parts of the world he became famous as the the child molesting former pop-star, as his case achieved a worldwide publicity that he never achieved as a mere pop star. Only in the UK could you argue that he is better known as a pop star, the rest of the world had never heard of him till the case in Vietnam that received huge publicity and he is probably known by 20-30 times as many people now as before when he was just a pop star, SqueakBox 17:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean I know very little about Gary Glitter? Yopu have got to be kidding, please WP:AGF. He is still far more notoroius as a sex offendor, and he is notable as a sex offendor precisely because he is Gary Glitter. If you want to edit the OJ article you are free to do so. Gary Glitter is, like Blair, a public figure and the charges can definitely be considered a part of that public life, SqueakBox 01:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Glitter was never here as a pop star, only as a disgraced pop star as he was already disgraced when wikipedia was created. If someone is notable for one thing and then becomes notable for another it means he is notable for both, to claim he is only notable as a pop star is a defence of him as a child abuser, SqueakBox 18:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
More talk that has nothing valid. This claim Glitter was not a pop star when Wikipedra was created is very amusing. What's next? Deletion of all articles that are written about people who were dead, or business that were long gone before wikipedia came along? 74.65.39.59 23:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
He wasnt just a pop star is what I said, he was a disgraced sex offending pop star who gave many of his former fans (like me) a huge feeling of nausea when he betrayed them with his sex offending. That the odd fan should completely ignore his betrayal of us is to me utterly bizarre, but there you go, SqueakBox 23:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Noone is "ignoring" anything. Please. Noone has said "hey it's ok". Wikipedia is not a moral court. It is not here to play judge and jury. 74.65.39.59 23:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with SQUEAKBOX's argument completely. Glitter is far better known worldwide for his sex crimes than for any popular music from 30 years ago. Surely this FACT should be stated in the opening sentence. It amazes me that the odd fan here and there seem to think they have the moral high ground. He was convicted-FACT, he is better known for this-FACT. This is supposed to be factual, not POV. Daveegan06 01:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
You really need to look more at the replies to squeakbox. all your concerns have been answerd. 74.65.39.59 23:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I am only 19, and was 11 when glitter was first convicted. All the time I have known who glitter was, it has been as a sex offendor and a pop star. Wikipedia is designed to look at the now. As I have always known him as both (and both equally), I feel that both should be put in the opening. If someone came to look at this page with no prior knowledge of him, they should get both in the opening. 11:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
There is a dispute so I have tagged the article as the idea that he is most famous as a pop star doesnt fitr the facts or our NPOV policy. looks to me like the alleged consensus is because there are a group of Glitter fanatics dominating the article, and that makes for an article that violates NPOV, SqueakBox 18:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Mostly wikipedia doesnt give such a friendly reception to paedophiles. There is no contradiction in my latest edit, perhaps you would care to explain yourself, SqueakBox 18:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Whether he would have been notable as a sex offendor without being a pop star is speculation; he is highly notable as sex offender, internationally I am sure the UK's most famous sex offendor and child abuser, and while that fame is because he is also a pop star it doesnt in any way lessen that notability. Most people now think of him as a sex offender and former pop star, they dont think of him in the same light as say Paul McCartney, SqueakBox 18:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I dont think people see Noddy Holder in the same light as Gary Glitter at all, Marc Bolan would be a better example and he is again seen as a great, Glitter was seen as a great and isnt seen as one any more, Holder isnt really in the same league, SqueakBox 23:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Your opnions only. I myself regard Holder as a better artist than Bolan. Remember wikipedia is NPOV. You wouldn't be able to say point blank Holder is not as great as Bolan (or vice versa), neither can you claim because of his sex crimes Glitter is no longer a great artist. 74.65.39.59 11:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Well that is what it says right now and I am fine with the current opening. Disagreements on wikipedia are fine and are what can make for better articles, SqueakBox 23:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, it hasn't made a bit of difference to this one. 74.65.39.59 11:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
This article needs better referencing. I have as ked for a number of citations, if they arent forthcoming the sentences will be liable for deletion, and doubtless the owner of wikipedia we argue we shopuld delete all unreferenced amterial and only include cited facts, SqueakBox 18:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Cant seem to fix the refs, any ideas? SqueakBox 22:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
They don't get deleted unless some with authority (i.e Glitter) asks them to be removed. 74.65.39.59 23:10, 15 January 2007
This article is incomplete without reference to "Gary Glitter" being rhyming slang for "Shitter" (anus). It is often used in context with anal sex. For example: "I heard she takes it up the Gary". Please consider this for 'entry' into the main article. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.74.75.151 ( talk • contribs)
That is not the point and no it is not specualtion. Glitter's career went into the "shitter" after his convictions, this is where the ryming slang came from. 66.251.89.66 18:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Where is your source? Without one this will just be removed and its continuous insertion unsourced will eventually be treated as vandalism. See WP:BLP, SqueakBox 15:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Well if there are online sources that would be better as I dont have a copy of Roger's Profanisaurus and as you state they are easy to find? I will also add here that this also violates WP:BLP so would still be subject to reverting according to our policy (though obviously not as vandalsim if sourced), SqueakBox 18:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
These require a degree of sensitivity is one, SqueakBox 23:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
And if you do unsourced and/or without a degree of sensitivity it will be reverted again, if not by me by one of his fans. Doing that will achieve nothing, SqueakBox 23:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
This is factual and relevant information that is present in other biographies about Gary Glitter on the internet (ie answers.com). If you disagree with the language used, why not be proactive, stop being vague and please state exactly what should be removed before removing it. I have added it back in as follows. "Gary" is Cockney rhyming slang for the anus, derived from Gary Glitter (rhyming with "shitter") [6] [7]. Gary Glitter also featured in an episode of South Park " A Million Little Fibers" as Oprah Winfrey's a talking anus. TwatBox 15:15, 17 Febuary 2007
Answers.com is a mirror of wikipedia and the info is there because it was here. The trivia section is over full, this violates WP:BLP and is unnecessary. We should concentrate on other aspects of the article, SqueakBox 15:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I asked you to state the violations previously, you failed to mention this and also in your subsequent follow up. You can stick your violations up your Gary.
Gary was rhyming slang years before his conviction, it really is time that Glitter's fan club and the prudes of this world were stopped from censoring this site. Gary is a very well known and well documented slang term in England whether you like it or not. Removing people's contributions because they don't fit in with your biases is vandalism.
First time I heard it was on KYTV, early 90s
GG is not merely a pop star he is a child sex abuser and this must go in the opening. Please do not remove this again but if you have concerns bring them here, SqueakBox 23:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
No, that is incorrect. Rock and roll part 2 should not be mentioned in the opening. In other countries Gary Glitter is better known for other songs. In France, for example, it was Rock N Roll Part 1 that was the huge hit, going to #1 for several months there. In addition to this in countries like the UK, Ireland, Aus and NZ "Leader of the gang", "Do you wanna touch", "Hello, Hello..." and "I Love You Love me Love" were all bigger hits than Rock N Roll Part 2. Just because this was his only huge hit in the United States dosen't mean we should put speculation in the article abot him maybe being better known for one song, when he was a huge star elsewhere with a collection of major hit titles 74.65.39.59 02:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Glitter is still top of the charts. "Rock N Roll (Parts 1 and 2)" has recently been voted the best song in the world ever. This shows G.G's music still rules! 66.251.89.66 17:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
His music is of the best but he isnt, he is disgraced and its entirely his fault. What a tyragic waste of talent, SqueakBox 17:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Squeakbox that is so correct. This article is a testimonal to his talent, showing what it achieved in the music world before his disgrace was complete after 40+ years in the entertainment business. 74.65.39.59 23:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that. The only good thing about that comment was that it was in the talk page, not the actual article. 00:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
IMO we must put his sexual abuse charges more prominently than giving details of his musical career as it is actually the more notable fact right now so i have tagged the artiocle with an NPOV tag. Input from other editors woul;d be helpful, SqueakBox 17:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Squeekbox this is not the first time you have done this. Please let it go. This is not about morals. Gary Glitter is notable as a singer first regardless of how sordid his private life may or may not be. His "best songs" as you put it are what made him so high profile during a long music carrer 66.251.89.66 18:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. So for the above reason you have given yourself, the tag should be removed as it is still the music that is very much to the fore. 66.251.89.66 18:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Gary Glitter is much more noticeable for his achievements as a rock star than his crimes, espically when we juding his inclusion in a wikipedia. If this was a tabloid it may be different, but it's not! 74.65.39.59 02:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
SqueakBox, where is your issue now? The opening para now says he had a string of hits, which you can hardly dispute. It does not even say 'best known artistically' for his songs, let alone 'best known'. You asked for input from other editors after tagging the intro. You've had that input and as far as I can see your concerns have been discussed. Sorry if you think his criminality should be in the first line and not the second but it was the music that gave him the prominence to make him a notorious sexual offender. They are both in the opening para and that should suffice. The consensus is clear, it's time to move on. Cheers,
Ian Rose
12:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
This article is a disgraceful defense of a paedophile, why people keep vandalizing by removing the tag and insisting in making the article pure POV is beyond me
No one user isnt enough. But in this case a number of users support the tag. if you can t see that please check the article history and the talk page discussion more thoroughly. Anyway nothing wrong with a tag, it only means there is a dispute it doesnt mean it is a bad article, SqueakBox 23:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
OWN isnt even slightly relevant here as I do not claim ownership of this article (which I have contributed very little to), never have done, and nor am I alone in thinking what I think. Look at the talk page and edit history, SqueakBox 23:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
SqueakBox You have not provided any evidence why this tag should stay, Disscus on the talkpage before replacing it. DXRAW 20:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
So now new users arent allowed to comment on talk pages. Ill remember that one. User:Greatgallsoffire
Well I am no sockpuppet. Of whom precisely? It sounds like another excuse to get your own way. I dont for one second believe new editors arent allowed to edit articles here and suggest that if you really think so its time to get the wikipedia authorities involved. Your attitude doesnt fit in with the encyclopedia anyone can edit. You arent even an admin and your assertion seems like trolling to me. Greatgallsoffire 21:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that the debate here is whether Glitter is a famous pedophile who used to be a musician or a famous musician who's now also famously a pedophile. At the risk of weighing in on something that may be heading for the list of lamest edit wars ever, I think it's the latter. No one who remembers him now thinks just of the music - but at the same time, he's not primarily famous as a pedophile. As noted above, if he were just a pedophile he would not be a particularly famous one. As an example, John Wayne Gacy was a notable serial killer (who was also a clown). As a pedophile, Glitter would be non-notable (except that he was also a famous singer) - just as Gacy would not be notable as a clown (except for killing all those people). Glitter's notability comes from the fact that he was a famous singer, so I'd revert to DXRAW's version, and leave off the tag. -- TheOther Bob 00:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that his fame ca, about as being a pop star and that his paedophile offences are of themselves unnotable (there are otehr people with a similar record who arent notable enough to be here) but the reality is that as pop star his sex offences are highly notable and have received publicity worldwide, SqueakBox 15:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The phrasing of the opening seems to be turning into a revert war; since one source of the dispute is what consensus is, I think we should undertake a straw poll to see what the feeling really is.
Lately these are the two versions of the opening paragraph in question:
I myself will be taking a break from editing this page for a day or so. -- Stlemur 16:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Is a poll really needed? It's obvious from the dialog that most wikipeadians don't agree his sexual convictions should lead the article and rightly so. This is meant to be an encyclopedia, not the sun! Also, Glitter is not a twice convicted pedophile. His first conviction was for owning child pornography. No moral difference maybe, but it's worth the clarification, like the difference between murder and attempted murder! 74.65.39.59 00:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, before we go any further with this, it is worth pointing out to the people who think this poll will put the final nail in the coffin, to think again. As wikipedia states A straw poll is not a binding vote, or a way to beat dissenters over the head with the will of the majority. Even if a large number of people vote for one option but some don't, this doesn't mean that that's the "outcome". It means some people are disagreeing, and that has to be addressed.
74.65.39.59 00:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The question to hand is which ordering has consensus support for the opening paragraph of this article:
1. An ordering in which Gary Glitter's convictions for sex crimes are mentioned before his musical career, for example:
2. An ordering where Gary Glitter's musical career is mentioned before his sex crime convictions, for example:
3. Some other arrangement not here specified.
Voters should agree that:
If we're agreed on the phrasing of the question and the matter at hand, voting can begin on 31 March. -- Stlemur 09:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I think a much better solutions would be to word the article like this
Paul Francis Gadd aka Gary Glitter (born May 8, 1944) is an English rock and pop singer and songwriter who has twice been convicted of sexual offences.
He had a string of chart successes with a collection of 1970s glam rock hits including "Rock and Roll parts 1 & 2", "I Love You Love Me Love", "I'm the Leader of the Gang (I Am)" and "Hello, Hello, I'm Back Again". He is currently serving a prison sentence in Vietnam for child sexual abuse.
What does everyone think? 66.251.89.66 22:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Please vote below: Voting opened at 02:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
An ordering in which Gary Glitter's convictions for sex crimes are mentioned before his musical career, for example:
An ordering where Gary Glitter's musical career is mentioned before his sex crime convictions, for example:
An ordering where Gary Glitter's sex crime convictions are mentioned in the opening sentence but first, for example:
Some other phrasing not yet specified
-- John Stumbles 13:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Glitter is NOT "only" known worldwide for rock n roll 2, as some poster claimed. Maybe in the USA, but in many other countries (not just the UK) he charted a lot of records and for almost 30 years was a top star! 74.65.39.59 23:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm snipping the following:
The following year Doctor and the Medics invited Glitter to join them on their television performances, to co-perform their version of Norman Greenbaum's " Spirit in the Sky", redone in something resembling Glitter's signature rave-and-riff style (EDIT, 23.4.07: This was in fact ROY WOOD on this record & NOT Gary Glitter!).
pending a cite. The AllMusic Guide article on the record doesn't provide credit one way or another. -- Stlemur 21:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
i changed the "I belong to you" to "You belong to me" as it should be. someone changed it back. the song is called you belong to me!
Given that all major and most minor disputes have died down, can we now talk about the current revision of the article being a stable version with an eye to making a task-list to bring this up to good article status? -- Stlemur 00:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Web links are notorious for going dead, and they need to be propertly formatted anyway. Please name the author (last/first), title, publication, date, and date accessed, or convert all the current citations using {{ cite web}}. hbdragon88 01:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
If you think he isnt please source your claim, we dont exactly work by consensus, or not consensus alone at any rate, SqueakBox 22:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
The following was removed: "This triggered a debate over how the images were discovered, as it is unclear whether the repair Glitter's machine required would have necessitated access to the hard drive with images being discovered by accident during this, or whether PC World staff accessed the contents of the hard drive when they had no legitimate reason to do so, either as a routine activity performed on all customers' machines, or performed on Glitter's due to his celebrity status." As the computer was turned in due to a fault involving the ability to display images, the repair activity necessitated accessing image files to test whether or not the fault had been rectified. There is no doubt as to the legitimacy of hard drive access in the case. ▫ Urbane Legend chinwag 21:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I've attempted to revert the wholesale deletion of source URLs from this article by User:Taranita in this edit, which rendered all of the associated references uncheckable. As a result, some other recent edits may have been lost: please check the article and bring it up-to-date as necessary. -- Karada ( talk) 08:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
The The Illustrated Rock Handbook, 1983 lists Gadd as born on 8 May 1940 and notes "his birthdate was rumoured to be considerably earlier than that given". Does anyone have conclusive evidence of his actual DoB? DerbyCountyinNZ ( talk) 04:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Alleged? CSA. We cannot say the child sex abuse allegations are alleged as he was convicted under Vietnamese law and it would be bad form to use alleged because of any distrust of Vietnamese justice. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Hardy think for a moment. I think what you are saying is ignorance. So it's "ok" to sleep with a 14 year old if they are sexually aware if you are a rock star? How about joe public? One rule for the famous, another for the everyday person (unless your Gary Glitter, of course) 74.65.39.59 ( talk) 22:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
There are no references or images. slambo 10:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
The "Musical Legacy" section seems to be completely made up. How on earth did Gary Glitter influence early punk rock, and where on earth does the Adam and the Ants connection come from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.182.62 ( talk) 09:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Gary Glitter a buddhist?? hmm. Glam Rock and Buddhism just don't seem to go together to me. If someone can put something in the artickle about how GG got into Buddhism, I would be pleased.
Please spend some time looking at some of the articles of other celebrities, disgraced or not. If the religion of Gadd can be cited, it ought to be added, and if it was a conversion it is doubly important. 172.201.140.11 ( talk) 05:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
His new career fell apart on November 18, 1997, after he took his computer to UK computer store PC World to be mended. The staff there found pornographic images of children on the hard drive and called the police.
In general, in order to "mend" a computer (whether in hardware or in software), one seldom has to go browse the data files of the machine. Were the employees of that store just some kind of peeping Toms, enjoying browsing through the files of some pop star? Has anybody asked them why they had to look into those files? David.Monniaux 23:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
But we dont know if he even had sex with children do we, after all he was sent to prison for child ponography, not a sex offence.
Now the latest is that he is living in Vietnam in Vung Tau Beach where many Ex-pats live.
I think we have to be careful here as ongoing criminal charges are pending in Asia. Maybe it would surprise people to know that he had thousands of pictures on his computer, including rape of children of approximately 2 years of age including torture of toddlers. (Richard and Judy Channel 4 UK). On BBC3 on the 5th Decmber 2005 a documentary was shown called "Come Home Gary Glitter." The reporters had been shadowing Glitter for several months as they were very concerned that a convicted paedophile had been allowed to emigrate to Vietnam, which has a very large if underground child sex ring. The officials of Vietnam and Thailand, including the Minister for Information were trying to track Glitter but he was being exceptionally elusive. He had been to an orphanage to play with children and had been telling people he was a doctor. This is disgraceful and shows his complete sociopathic behaviour. Hopefully now he will be locked up forever.-- drmike 01:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Glitter wanted in Vietnam over teenage sex claim
Vietnamese authorities want to question Gary Glitter on reports that he had sexual relationships with girls under 16, the age of consent. The foreign ministry told the Guardian that the former pop star, real name Paul Francis Gadd, allegedly shared his home in Vung Tau with girls as young as 15. Police have reportedly interviewed one 15-year-old found living at the home, although her relationship with him was unclear. Sexual abuse of children has a maximum penalty of death in Vietnam.
Of interest.
I searched and read a number of press stories on Topix.net, and found there's considerable disagreement about the facts surrounding the arrest. Various news sources put the age of consent at 16 or at 18 in Vietnam. Almost all of the press reports seem to agree one of the alleged victims is 12, but the other alleged victim has been tagged at age 15, 17, and 18. So until this factual matter is resolved in the press, I think it's better not to give a particular age as an accepted fact within the article. David Hoag 02:53, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Is there someone who can vouch that this is an actual song title that's listed in his singles? Considering this is the only hit that comes up on a search of the phrase on google, and considering the current news, it sounds a little dubious to me.
I think this statement is a massive understatement. Sure he still releases records, but this is on the internet. I can't imagine that any (British at least) high street stores would dare stock is records now. He didn't tour or make any TV appearances following the 1999 conviction, and I think it is very unlikely he will do so in future. -- Ade myers 03:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I noticed this comment was changed again to "destroyed", which I have reverted. While it's true he's no longer playing to sell out crowds of many thousands or having UK top 10 hit records (something that he hasn't done since 1985, let alone since getting out of jail in 2000), his new released DVDs and CDs are still selling well via the fan club online. Yes , this may "just be the internet", but the internet is a form of medium just like Television, Radio, Newspapers and traditional mailing fan clubs. Furthermore, I have never seen a reliable source or a quote from Gary Glitter himself that says he has retired and has no plans to make new music in the future 205.188.117.66 18:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
How did he meet these girls, and convince them to have relations? I imagine it was consensual as the charges were dropped, though in the case of the 11/12 year old that word may lose considerable meaning. Were they prostitutes or what? Dsol 14:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
The answer is money. We've had a similar case here in La Ceiba, Honduras. There is so much hunger for money in these less developed parts of the world that I imagine that, given he had the desire, it would have been easy to procure subjects, and that he was probably in that town precisely because he knew there was the possibility of procuring young girls. Unfortunately it is depressingly easy for men to find young girls in vast numbers of very poor communities throughout the third world. And of course these "scum at the bottom of the barrel" give all us "first worlders" a bad reputation here in the third world, SqueakBox 14:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
If that is the case why do so many people say the girl who did it with Rorman polanski was not motivate dby money or fame and he didnt do anything wrong and she infact wanted it and all this stuff? or they say he was entrapped, or that its ok that she did it for money/fame cause she wasnt violently raped?
Does anyone know who made the song Baby, please dont go? I always thought it was GG but after a google-search for lyrics i found out that many artists (Sting, ACDC, Aerosmith etc) made versions of it. Slipzen 16:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
It's an old 1950's rock n roll song, Glitter coverd it in the 1970s, but he recorded it long before all the acts you just mentioned.
credited to Timelords only...Gary Glitter's tune only sampled along with Dr Who, Sweet and loadsamoney - should be removed
No it shouldn't. Just because he wasn't credited it was still his record (I believe later copies even included his voice). There are lots of acts who didn't get a credit on a record (I.E Cher on her record with Meatloaf), but they still count as a hit for the artists.
Left single in, but put it under the heading "Misc". LarryM 20:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I removed some pretty gratuitous descriptions of the sex acts (“ejaculated on breasts…”) in the discussion of the latest conviction. Is it really necessary? I’m sure someone will put it back, and I don’t really care enough to follow up, but come on. It adds nothing (but maybe titillation) to the article. Jake b 20:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
this entire article is extremely poorly written
Improve it then, seeing as you seem to know what's better.
Removed once again. Hardly essential. PAT
We don't censor content because it's distasteful and we don't withhold facts because they're undesirable. -- Stlemur 13:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
It's not about censoring, it's about necessity and it is not needed in the article at all. It is pointless. Sorry to disappoint you. 69.204.6.21 13:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Stlemur if you really want all the nitty gritty information of Glitters case, then why don't you do what was suggested at the start of this debate and do a full court record of Glitter's trial. This is an article about Gary Glitter, the singer. While it will of course mention details about the case, it is not a case of doing it to the degree that every stone, regardless of how pointless be turned. So anyway why don't you do a full court report on it's own wikipage i.e Gary Glitter Trial, if it means that much to you to have this information out on Wikipedia. I have even given you a link you can start with. 69.204.6.21 13:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Not at all. This is an article on the person and every nook and cranny is not up for inclusion, as already discussed in this debate. If you are concerned about the inclusion of all the facts on the court case thery make the wikipage and do that, if not, and all you8 care about it this one piece of information, then don't expect everyone to just let it be included. If you serious about getting all the facts on the court case down, then write the page. If not, then stop adding this one piece of (what i still consider to be) titillation, that alone has no need to be here.
69.204.6.21
16:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. How about adding to the Elvis Presley article detailed information about bloating and problems with the digestive system, as Elvis sufferd from both late in life. Complete tabloid journalism that has no place here. 69.204.6.21 16:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Indeed and those quotes from the Presley article do not go into exact detail, they just say what he had and give a brief overview, it doesn't have a break down of all the details of what Presley's body would have been doing, which is the point that was being made. 69.204.6.21 18:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Why do people keep removing this one word and claim it's because content was removed? If people check the edits, they will see only one word was added, nothing has been removed. To say this isn't an allegation is POV. SAM SMITH 3-5-06.
Indeed. We can and must put in his denials of guilt but that doesn't mean it is still alleged; it isn't, SqueakBox 13:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
As with all convicted criminals who have pleaded not guilty. Alleged is always and only used when someone hasn't actually been found either guilty or not guilty so far and is pleading innocent, which was Glitter's case up till a few days and now isn't anymore. This is common usage of the English language, SqueakBox 16:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe so, nevertheless the way it is written, regardless of the use of the langauge, may been seem by people are saying point balnk he did it. While I don't believe he is an innocent man, I still think it should be somehow written in a way that says "he was found gulity of... but he denies it".
No matter what he may have or not of done he is still a very good entertainer & whether you hate him or like him he has done some good music.
He was a good entertainer indeed and I used to love his music when I was 12 years old. His was the first album I ever bought, SqueakBox 21:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Sure, his music rocks. His songs such as "Superhero" and "Leader of The Gang" are amoung the best music ever put on. (TED)
Well I wouldn't go that far nor do I remember "Superhero" but he certainly had something good going that would have lasted him right into old age (Mick Jagger, Bruce Forsyth etc), SqueakBox 13:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
While I do not condone his private life, I would have to agree that Gary Glitter was one of the best stars around in the 20th century & was one of the best showmen in rock and roll. He had a lot of hit records over the years and was always on the radio and TV. He had the crowd eating out of his hands at Wembly in 1997. If he hadn't have got up to those activites that put him behind bars in 1999, he'd still be a huge star today. 152.163.101.7 18:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Will anyone here buy his new autobiography when it comes out, I've got his old one and I will get this new one he's writing.
Lets wait and see if it gets written and published first. Perhaps Google will then steal it and we will be able to read it for free online, or maybe he will publish online himself (all his problems began with a computer so he must know something about them). Do you think he will be repentant? Perhaps re-finding his Buddhist roots (overcoming desire) in jail like Jonathan Aitken. Or perhaps not. I will certainly be following the soap opera of his life, SqueakBox 19:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
does anyone here own the CD?
You can still buy it on the UK website of ebay.
I clarified details of his Cambodian stay based on these two articles, from non-tabloid sources, specifically the CBC and BBC:
-- Lisasmall 00:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Should Glitter Denies Wrong Doing be a subsubsection of 2005-06 Vietnam underage-sex arrest and conviction? -- Stlemur 15:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Does every paragraph in this article have to begin with a date? It's completely unreadable and the exact dates are mostly inconsequential -- 87.82.23.233 21:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Of course the period of time, or even the dates are notable. They are historical information. I don't think this article is unreadable, I think it's one of the best on Wikipedia. It's not too fan-hyped like a lot of other artist's pages and it also gives even balance (meaning it is very well written in a NPOV way) to every issue. 74.65.39.59 00:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I read that Glitter's song "Rock and Roll" has been played at every hockey game for about the last 25 years - what kind of royalties does he get for the playing of that song? R o gerthat Talk 08:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I doubt anyone will know for sure, but it has been reported that Glitter still earns 100,000 UK pounds a year in royalties for all his songs world-wide. Glitters total net worth in 2004 was around 10 million UK pounds, according to various media. 205.188.117.66 14:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Not really. That may be true for other rich people, but because of the high profile of Gary Glitter and his case, they will want to make it look like they are above board. His money won't help him. 74.65.39.59 20:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Come to think of it, British Tabloids would be able to pay a corrupt governemnt more money to keep Glitter behind bars. 74.65.39.59 12:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I've reverted content added by an anonymous AOL user twice now. The deleted text was: Fans from all over the world are wishing Glitter luck, some think he is innocent, some don't, like a lot of non-fans, but hope that he can turn his life around. Many other members of the public are hoping Glitter remains in jail. The debate about Glitter and serious crime as a whole rumbles on.
This just doesn't seem like something that belongs in an encyclopedia to me. It doesn't add any new insight to the topic, and seems like a covert way for this user to re-insert his prior edit wishing Glitter luck in his appeal. While this is certiantly an improvement, and I'm glad that this (presumably) new user is learning his way around wikipedia, this content doesn't belong in its current form.
If you're the AOL user, feel free to contact me here, or on my talk page. Squigish 18:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello there. Surley this does belong here. It is about the public perseption of Glitter. It gives even balance to the article. It is an Netural statent too. I didn't know the rules at first, I didn't look at them, just though it was a fan page we could add into, but I read the rules today and now know I can't just say "Good luck" or whatever else, so I changed it to be a netural view as I feel it is indeed important to have the publics persception in it. from Tony Rodgers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.6 ( talk • contribs)
My gary collection includes The Ultimate Gary Glitter, The Best Of Gary Glitter, The Gary Glitter story VHS, Live VHS, and a couple of LP, glitter, GG.
There does appear to be a concerted effort in the British media to write Gary Glitter out of the history books, despite his hugely successful musical career. His songs are never played on the radio, and 1970s retrospectives do not include him. The BBC police/time-travel drama Life on Mars, despite being set during Glitter's heyday, did not feature any of his records. His performances were edited out of the BBC show Sounds of the Seventies when that particular series was given a repeat screening.
It bothers me because this treatment is not even-handed at all - other famous people who have committed similar or worse crimes have got off pretty lightly by comparison. Glitter attracted derision by blaming the media for all of his problems, but... maybe he has a point.
I had to wonder whether such deliberate bias had crept onto Wikipedia when I saw an earlier version of the Mike Leander article. Until recently, this article did not even mention Glitter, which on the face of it, is absolutely absurd - imagine a Bernie Taupin article which did not mention Elton John.
Whichever way you look at it, this sort of thing is pretty unfair. This article is a testament to the fact that, despite his appalling crimes, Glitter's professional achievements were (and remain) phenomenal. AdorableRuffian 10:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
They should remember gary for what he use to be, the biggest british glammer of all time
*He's not written out, he turns up in cheap nostalgia programmes regularly, sometimes with veiled references to more recent events. Slade however were more popular in the glam era.
Now I doubt this deal will ever be pulled off. I'm sure many of us would like to see Glitter comeback as a reformed figure and start making something of his life (and music) again, but i think it is unlikely, nevertheless this should be mentioned. 64.12.116.6 18:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I put an article on wikipedia about it but someone took it off.
Well of course this will never happen, if you wish to add it as the wishes of a now incarcerated man then go ahead. TOTP may return, but Mr Glitter will not be hosting it.
I've snipped the following:
In December 2006, a BBC film entitled 'Come Home Gary Glitter' alleged that Glitter had been masquerading as a doctor during his time in Vietnam, in order to get access to young children in an orphanage on the outskirts of Phnom Penh.
In late-2006 rumors appeard on the internet that Glitter was preparing to return to the UK and host an all-new series of Top Of The Pops. [4] [5]
The former I've snipped because it seems speculative, the latter because they're "internet rumors". -- Stlemur 12:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
We can simply changed it to "reported" if you like, or even just state it as fact. It was called a "rumor" to sasify evryone, and try to be a NPOV as possible. however it is sourced and therefore can be included in the article. 74.65.39.59 21:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes they are. They are just as reliable as many other sources on this site, Wikipedia dosen't just source from the BBC and CNN 74.65.39.59 11:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
We must put his conviction in the opening sentence, otherwise the article is POV in defence of a convicted paedophile, SqueakBox 02:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
There is a contradiction in the article as to whether he is in prison in Thailand or Vietnam, could someone find out and correct it.
He is clearly far better known as a paedophile as he is now known worldwide, eg his case has surfaced in vast numbers of newspapers throughout the world whereas when he was a popstar he was only known in the few countries in which he was famous. We arent writing a British but an international encyclopedia so we must put the most notable fact first, SqueakBox 22:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
That's fine, SqueakBox 22:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The difference is that OJ Simpson was found not guilty. You say in the edit summary he was first known as a popstar, yet Tony Blair was first known as the opposition Home SEcretary but we dont pout that first, we put whta he is best known for now, ie PM. And its the same with Gary Glitter, and given he brought his own fate on himself I dont think we can be that sympathetic nor do we break WP:BLP, whereas given OJ was found not guilty if we highlighted thaty first we probably would be breaking BLP, SqueakBox 16:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I could give you a lot of sources that contradict this. In many parts of the world he became famous as the the child molesting former pop-star, as his case achieved a worldwide publicity that he never achieved as a mere pop star. Only in the UK could you argue that he is better known as a pop star, the rest of the world had never heard of him till the case in Vietnam that received huge publicity and he is probably known by 20-30 times as many people now as before when he was just a pop star, SqueakBox 17:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean I know very little about Gary Glitter? Yopu have got to be kidding, please WP:AGF. He is still far more notoroius as a sex offendor, and he is notable as a sex offendor precisely because he is Gary Glitter. If you want to edit the OJ article you are free to do so. Gary Glitter is, like Blair, a public figure and the charges can definitely be considered a part of that public life, SqueakBox 01:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Glitter was never here as a pop star, only as a disgraced pop star as he was already disgraced when wikipedia was created. If someone is notable for one thing and then becomes notable for another it means he is notable for both, to claim he is only notable as a pop star is a defence of him as a child abuser, SqueakBox 18:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
More talk that has nothing valid. This claim Glitter was not a pop star when Wikipedra was created is very amusing. What's next? Deletion of all articles that are written about people who were dead, or business that were long gone before wikipedia came along? 74.65.39.59 23:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
He wasnt just a pop star is what I said, he was a disgraced sex offending pop star who gave many of his former fans (like me) a huge feeling of nausea when he betrayed them with his sex offending. That the odd fan should completely ignore his betrayal of us is to me utterly bizarre, but there you go, SqueakBox 23:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Noone is "ignoring" anything. Please. Noone has said "hey it's ok". Wikipedia is not a moral court. It is not here to play judge and jury. 74.65.39.59 23:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with SQUEAKBOX's argument completely. Glitter is far better known worldwide for his sex crimes than for any popular music from 30 years ago. Surely this FACT should be stated in the opening sentence. It amazes me that the odd fan here and there seem to think they have the moral high ground. He was convicted-FACT, he is better known for this-FACT. This is supposed to be factual, not POV. Daveegan06 01:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
You really need to look more at the replies to squeakbox. all your concerns have been answerd. 74.65.39.59 23:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I am only 19, and was 11 when glitter was first convicted. All the time I have known who glitter was, it has been as a sex offendor and a pop star. Wikipedia is designed to look at the now. As I have always known him as both (and both equally), I feel that both should be put in the opening. If someone came to look at this page with no prior knowledge of him, they should get both in the opening. 11:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
There is a dispute so I have tagged the article as the idea that he is most famous as a pop star doesnt fitr the facts or our NPOV policy. looks to me like the alleged consensus is because there are a group of Glitter fanatics dominating the article, and that makes for an article that violates NPOV, SqueakBox 18:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Mostly wikipedia doesnt give such a friendly reception to paedophiles. There is no contradiction in my latest edit, perhaps you would care to explain yourself, SqueakBox 18:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Whether he would have been notable as a sex offendor without being a pop star is speculation; he is highly notable as sex offender, internationally I am sure the UK's most famous sex offendor and child abuser, and while that fame is because he is also a pop star it doesnt in any way lessen that notability. Most people now think of him as a sex offender and former pop star, they dont think of him in the same light as say Paul McCartney, SqueakBox 18:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I dont think people see Noddy Holder in the same light as Gary Glitter at all, Marc Bolan would be a better example and he is again seen as a great, Glitter was seen as a great and isnt seen as one any more, Holder isnt really in the same league, SqueakBox 23:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Your opnions only. I myself regard Holder as a better artist than Bolan. Remember wikipedia is NPOV. You wouldn't be able to say point blank Holder is not as great as Bolan (or vice versa), neither can you claim because of his sex crimes Glitter is no longer a great artist. 74.65.39.59 11:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Well that is what it says right now and I am fine with the current opening. Disagreements on wikipedia are fine and are what can make for better articles, SqueakBox 23:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, it hasn't made a bit of difference to this one. 74.65.39.59 11:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
This article needs better referencing. I have as ked for a number of citations, if they arent forthcoming the sentences will be liable for deletion, and doubtless the owner of wikipedia we argue we shopuld delete all unreferenced amterial and only include cited facts, SqueakBox 18:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Cant seem to fix the refs, any ideas? SqueakBox 22:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
They don't get deleted unless some with authority (i.e Glitter) asks them to be removed. 74.65.39.59 23:10, 15 January 2007
This article is incomplete without reference to "Gary Glitter" being rhyming slang for "Shitter" (anus). It is often used in context with anal sex. For example: "I heard she takes it up the Gary". Please consider this for 'entry' into the main article. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.74.75.151 ( talk • contribs)
That is not the point and no it is not specualtion. Glitter's career went into the "shitter" after his convictions, this is where the ryming slang came from. 66.251.89.66 18:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Where is your source? Without one this will just be removed and its continuous insertion unsourced will eventually be treated as vandalism. See WP:BLP, SqueakBox 15:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Well if there are online sources that would be better as I dont have a copy of Roger's Profanisaurus and as you state they are easy to find? I will also add here that this also violates WP:BLP so would still be subject to reverting according to our policy (though obviously not as vandalsim if sourced), SqueakBox 18:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
These require a degree of sensitivity is one, SqueakBox 23:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
And if you do unsourced and/or without a degree of sensitivity it will be reverted again, if not by me by one of his fans. Doing that will achieve nothing, SqueakBox 23:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
This is factual and relevant information that is present in other biographies about Gary Glitter on the internet (ie answers.com). If you disagree with the language used, why not be proactive, stop being vague and please state exactly what should be removed before removing it. I have added it back in as follows. "Gary" is Cockney rhyming slang for the anus, derived from Gary Glitter (rhyming with "shitter") [6] [7]. Gary Glitter also featured in an episode of South Park " A Million Little Fibers" as Oprah Winfrey's a talking anus. TwatBox 15:15, 17 Febuary 2007
Answers.com is a mirror of wikipedia and the info is there because it was here. The trivia section is over full, this violates WP:BLP and is unnecessary. We should concentrate on other aspects of the article, SqueakBox 15:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I asked you to state the violations previously, you failed to mention this and also in your subsequent follow up. You can stick your violations up your Gary.
Gary was rhyming slang years before his conviction, it really is time that Glitter's fan club and the prudes of this world were stopped from censoring this site. Gary is a very well known and well documented slang term in England whether you like it or not. Removing people's contributions because they don't fit in with your biases is vandalism.
First time I heard it was on KYTV, early 90s
GG is not merely a pop star he is a child sex abuser and this must go in the opening. Please do not remove this again but if you have concerns bring them here, SqueakBox 23:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
No, that is incorrect. Rock and roll part 2 should not be mentioned in the opening. In other countries Gary Glitter is better known for other songs. In France, for example, it was Rock N Roll Part 1 that was the huge hit, going to #1 for several months there. In addition to this in countries like the UK, Ireland, Aus and NZ "Leader of the gang", "Do you wanna touch", "Hello, Hello..." and "I Love You Love me Love" were all bigger hits than Rock N Roll Part 2. Just because this was his only huge hit in the United States dosen't mean we should put speculation in the article abot him maybe being better known for one song, when he was a huge star elsewhere with a collection of major hit titles 74.65.39.59 02:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Glitter is still top of the charts. "Rock N Roll (Parts 1 and 2)" has recently been voted the best song in the world ever. This shows G.G's music still rules! 66.251.89.66 17:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
His music is of the best but he isnt, he is disgraced and its entirely his fault. What a tyragic waste of talent, SqueakBox 17:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Squeakbox that is so correct. This article is a testimonal to his talent, showing what it achieved in the music world before his disgrace was complete after 40+ years in the entertainment business. 74.65.39.59 23:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that. The only good thing about that comment was that it was in the talk page, not the actual article. 00:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
IMO we must put his sexual abuse charges more prominently than giving details of his musical career as it is actually the more notable fact right now so i have tagged the artiocle with an NPOV tag. Input from other editors woul;d be helpful, SqueakBox 17:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Squeekbox this is not the first time you have done this. Please let it go. This is not about morals. Gary Glitter is notable as a singer first regardless of how sordid his private life may or may not be. His "best songs" as you put it are what made him so high profile during a long music carrer 66.251.89.66 18:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. So for the above reason you have given yourself, the tag should be removed as it is still the music that is very much to the fore. 66.251.89.66 18:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Gary Glitter is much more noticeable for his achievements as a rock star than his crimes, espically when we juding his inclusion in a wikipedia. If this was a tabloid it may be different, but it's not! 74.65.39.59 02:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
SqueakBox, where is your issue now? The opening para now says he had a string of hits, which you can hardly dispute. It does not even say 'best known artistically' for his songs, let alone 'best known'. You asked for input from other editors after tagging the intro. You've had that input and as far as I can see your concerns have been discussed. Sorry if you think his criminality should be in the first line and not the second but it was the music that gave him the prominence to make him a notorious sexual offender. They are both in the opening para and that should suffice. The consensus is clear, it's time to move on. Cheers,
Ian Rose
12:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
This article is a disgraceful defense of a paedophile, why people keep vandalizing by removing the tag and insisting in making the article pure POV is beyond me
No one user isnt enough. But in this case a number of users support the tag. if you can t see that please check the article history and the talk page discussion more thoroughly. Anyway nothing wrong with a tag, it only means there is a dispute it doesnt mean it is a bad article, SqueakBox 23:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
OWN isnt even slightly relevant here as I do not claim ownership of this article (which I have contributed very little to), never have done, and nor am I alone in thinking what I think. Look at the talk page and edit history, SqueakBox 23:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
SqueakBox You have not provided any evidence why this tag should stay, Disscus on the talkpage before replacing it. DXRAW 20:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
So now new users arent allowed to comment on talk pages. Ill remember that one. User:Greatgallsoffire
Well I am no sockpuppet. Of whom precisely? It sounds like another excuse to get your own way. I dont for one second believe new editors arent allowed to edit articles here and suggest that if you really think so its time to get the wikipedia authorities involved. Your attitude doesnt fit in with the encyclopedia anyone can edit. You arent even an admin and your assertion seems like trolling to me. Greatgallsoffire 21:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that the debate here is whether Glitter is a famous pedophile who used to be a musician or a famous musician who's now also famously a pedophile. At the risk of weighing in on something that may be heading for the list of lamest edit wars ever, I think it's the latter. No one who remembers him now thinks just of the music - but at the same time, he's not primarily famous as a pedophile. As noted above, if he were just a pedophile he would not be a particularly famous one. As an example, John Wayne Gacy was a notable serial killer (who was also a clown). As a pedophile, Glitter would be non-notable (except that he was also a famous singer) - just as Gacy would not be notable as a clown (except for killing all those people). Glitter's notability comes from the fact that he was a famous singer, so I'd revert to DXRAW's version, and leave off the tag. -- TheOther Bob 00:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that his fame ca, about as being a pop star and that his paedophile offences are of themselves unnotable (there are otehr people with a similar record who arent notable enough to be here) but the reality is that as pop star his sex offences are highly notable and have received publicity worldwide, SqueakBox 15:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The phrasing of the opening seems to be turning into a revert war; since one source of the dispute is what consensus is, I think we should undertake a straw poll to see what the feeling really is.
Lately these are the two versions of the opening paragraph in question:
I myself will be taking a break from editing this page for a day or so. -- Stlemur 16:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Is a poll really needed? It's obvious from the dialog that most wikipeadians don't agree his sexual convictions should lead the article and rightly so. This is meant to be an encyclopedia, not the sun! Also, Glitter is not a twice convicted pedophile. His first conviction was for owning child pornography. No moral difference maybe, but it's worth the clarification, like the difference between murder and attempted murder! 74.65.39.59 00:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, before we go any further with this, it is worth pointing out to the people who think this poll will put the final nail in the coffin, to think again. As wikipedia states A straw poll is not a binding vote, or a way to beat dissenters over the head with the will of the majority. Even if a large number of people vote for one option but some don't, this doesn't mean that that's the "outcome". It means some people are disagreeing, and that has to be addressed.
74.65.39.59 00:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The question to hand is which ordering has consensus support for the opening paragraph of this article:
1. An ordering in which Gary Glitter's convictions for sex crimes are mentioned before his musical career, for example:
2. An ordering where Gary Glitter's musical career is mentioned before his sex crime convictions, for example:
3. Some other arrangement not here specified.
Voters should agree that:
If we're agreed on the phrasing of the question and the matter at hand, voting can begin on 31 March. -- Stlemur 09:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I think a much better solutions would be to word the article like this
Paul Francis Gadd aka Gary Glitter (born May 8, 1944) is an English rock and pop singer and songwriter who has twice been convicted of sexual offences.
He had a string of chart successes with a collection of 1970s glam rock hits including "Rock and Roll parts 1 & 2", "I Love You Love Me Love", "I'm the Leader of the Gang (I Am)" and "Hello, Hello, I'm Back Again". He is currently serving a prison sentence in Vietnam for child sexual abuse.
What does everyone think? 66.251.89.66 22:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Please vote below: Voting opened at 02:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
An ordering in which Gary Glitter's convictions for sex crimes are mentioned before his musical career, for example:
An ordering where Gary Glitter's musical career is mentioned before his sex crime convictions, for example:
An ordering where Gary Glitter's sex crime convictions are mentioned in the opening sentence but first, for example:
Some other phrasing not yet specified
-- John Stumbles 13:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Glitter is NOT "only" known worldwide for rock n roll 2, as some poster claimed. Maybe in the USA, but in many other countries (not just the UK) he charted a lot of records and for almost 30 years was a top star! 74.65.39.59 23:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm snipping the following:
The following year Doctor and the Medics invited Glitter to join them on their television performances, to co-perform their version of Norman Greenbaum's " Spirit in the Sky", redone in something resembling Glitter's signature rave-and-riff style (EDIT, 23.4.07: This was in fact ROY WOOD on this record & NOT Gary Glitter!).
pending a cite. The AllMusic Guide article on the record doesn't provide credit one way or another. -- Stlemur 21:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
i changed the "I belong to you" to "You belong to me" as it should be. someone changed it back. the song is called you belong to me!
Given that all major and most minor disputes have died down, can we now talk about the current revision of the article being a stable version with an eye to making a task-list to bring this up to good article status? -- Stlemur 00:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Web links are notorious for going dead, and they need to be propertly formatted anyway. Please name the author (last/first), title, publication, date, and date accessed, or convert all the current citations using {{ cite web}}. hbdragon88 01:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
If you think he isnt please source your claim, we dont exactly work by consensus, or not consensus alone at any rate, SqueakBox 22:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
The following was removed: "This triggered a debate over how the images were discovered, as it is unclear whether the repair Glitter's machine required would have necessitated access to the hard drive with images being discovered by accident during this, or whether PC World staff accessed the contents of the hard drive when they had no legitimate reason to do so, either as a routine activity performed on all customers' machines, or performed on Glitter's due to his celebrity status." As the computer was turned in due to a fault involving the ability to display images, the repair activity necessitated accessing image files to test whether or not the fault had been rectified. There is no doubt as to the legitimacy of hard drive access in the case. ▫ Urbane Legend chinwag 21:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I've attempted to revert the wholesale deletion of source URLs from this article by User:Taranita in this edit, which rendered all of the associated references uncheckable. As a result, some other recent edits may have been lost: please check the article and bring it up-to-date as necessary. -- Karada ( talk) 08:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
The The Illustrated Rock Handbook, 1983 lists Gadd as born on 8 May 1940 and notes "his birthdate was rumoured to be considerably earlier than that given". Does anyone have conclusive evidence of his actual DoB? DerbyCountyinNZ ( talk) 04:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Alleged? CSA. We cannot say the child sex abuse allegations are alleged as he was convicted under Vietnamese law and it would be bad form to use alleged because of any distrust of Vietnamese justice. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Hardy think for a moment. I think what you are saying is ignorance. So it's "ok" to sleep with a 14 year old if they are sexually aware if you are a rock star? How about joe public? One rule for the famous, another for the everyday person (unless your Gary Glitter, of course) 74.65.39.59 ( talk) 22:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)