This is the
talk page for discussing
Gary Glitter and anything related to its purposes and tasks. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Gary Glitter was a
good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the
good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it,
please do; it may then be
renominated. Review: October 24, 2005. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
[[Category:British male criminals]] [[Category:English criminals|Male]] [[Category:English men|Criminals]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.204.102 ( talk)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
"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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
References to "Child Pornography" should be removed in favour of "images of child sexual abuse". Markdemanbey ( talk) 15:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
Is it appropriate to change to an English convicted sex offender and former glam rock singer? FireDragonValo ( talk) 07:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing
Gary Glitter and anything related to its purposes and tasks. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Gary Glitter was a
good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the
good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it,
please do; it may then be
renominated. Review: October 24, 2005. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
[[Category:British male criminals]] [[Category:English criminals|Male]] [[Category:English men|Criminals]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.204.102 ( talk)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
"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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
References to "Child Pornography" should be removed in favour of "images of child sexual abuse". Markdemanbey ( talk) 15:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
Is it appropriate to change to an English convicted sex offender and former glam rock singer? FireDragonValo ( talk) 07:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)