Talk:Gary Glitter

message: 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)
replies: text: Seems perfectly reasonable. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

text: Note: Marking as answered. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 20:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2017 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: This edit  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  ideally along with  (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  would have been the correct course. 
I initially remove the content . 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 . 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 "" 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  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)
replies: text: Tabloid references not good - WP:BLPSOURCES.--Egghead06 (talk) 10:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: What sources are you actually referring to? Neither Daily Telegraph nor The Evening Standard are primarily known for tabloid journalism per perennial sources, as I outlined above. (The Evening Standard reliability is unclear so should be used with caution, but  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)
replies: text: Should clarify that although I don't really think there is justification to remove the marriage month, I'm not going to actually fight it if someone really feels the need. The year should IMO stay, since it's the sort of basic biographical material which isn't especially contentious or private for a high profile public figure and gives a better idea of the subject than some vague, "he married Ann Murton sometime before 1966 and divorced her in 1972". I'll less object to the removal of the wife's name although other than being in Daily Telegraph it's all over the place so I'm not sure there's any real reason. Nil Einne (talk) 11:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

text: Just realised I had misremembered our text wrong. It actually says something very similar to Evening Standard so it isn't even really CALC but simply whether the text conveys the same meaning. From these examples,    of the article around the time of the publication of the Evening Standard article, it doesn't look like a case of WP:Citogenesis. It could be a WP:close paraphrasing. But I don't know, the's sort of the way to present the content and I wonder how it got into our article anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 10:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done for your work. --MarchOrDie (talk) 12:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early personal life 

message: Category:British male criminals
Male
Criminals
 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.204.102 (talk) 
:This is all covered by Category:English male criminals and I added it. Thanks for pointing it out. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 13:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  categories to be added 

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

text: I was wondering exactly how much a "Movie fortune" is these days. The Grauniad (dutifully quoting The Sun) tells us it's "hundreds of thousands of pounds". But not how many hundreds, of course. Still, as he's resident at HM Prison The Verne ("Britain’s ‘Paedo Alcatraz’ prison where Gary Glitter and 580 sex beasts play giant chess and watch koi carp") at least Mr Tax Man  will be able to get his cut? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the other news articles, eg Yahoo! are repeating what The Sun said, so this is churnalism. The makers of the film must have had to pay something to Glitter (and possibly the estate of Mike Leander) to use the song in the film, but how much is a matter of conjecture. Incidentally, the flight of steps used in the Joker's dance sequence to the tune of "Rock and Roll Part 2" and on the advertising posters are real and are here in the Bronx. This is widely regarded as the key scene in the film, but the use of Glitter's song is controversial.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently Glitter doesn't get paid as he sold the rights over 20 years ago. This isn't unusual, Lionel Bart sold the rights to his work so he didn't get paid either. If the truth be told, "Rock and Roll Part 2" is probably about 90% Mike Leander and 10% Glitter anyway.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Pleased to say I still have my original 7" vinyl BELL 1216 and do not intend to sell the rights! One of the finest pop singles of 1972. .... ah, that John Birch star guitar!! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've said before, nobody has banned "Telstar" because Joe Meek killed his landlady. But Glitter is another matter.-♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Joker'' 

message: 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)
replies: text: It's always a problem when the reliable sources contradict each other. The BBC source here says 16 and is used at Ages_of_consent_in_Asia#Vietnam. The first hand source is Article 145 of the Vietnamese Criminal Code. This says "Any person aged 18 or over who engages in sexual intercourse or other sexual activities with a person aged from 13 to under 16 in cases other than those specified in Article 142 and Article 144 hereof shall face a penalty of 01 - 05 years' imprisonment." This appears to confirm the age of consent as 16.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Ian. So was that Article 145 of the Vietnamese Criminal Code current in 2005? Also - sorry I had already made the change before I saw your response here. I realise we now have conflicting results.  Martinevans123 (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why did you change the article to read 18 as the age of consent? It has just been confirmed that it is 16. I see no consensus to change. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  The first source provided in the article, from the BBC in 2005, is this one. It says:  I thought that was pretty clear. What do you think? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If the truth of the matter is unclear, then the bit about what the age of consent is should be taken out. The accusation is he had sex with young teenagers, but he has only been charged with possessing child pornography. Mentioning the age of consent is trying to make him look more or less guilty of something he has not been charged with. We should report what is known. The age of consent in most of the US is 18, but I have seen statistics that show about half of Americans, male and female, have sex before they turn 18. Since half of Americans are not in jail for that, is it really meaningful? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections to removal. I think the age of consent, if it could be agreed, would still provide useful context for the age of the girl in question. The age of consent in the US, or the UK for that matter, is somewhat irrelevant here, although it does feature in some "sex tourism" cases. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed it for now. My point was the legal age of consent is moot if it is not enforced or only enforced when it gets in the newspaper or it is politically adventitious to enforce it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 00:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the removal because the RS have messed up on this. The current age of consent in Vietnam is probably 16, but what matters is the situation in 2005.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:09, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2019 

message: References to "Child Pornography" should be removed in favour of "images of child sexual abuse". Markdemanbey (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2020 

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

message: 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. 
 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)
replies: text: Thanks to opening a thread here. I think the Monday period was too brief, and the mention in this article too small, to warrant similar usage. I have no intention of reverting you again, although per WP:BRD I think discussion is required here before changing again? I'm prepared to risk the insanity thanks. Happy to hear other views. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad you agree the Monday period was too brief to use the name in Wikipedia's voice. My point is that the Raven period was similarly non-notable; I'm fairly sure that absolutely no-one thinks of him as "Paul Raven", a name under which he was neither famous nor notorious. -- The Anome (talk) 10:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody thinks of him as "Paul Gadd" (except perhaps the CPS). He issued quite a few records as "Paul Raven". Cheers. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an "early work" section, which is a continuation of the "early life" section. Little-known stagenames are neither legal names nor WP:COMMONNAMES, and adopting them on-the-fly makes that article more difficult to understand. Using "Gadd" first, then changing to "Glitter" when the WP:COMMONNAME is adopted makes more sense. -- The Anome (talk) 10:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully understand your point, thanks. But it's been this way for how long?? I think you should respect WP:BRD until a clear new consensus emerges here. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it's been that way for a long time. But I don't see that as consensus generated by discussion but as a flaw in the article that's flown under the radar for too long. If there's been discussion here, or in an RFC, previously that resulted in consensus to support the use of "Raven", I will happily revert my edit. I'd also invite you to replace the word "Prince" with :File:Prince_logo.svg through the parts of the Prince (musician) article dealing with the period  June 7, 1993 to May 13, 2000, for consistency with the use of "Raven" here. -- The Anome (talk) 10:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: One editor's "floor" is another editor's ceiling, I guess. WP:Other Princes exist. As I said, happy to hear other views. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

text: He was known as "Paul Raven" all the way through the 1960s, and was certainly quite well known under that name to followers of British pop music - maybe not passing the threshold of WP "notability" but that is not relevant.   I would suggest a judicious use of the name "Paul Raven" for clarity, and as many uses of the simple "he" as would maintain readers' understanding.  I don't think the use of Gadd in this one section is justifiable in any way.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a big improvement, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tweaked it very slightly to say "Gadd's recording career as Paul Raven stalled": this prevents any confusion caused by using the name Paul Raven directly, and I think we can spare one more use of "Gadd". Part of this might be because this is a sentence that starts off with George Martin as the subject ("Martin produced..."), which meant that using an unfamiliar name for Glitter made me have to think for a second about who the "He" at the beginning of the next sentence could be referring to. Theknightwho (talk) 17:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of surname "Raven" in the article 

message: 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)
replies: text: Could you be more specific? There are snapshots on archive.org of the allmusic Glitter article dating to 2013. One could compare and contrast. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 16:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, which bits did you think were very similar?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:40, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I was looking the "Early work as Paul Raven" section. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't see any glaring copyvio here, but was worried that the entire paragraph beginning "A year later" has no sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:52, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No sure, no coyvio. Just that either one could be a paraphrase of the other. Or can we assume Dave Thompson found everything in better sources? AllMusic never gives sources, does it. Just wondering when that piece was published.  Martinevans123 (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you checked back to see whether earlier versions of this article made inappropriate use of elements of the Allmusic article?  That is the more common problem.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Haven't earlier versions of this article now been corrected to remove any inappropriate use? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  AllMusic biography source 

message: "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)
replies: text: The text follows the BBC source. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If it follows the BBC source to the letter, it should be in quote marks. If it doesn't and is just describing the same events as the source "having sex" can be changed to "molesting" or "raping". 78.150.129.45 (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Graciep1994 78.150.129.45 (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The Guardian says of the February 2015 convictions that Glitter "was found guilty of one count of attempted rape, one count of unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 13, and four counts of indecent assault." Wikipedia goes by what the reliable sources say, not what you think they should say.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tweaked the sentence in the lead section, in line with this and added that source from The Guardian. As these are non-controversial facts, I guess the sourcing could just go in the main body? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2022 

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

message: Is it appropriate to change to an English convicted sex offender and former glam rock singer? FireDragonValo (talk) 07:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not in the infobox. Being a convicted sex offender isn't an occupation. Also, the consensus is to establish why Glitter is notable in the opening sentence. His career as a glam rock singer made the offences notable, not the other way round.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Occupation 

message: 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)
replies: text: Already done MadGuy7023 (talk) 22:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2023 

message: 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)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a source  Plenty more available. 86.187.169.9 (talk) 07:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2023 

message: 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)
replies: text: According to the article he was put back in prison in March 2023.  RudolfRed (talk) 19:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2023