Talk:Gary Glitter/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Delisted GA

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)

Buddhist?

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.

publunch

oh, found it on the bbc using gooogle. Yes, he is/was a Buddhist. publunch

Being a Buddhist is not relevant to his career or activities; to quote Mel Gibson in Air America; "I said I was a Buddhist- I didn't say I was a good one." --Wangpangu (talk) 18:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

Busted!

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)

• I worked a couple of weeks at a computer repair service and I remember that they asked a customer if he/she needed the data restored from the computer (which was expensive) or just components replaced. It's been a long time but most people wanted it restored they didn't want to lose their files. Just guessing he ask for that too. Got to figure it wasn't working or he would not have needed it repaired. The way it is done is with an undo delete type of program and I don't imagine they could help seeing it. I have a similiar program on my computers but I've nothing to hide.-DakotaKahn19:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• This actually happens all the time, because many kinds of computer repair involve looking for corrupt files etc. Find a tech support forum and ask them about it. :) Ashibaka (tock) 21:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Unlikely a "corrupt" JPG needs attention though - David Monniaux is probably right, they were snooping. It's not unreasonable to assume this would be a common occurrence, trawling for interesting tidbits on Joe Blogg's computer, let alone a quasi-celebrity. Makes you wonder why he placed such incriminating material in the hands of strangers. --Paul 14:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Who knows? He may have had a screensaver with kiddie porn or a desktop background with kiddie porn. That would have been seen easily. But, ultimately, it doesn't matter where it is. There's something in the law called "plain view" or "in plain sight." If, for example, you take your car in for repair, and the repairman opens your glove compartment and finds a bloody knife, then notifies the police, who determine it's a murder weapon, you can't plead a defense of, "well, the repairman had no business snooping in my glove compartment." When you surrender control of something, you no longer have that defense. UncleFester 17:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • ACTUALLY, believe it or not, he left a floppy diskette containing images of child pornography in its drive when he handed the PC over to be fixed.

• • • That's very interesting, any source to confirm that?

• • • I'd like to know too.

• • In response to UncleFester above, the "plain view" doctrine arises from a case known as Chimel. The limits on seizure apply only to the police; the police are the ones who cannot poke around. Private entities, such as computer or car repair people, can poke around and then turn over what they have found to the police, without causing evidence found this way to be thrown out of court (unless they were acting as pre-arranged agents for the police). Off-Wiki, you can read about Chimel here [1]; or just go to Chimel v. California inside Wiki, and, for its context, read the section about "without warrant" in Unreasonable search and seizure. Which is a long intro to saying that in, in the United States, Glitter would not have been able to fight the way the computer repair staff turned over what they found to U.S. police. I do not know how this concept is applied, or if it even exists, in Britain, where Glitter was convicted. -- Lisasmall 00:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• • • As someone who worked for the PC World chain at the time, I can tell you that doing jpg and mp3 scans of hard drives was a common pastime for the technical centre staff, out of sheer nosiness, so Glitter's exposure was unsurprising. What DOES surprise me is that the police were called. Normally, PC World managers are a spineless lot who hate any kind of fuss or bother in their stores to frighten the timid customers. Most I knew would just hand the laptop back and say nothing, as often happened if porn was found on a hard drive. I have a good idea that one of the staff themselves called the police, since they arrived at the store unannounced. Also, following the arrest, about a month later, a big memo was sent out about in-store security procedures vis-a-vis police and press liasons. Basically they were now treating any UNAUTHORISED contact with police or press as gross negligence and a sacking offence. All such matters had to be handled by the store manager. Still... it was a catatrophic error on his part to not check his floppy and hard drives before taking it in, and he has paid the price for his illegal activities. Hardylane 04:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes he had photos of children on his pc

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)

Gary Glitter on the run in Vietnam

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.

Conflicting Press Reports About Ages of Alleged Victims in Vietnam

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)

I think your current revision does a good job of explaining the situation. I think we should just leave it at that until the dust settles, so to speak. No need to endlessly report/revert/etc. that the media is confused. --W.marsh 03:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

2005 "Elve's Playground Bangaround"

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.

"Playground Bangaround" was a joke song from the TV show Brasseye. - Stlemur 21:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Career "majorly damaged"

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)

Every major UK retailer still stocks Glitters records, if you go into the larger stores of HMV or Virgin you will see his CD's for sale, the same with all major on-line music sites. In 1999, an HMV spokesman said they would still be stocking Glitters albums to give music fans freedom of choice as they felt it wasn't their place "to play judge and jury". 66.66.161.1 17:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• It is not an understatement. How can you say his carrer has "ended" when he is still making records? Even if only on the net. It's impossible to say that if new records are still being put out. Therefore "majorly damaged" (which can not be seen as an understatement) is much better. Most record shops in the UK (Virgin, HMV..) still stock his Greatest Hits albums and all online retailers (such as Amazon) still sell them too. "Rock And Roll", "Leader Of The Gang" and other hits are still played on the radio and TV from time to time. In the USA "Rock N Roll" is still used heavily at sports events. While his carrer is nowhere near what it was before he was jailed in 1999, it has been "majorly" damaged. To say you don't think that is right is merely your POV and if this isn't good enough then the whole sentence should be deleted from the text, not reworded to fit your own personal views.

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 future205.188.117.66 18:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

How did this happen exactly?

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)

Sure, obviously money/fame must play a big role, most teenage girls aren't running around with creepy old skeazebags just because they can't find something better. But what I'm wondering is whether these girls were already professional sex workers before their liaison with Glitter, or not. Also, how did this get reported to the authorities? Dsol 15:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I imagine it was the News of the World who alerted the authorities, SqueakBox 02:21, 4 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?

Firstly; I think it's slightly dodgy to be dragging Roman Polanski into a discussion about Garry Glitter. There is not a consensus that sex with an underage girl is necessarily pedophillia ( which could be defined as sexual desire for children- Roman Polanski slept with a sexually mature yet legally underage girl). I must point out that I do not condone older men sleeping with younger teenagers- my personal opinion is that this kind of behaviour is predatory in the extreme and rightfully illegal in every right-thinking society. Secondly; can you please at least try to make your posts legible; especially when writing on a sensitive and easily misrepresented subject such as this.--Wangpangu (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Baby, please dont go

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.

Forgive a belated response here but to clarify our anonymous friend's remarks above, it is an old song and Glitter did do it before the aforementioned acts. Specifically, however, it's credited to Big Joe Williams in 1935 and, before Glitter, it was famously covered by Them with Van Morrison in 1964.

God, talk about hoist on your own petard - the immediately preceding anon. editor was yours truly on 9 Apr 06...  ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose 00:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

In reply to this other anon. editor, it should be said Glitters version was/is still popular as well. Don 9:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Doctoring The Tardis

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)

Removed titillation

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)

I put that description back. Unpleasant as it may seem, it is necessary as this is why Glitter was brought to court. That makes it relevant. --Damac 01:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It reads more like tabloid titillation to me. If you want to write a court report, fine, but simply extracting the kinky bits isn't writing an encyclopaedia, it's tabloid journalism. --Mike 12:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it appeared in the Independent. Tabloid in format but hardly in content. --Damac 22:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

this entire article is extremely poorly written

Improve it then, seeing as you seem to know what's better.

I've removed it again and will continue to do so.Jake b 18:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed once again. Hardly essential. PAT

It should be included. It's not titillation; it's fact, well-referenced and descriptive of what Gary Glitter did to earn himself his current prison sentence. As to whether it's "essential", the question of what is and is not an essential encyclopedic fact is irresoluble and not germane. Gary Glitter has, by a court of law, been convicted of a criminal act; it is entirely reasonable and proper to specify just what that act was. I note that the article on Rober Downey Jr. even goes so far as to specify what kind of heroin Downey possessed. --Stlemur 00:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The explicit and (in my view) unnecessary gory details remind me of the title of Carol Burnett's mock soap opera: "As the Stomach Turns". Wahkeenah 04:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It is unnecessary. It's not the same as specifying heroin. It's not needed, it serves no purpose here (as most people talking seem to agree). It serves no purpose even as an educational tool. This article has already enough depth on Glitter's crimes, certainly enough to get the picture. There is no need for anything else, I don't think many people want to read about him jerking off on to a teenage girls breasts. 69.204.6.21 12:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

This isn't just an article on Gary Glitter the singer, it's an article on Gary Glitter the convicted serial pedophile. They're the same person, and there's no two ways around that. As for an article on the court case itself, such is a possibility; but if such an article were written and was a stub, then it would be perfectly reasonable to merge it back into this article, with all its content. As such, therefore, it is reasonable to say that including material on what Glitter did in this article at least until a full article on the court case exists. --Stlemur 14:36, 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)

I happen to have a copy of a bio of Buddy Holly which goes into graphic detail about what physically happens to someone when they crash in a small airplane. I suppose I could add info to the Holly article about how all of its singers' heads cracked open like eggs upon impact, but what would be the point, other than to help turn this so-called encyclopedia into the National Inquirer? Wahkeenah 16:47, 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)

I've often heard it reported that "the King died on the 'throne'", a fact only hinted at in the article. I'm sure adding that more specific info would enhance both the article and wikipedia's reputation. Wahkeenah 17:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

That analogy is patently spurious in two ways: the first is that you're discussing deaths, not acts of molestation; and the other is that you're referring to the causes of death in both those cases in a generic fashion, rather than what specifically happened; compare the details of the death of Isadora Duncan.

Indeed, I'm looking at the article on Elvis Presley now: Dr. Willis Madrey, who had examined Elvis's liver in 1975, said, "I had understood he was having some gastrointestinal problems his doctors were trying to evaluate." Most likely, he was referring to Elvis' enlarged colon, which worsened over time and may have led to diverticulitis. It is believed that possibly his gastrointestinal problems, combined with a weak heart, caused his death; however, since the autopsy records will not be in the public domain until 2027, we will not know with certainty yet. It is a lasting theory, though never confirmed, that he died on the toilet, defecating.... and it goes on. --Stlemur 17:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The cause of death of Holly and his flying companions is not generic, it is just my quick and sufficiently visual summary of what the book explains in much more graphic detail, taken from the accident reports. Your argument primarily seems to be that "acts of molestation" is inadequate; that you need to spell it out, for the benefit of those readers who are so stupid they couldn't pour water out of a boot with the instructions written on the heel. Wahkeenah 18:13, 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)

Glitter's Allegations

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.

If he's been convicted of it, it's no longer an allegation. --Stlemur 12:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

Well, all it means is that he was convicted of the offences with which he was charged. It doesn't auomatically mean that 100% of what was claimed at the trial was 100% accurate, but that enough of what was claimed was accurate and convincing enough for him to be found guilty. Balance of probabilities, beyond reasonable doubt, etc. --Mike 16:20, 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)

He was convicted. It's not an allegation. He can protest his conviction and claim he didn't do it. But the fact is, and in a strictly NPOV way, it is no longer an "allegation".Jake b 18:44, 9 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".

Glitter's Music

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)

Autobiography

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)

-ON-

does anyone here own the CD?

You can still buy it on the UK website of ebay.

Cambodia

I clarified details of his Cambodian stay based on these two articles, from non-tabloid sources, specifically the CBC and BBC:

The government expelled him in 2002, arguing that he was "a threat to the security of a country and to the national image of Cambodia." [2]

Glitter was convicted of possessing child pornography in Britain in 1999 and served half of a four-month jail sentence. He later went to Cambodia, which permanently expelled him in December 2002. He had been held in jail for three nights over suspected sex offences, but never convicted of a crime in Cambodia. Glitter had previously left the country voluntarily in May that year, following a police investigation prompted by news of his child pornography conviction in the UK.[3]

-- Lisasmall 00:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Subsections

Should Glitter Denies Wrong Doing be a subsubsection of 2005-06 Vietnam underage-sex arrest and conviction? --Stlemur 15:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Dates

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)

Hey Song - royalties

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? Rogerthat ^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)

Well, if he does still have money that bodes well for his appeal because the Vietnamese government is pretty corrupt... A little cash-ola and a one-way ticket to someplace else. Jake b 23:12, 14 June 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)

Appeal

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)

Citing a source with this stuff would be good, after all Wikipedia articles are not for conjecture and opinion, rather they're for summarizing published information. --W.marsh 21:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of this appeal anyone have any information on it to add as it has now meant to have begun? I can't find any myself 74.65.39.59 02:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Your collection

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.

"G.G" is a classic album. "Satan's Daughter" is a gem. "I'll Carry Your Picture (Everywhere)" is also another good one. 74.65.39.59 18:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Rewriting history?

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)

• You are totally correct. I noticed that too with "Life On Mars". OK, I don't expect them to "showcase" Glitter's music as such, or even mention him, but they could at least have put it on the background in a pub or coming for a car radio just as a nod. If you were hanging around in 1973 you wouldn't be able to escape Glitter, he was the biggest pop star that year, selling more singles than any other artist. It would be like traveling back to the mid to late 60s and not hearing anything by The Beatles. Moreover, between 1972 and 1999 he was one of the biggest stars ever seen, his tours were simply huge (no matter how much some have since tried to play down his success). Between 1973 and 1977, Glitter was one of the highest paid musicians in the world. This happened again in the 1990s when he was paid close to 500,000 pounds a year just for his two-three month UK tour. There is no denying Glitter's success in the music world was tremendous 74.65.39.59 17:50, 4 October 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.

• Slade were only slightly "more popular" in the Glam Era. Don't recall them having a record than sold more than a million in less than two weeks, not even the Christmas hit sold that fast. Glitter was a much bigger live attraction than Slade in the post-glam years too and was more in demand on TV shows as well. 74.65.39.59 11:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Comeback as new host of Top Of The Pops?

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.

shame

This is a laughable suggestion. 80.47.228.177 21:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Spurious cuts

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)

Not by reliable sources, as far as I'm aware. --Stlemur 10:23, 1 November 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)

Convicton in opening

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)

Your premise is flawed. Mentioning it in the lead section is good enough to maintain NPOV. This is POV. --GentlemanGhost 13:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction

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.

Opening

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)

Nonsence. If he had just been joe public with some child porn, rather than a singer with a four decade carrer before that, I doubt there would even be an article about him on wikipedia. The media attention was because he was a famous singer. The only reason this got an attention at all in the USA was because "The Hey Song" was known as a hit record. His most notable claim to being known is as a singer and songwriter, the crime only became world news because of his status as a pop star 74.65.39.59 13:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

He is not known as a paedophile; what he is known for is having been convicted for child sexual abuse. We are indeed writing an encyclopedia, and should strive for correctness in terms. Clayboy 22:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, SqueakBox 22:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree and protest most strongly. If is fine then why dosen't OJ Simpsons article open by saying "OJ Simpson is a man who was found liable for the death of his wife by a civil court". He is clearly known much more for this event throughout the world today than anything else he did in the past. 74.65.39.59 13:55, 13 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)

That's not the same thing at all. That is Tony Blair's career not private life. Also, you say OJ was "never found gulity". That is a non-defence. I never said he was found guilty. My point was he was found liable by a non-criminal court. Therefore gulity or not it dosen't matter. It's got nothing to do with sympathy. This is wikipedia, not wikitabloid. If Glitter's article is going to mention crime before carrer then it should be the same for OJ (again, I never said he was guilty, but he was found liable by a cival court) and everyone else. However this approach will do nothing for wikipedia, other than to turn into into The Sun 74.65.39.59 00:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with that. Glitter is famous as a pop-star - as a child molester he is totally non-notable, and no different from thousands of other people convicted of child sex-crimes. Although the article is quite right to discuss his convinctions I believe the opening paragraph should decribe him as a singer who was convicted of sex crimes. More people know of him as a musician than a paedophile. Pontificake 17:19, 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)

That is nonsence. Where did you get this ridiculous figure of 20-30 more people? Mere guess work/assumption on your part. Nothing factual. It seems know very little about Gary Glitter yourself and with your knowlege of the subject you surley should not be telling others how the article should be written. What do you mean Glitter wasn't famous outside of the UK? I guess 16 top 10 hits in Aus (not to mention the concert in the 1970s there where he played to a crowd of over 100,000 fans) and the 9 months Rock N Roll (Part One) spent at #1 in France aren't considerd success? Then there are all the artists who coverd Glitter's songs and had hits with them all over the world. Glitter himself was a lot more successful outside the UK than you seem to believe 74.65.39.59 00:50, 15 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)

I don't need to assume good faith when you have shown and proven how little you know. You already said "outside the UK he was barley known" when that clearly isn't the case when global charts and concert attendances are looked at. No-one here has show any support for your edit and i'm not suprised. Again, this is not a tabloid and the reason Gltter has an article (espically one at such great lenght) is because of his achivements in the rock and pop world, the crimes are obviosuly notable but only as notable because of the previous achievments. Indeed if someone who worked ta the British post office as a clark had commited the same crime, I doubt they'd even have a wikipedia page 74.65.39.59 12:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that there is a fairly clear consensus here for refering to Glitter as a pop-singer first, and sex-offender second. If Glitter had not committed the sex offences he would still merit a wiki entry, but if he had not been a pop star he would not. Pontificake 17:19, 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)

The previous version (to which I've reverted) already mentioned both his music and his sexual offences. Cheers, Ian Rose 12:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes but it is the order and the notability that are being disputed. The claims of the anti-in-the-first-sentence editors that they have consensus is not reflected either on this talk page or in the edit history. x's point is mine exactly. We cannot pretend he is only notable as a pop star, that misleads our readers, which I consider unacceptable. And as far as BLP goes Glitter brought all this on himself, SqueakBox 15:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Squeakbox, we're going round in circles here. No-one is 'pretending' he's only notable as a pop star as you're claiming above. The first para mentions it, the entire third para is devoted to it. Your claims of misleading bias do not hold water. And please do not make unfounded accusations regarding 'anti-vandalism terminology' and alleged personal attacks, as you've done in a recent edit summary on this article. 'Rv' is simply shorthand for 'revert', not 'revert vandalism' as you seem to be implying - that's 'rvv'. Cheers, Ian Rose 17:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Tag

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)

SqueakBox, I think you are the only editor who has come out in favour of Glitter being described as a sex-offender first and musician second. I am certainly not a 'Glitter fanatic', and only came across this article due to vandalism.

Unfortunately your latest edit to the intro directly contradicts the main article. However, I am going to leave it for the time being until other editors have had their say. Pontificake 18:32, 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)

Wikipedia is not here to give either a friendly or unfriendly reception to paedophiles. It is here to provide a source for NPOV encyclopaedic articles. I stand by my claim that he is a pop-star first and sex-offender second. If it were not for the first, he would be entirely non-notable, and like many thousands of other men who travel to the Far East for perverted pleasure. No-one is asking for the reference to his conviction to be removed from the intro, but that it comes after being a pop-star.

You claim that 'his career ceased with the first charges', but the article describes several new singles, and a new studio album after his first conviction. I don't think that tallies with a 'ceased' career. Pontificake 18:48, 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 do. Musically he was great. But that is just my own opinion. Besides using the most successful artists in music history is a bit silly. If you used Noddy Holder as your example rather than McCartney, you're argument wouldn't carry much weight.

That all aside, as it certianlly shows no reason why we should go with the edit you are proposing The fact remains, Glitter is still notable as a pop star first and criminal second, in that the fgact he was a pop star made these crimes more newsworthy. In your origanal argument you even admitted that yourself. 74.65.39.59 23:09, 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)

SqueakBox, as reluctant as I am to disagree with someone who said nice things about me earlier, I find myself on the opposite side of the fence on this issue. Your use of the word "disgraced" is extremely POV and I'm surprised that you don't see that. Gary Glitter may indeed be a horrible person, but it's not up to us as Wikipedia editors to make value judgements such as that. If you want to cite someone who calls him a disgrace, I think that would be more encyclopedic than making that call yourself. Moreover, he did achieve fame as a singer, without which his sex offenses would not be nearly so notorious. So, I agree with the others here: pop star first, sex offender second. If we didn't mention the sex crimes at all, that would be covering up for Mr. Glitter. But to say that we defend his actions because we wait until the second sentence of the article to mention these crimes is hyperbole. The argument just doesn't hold water. --GentlemanGhost 23:15, 15 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)

Citation

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

Rhyming Slang

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)

Wikipedia is not the Urban Dictionary. Clayboy 11:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This is true, but James Blunt and Pete Tong have rhyming slang in their main article, therefore Gary should be included too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.74.75.151 (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

"Gary Glitter" was never rhyming slang for arse (shitter) until after he was convicted. His name became rhyming slang because of his convictions. 74.65.39.59 22:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"Gary Glitter was never rhyming slang for arse (shitter) until after he was convicted". This is untrue, Glitter's association with the toilet and of the anus was prevelant in rhyming slang long before it be known of his meanderings into child molestation. For example, I once saw an erotic film back in 1991 where the female protagonist instists to her lover to penetrate her anally using the words "Ohh, ohh, fuck me up the Gary Glitter, you dirty bastard, ohh, ohh! In the Glitter, in the Glitter!". The two leads were both cockneys, so I presume this is how they'd refer to sodomy in the colloquial. I believe the phrase is quite pertinent to Glitter's relavence in the area of sociolinguistics. 91.110.248.129 (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I've entered it into the main article under the "Trivia" section. Whether it has anything to do with his convictions is purely speculative, as far as I know Mr Glitter has not been charged with buggery or anything remotely anus related. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.74.75.151 (talk) 10:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

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)

There are millions of sources available by typing in "gary glitter" and "shitter" into the Google. However, Mr Squeaky, for your benefit it can be found in Roger's Profanisaurus a leading compendium of profanity published in 1998. OK? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.74.75.151 (talk) 17:26, 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)

Please quote the violation from WP:BLP that says it is not allowed. Be aware that there are other biographies that have similar entries as previously stated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.74.75.151 (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

These require a degree of sensitivity is one, SqueakBox 23:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Pretty vague then. If nobody else objects in the next few days I will add it back in. TwatBox 23:18, 14 Febuary 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

Child sex abuse

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)

Which does not explain why you reverted mention of his most well-known song. Following the standard of almost every biographical article, it would follow that "Rock and Roll, Part II" be mentioned, especially because in places like the United States this is pretty much all he was known for until the arrests. RoyBatty42 18:26, 22 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 NUMBER ONE

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)

NPOV Tag

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)

It might be the more notable fact now but thats not why he is notable without his music career he would be just another person so that is why that is mentioned first. DXRAW 19:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont object to him being mentioned as a musician first but it is notable enough to come before the details of his best songs, SqueakBox 15:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox, it's clear you feel strongly about this but please remember that you don't have a mortgage on morality. I believe that the opening paragraph as it stands is a reasonable compromise between his musical achievements and his criminal notoriety. Yes, the music is mentioned first but it is now qualified, as in "best-known artistically for..." rather than simply "best-known for..." his music. This qualification balances the secondary mention of his sexual offences. The bottom line is that both are in the first paragraph. I'll also wait for further opinions but I strongly suggest that the current wording is reasonable and that the NPOV tag should go. Cheers, Ian Rose 11:05, 12 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)

He may be the world's most famous child abuser because of his music career but that doesnt not make him the world's most famous child abuser, SqueakBox 18:18, 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)

Can you please source this claim. BTW dont remove the tag and keeop the disputed material inplace as that would be like having your cake and eating it. in the earlier debate mine was the consensus version and I need so evidence that a version thaty minimises even more his crinminality is consensualised, SqueakBox 20:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox I fail to see how yours was the consensus version. What i see is Ian Rose, 66.251.89.66, 74.65.39.59 & myself have the consensus. Can you please explain what you feel that the problem is and your reasons for adding the npov tag against consensus. DXRAW 20:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that the current cut of the article doesn't warrant the POV tag. --Stlemur 21:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I see no need for the POV tag either Pontificake 22:52, 18 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

Please either accept my changes or acceptt he NPOV tag. We should have his conviction before listing his hits. I would put it before his being an artist but my compromise is to put the artist bit first. There clearly is a dispute and it is considered bad form to remove a tag while insisting that the disputed version remain. there is clearly no consensus that there is no dispute or about how to resolve the dispute, 21:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)SqueakBox

Are we to tag all articles where one person disagrees with everyone else as NPOV? Other than SqueakBox I see no-one else supporting the NPOV tag. Pontificake 22:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

SqueakBox please read WP:OWN If i am reading you correctly you think that Garry is more notable because of his sex offenses but in fact it is his music that he is more notable for and thus if he did not have the music then he would be just some random with sex offenses. Yes i agree there is a dispute but the dispute is between you & the other editors that have the consensus that the current page should stay the same. You & a WP:SPA are the only ones that want that version. Also how is the order of it POV? DXRAW 22:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

We have had this argument before and clearly a number of ediotrs believe that he is more notable for being a sex offendor thought he reality is that what makes him so notable (in terms of editing far more so than his greta rivals at T Rex sweet, Slade etc) is that he is a paedophile pop star. I dont think it an exagerration to say the most famous paedophile in the world, 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)

I still don't see as well as the other editors why the NPOV tag should be there. I will remove it on Wednesday if there is no evidence showing that it should remain. DXRAW 01:10, 20 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)

What do you mean evidence. This isnt a scientific expperiment. Why do you keep removing the tag. This is very poor form on your part, tags are there to reflect a neutrality dispute whereas you want an unneutral version and keep the tag ou and endlessly edit war in order to get your way. This is not the way wikipedia works, SqueakBox 20:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

All the other editors that have contributed to this discussion have not seen any NPOV in the article. I keep on removing the tag as there is no need for the tag to be there. DXRAW 20:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Totally not true though you have attempted to remove comments form users who disgaree with you, eg [8]. Also [User:Daveegan06]] supports my stance etc etc. You claim thaty I am alonme in my view in defiance of the facts because you want a POV article without a POV tag on it nand you revert any attempt to neutralise the article. I dont see this behaviour as being acceptable especially givenm you censore the comments of those in disagreement with you and then claim everyone is in agreement with you, SqueakBox 21:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

That is a unsigned comment made by a WP:SPA DXRAW 02:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to even bother replying to your other incorrect statments. DXRAW 08:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

So now new users arent allowed to comment on talk pages. Ill remember that one. User:Greatgallsoffire

They are allowed to comment on talk pages but when there only edits are in the middle of a pov dispute then it looks like a possible sockpuppet. DXRAW 04:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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. --TheOtherBob 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)

Opening: Straw poll

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:

Paul Francis Gadd aka Gary Glitter (born May 8 1944) is a twice convicted paedophile sex offender whose crimes have achieved worldwide notoriety as he was an English rock and pop singer and songwriter who 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.

Paul Francis Gadd aka Gary Glitter (born May 8 1944) is an English rock and pop singer and songwriter who 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.

I myself will be taking a break from editing this page for a day or so. --Stlemur 16:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a poll would help. Should the above be named as option 1 and option 2 for voting purposes? Pontificake 16:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Eventually, but first we all need to agree what we're voting on. --Stlemur 16:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Tks for initiating this, Stlemur, in the absence of any other obvious route to agreement. It's also my understanding based on all the reversions that these alternatives are what we'd be voting on. Cheers, Ian Rose 17:12, 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)

This is all true, 74.65.39.59, and I doubt that people are under any illusions here. A vote is not binding and is probably redundant in itself on this occasion, but those disagreeing with the majority need to articulate the specific outcome that they are aiming for and a couple of clear options like the ones put by Stlemur are a start - though I agree with your point re. 'twice convicted paedophile sex offender'. Even as an alternative opening I'd suggest it should be reworded to either 'twice-convicted sex offender' or 'convicted paedophile'. Cheers, Ian Rose 00:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll question

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:

Paul Francis Gadd aka Gary Glitter (born May 8 1944) is a twice convicted paedophile sex offender whose crimes have achieved worldwide notoriety as he was an English rock and pop singer and songwriter who 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.

2. An ordering where Gary Glitter's musical career is mentioned before his sex crime convictions, for example:

Paul Francis Gadd aka Gary Glitter (born May 8 1944) is an English rock and pop singer and songwriter who 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.

3. Some other arrangement not here specified.

Voters should agree that:

• the result of this vote is non-binding;
• edit warring over the introductory paragraph is detrimental to goodwill, to a spirit of collaboration, and ultimately to the quality of the article, and therefore if a clear consensus is reflected in the result then all of us should uphold that consensus;
• nobody here disputes that Gary Glitter had a series of musical hits, or that he has been convicted and accused of sex offenses on many occasions; and both of these facts should be in the opening paragraph

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 support this straw poll as outlined, SqueakBox 16:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Voting is evil, and I'm not likely to be around to vote in a few days anyways (out of town) - but if we must, option 2 would be mine for the reasons I cited above. --TheOtherBob 20:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Evil maybe but a necessary evil, SqueakBox 20:30, 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)

I think it looks good. Its important to get the sex offences in the opening sentence but I can live with it coming after the English rock and pop singer and songwriter, SqueakBox 23:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

This would work best I think. It would be a solution and avoid a long going debate before and after the poll. 74.65.39.59 01:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Option 2 is still my preference but I'm happy to support this compromise to avoid further delays in getting a stable opening paragraph. Cheers, Ian Rose 08:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Disagree I do not support that version. DXRAW 08:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Vote

Please vote below: Voting opened at 02:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Option 1

An ordering in which Gary Glitter's convictions for sex crimes are mentioned before his musical career, for example:

Paul Francis Gadd aka Gary Glitter (born May 8 1944) is a twice convicted paedophile sex offender whose crimes have achieved worldwide notoriety as he was an English rock and pop singer and songwriter who 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.

Option 2

An ordering where Gary Glitter's musical career is mentioned before his sex crime convictions, for example:

Paul Francis Gadd aka Gary Glitter (born May 8 1944) is an English rock and pop singer and songwriter who 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.

Option 3

An ordering where Gary Glitter's sex crime convictions are mentioned in the opening sentence but first, for example:

Paul Francis Gadd aka Gary Glitter (born May 8, 1944) is an 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.

Option 4

Some other phrasing not yet specified

Option 2 votes

• Support DXRAW 15:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Option 2 (or variant thereof). For what a vote is worth, the notability is derived from singing, not paedophilia. The question to be asked is would Gadd be notable as only a paedophile? Probably not. --Richhoncho 06:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Option 2 - and a re-write to make the opening section more focussed. I suggest:

Paul Francis Gadd aka Gary Glitter (born May 8 1944) is an English rock and pop singer/songwriter who had a series of glam rock chart hits during the 1970s and 1980s. He acquired notoriety in 1999 with a conviction for child pornography and is currently serving a prison sentence for child sexual abuse.

OPPOSE (only this wording, as Rock & Roll part II needs to be mentioned as it is the song he is foremost associated with worldwide and took on a second life as a sports anthem). RoyBatty42 16:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I proposed moving the names of hits into the 2nd para of the opening, not dropping them. (And FWIW on this side of the pond he was better known for "Leader of the Gang") --John Stumbles 12:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Glitter first acheived success .... career summary here ...

In 1999 ... sex abuse summary here...

--John Stumbles 13:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

He acquired notoriety way before 1999 DXRAW 00:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Option 2 --Stlemur 14:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Option 2 Pontificake 15:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Option 2 (first wording) RoyBatty42 16:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Option 3 votes

1. Support as sex stuff notable enough to warrant inclusion in openiong sentence and unlike options 1 and 3 this is a compromise, SqueakBox 15:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Support. While I don't care if the "sex stuff" is mentioned in the first line or not, I am willing to compromise here. 14:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.39.59 (talk • contribs)
3. Support. Is a convicted sex offender. Nuff saidGreatgallsoffire 18:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Support.00:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Results

• Option 2 - 6 votes
• Option 3 - 4 votes

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)

Credits on "Spirit in the sky"

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)

Silver Star

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!

June 2007 -- stable article

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)

Citations are not properly formatted. While GA isn't the perfection of FA, they should still be cleaned up. It's not easily verifable if read offline or if the links go dead. hbdragon88 04:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

He is certainly notable, SqueakBox 23:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

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)

Paedophile

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)

Corrected paragraph re: access of hard drive

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)

May I ask what source or proof exists to make this statement fact? "The computer had been turned in for repair as it had become been unable to display JPEG images." The only people who will know this are the PC World technical staff, and unless they directly come forward to attest to this, this should be treated as dubious facts, especially if the "source" was any of the managers at the store, who have been covering their behinds about this story since it started. I feel uncomfortable about placing what appears to be management spin as a piece of evidence. Please see my entry on this page under "Busted", for some more salient facts. Hardylane 10:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The arresting officer is a personal contact of mine. However, the details of the arrest are a matter of public record, as are the statements of Gadd, the arresting officer and PC World employees, and can be verified independently. ▫ Urbane Legend ^chinwag 15:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This sounds HIGHLY implausable; that Glitter would take his laptop into the store to fix a problem with displaying images, and yet having hundreds of illegal images on it? This would indicate either an extreme act of stupidity, or a desire to be captured and punished. I still maintain that the nosiness of PC World employees, perhaps due to his stardom, is far more likely to be the cause of the images coming to light. Statements given to the contrary were perhaps "suggested" by the store manager, eager to transfer culpability for the invasion of privacy. As I said before, the company-wide directive issued soon afterwards was clearly a panic-driven attempt to ensure that such an event would never re-occur. Because of the way that this company operates, it is therefore almost impossible to actually discover the truth in this case. Hardylane 03:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You may find it implausible, but as you say, people do do stupid things. You have no evidence that the store manager suggested that his/her staff make bogus statements to cover up an alleged invasion of privacy. You have no evidence to back up your assumptions about the characters of any of the involved parties. Your speculation that PC World employees acessed the images through curiosity is just that: speculation. The court record states otherwise, and Wikipedia is not a forum for speculation. ▫ Urbane Legend ^chinwag 23:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have very personal experience of PC World management training, and of technical centre staff habits. That makes my opinion valid. However, it is just an opinion. I think that truth is probably one of the last things that will ever emerge from such a situation. Hardylane (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of URLs by User:Taranita

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)

While I understand what you're attempting to do, it might be an idea to discuss here first in future - a surgical restoration of the URLs in question might have been deemed preferable to wholesale reversion to a months-old version followed by a lot of updates. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Age

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

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)

Whether individuals believe or not believe he is an abuser (and there's plenty of opinion either way), the fact that a recognised court of justice has found him guilty means that Wikipedia, too, must abide by those convictions as fact.... as squeakbox says... Hardylane (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think each and every rock and roll star in the world has slept with underaged girls. Fans just go backstage and do crazy things, you know? Gary Glitter is only guilty of being an 80's rockstar. But if there was justice in this world, each and every rock star from the mega concerts era, from all the K.I.S.S. members to Slash and Axl Rose should be convicted for pedophilia charges. 66.249.193.28 (talk)

Wow...That shows amazing ignorance. The whole issue of under-age sex is a difficult issue. Many girls of 14 and 15 are highly sexually aware, because our culture promotes it in the media. The age of legal consent is 16, but I'd hazard a guess that a great many girls, and boys, under that age have had sex. Perhaps even with a boy of 16 or 17... which by absolute definition is illegal. Would you call it paedophilia? I think not. Paedophilia is the persistant pursuit and sexual attraction to young children. Gary Glitter kept images of very young girls on his laptop. That is, technically, paedophilia, whether he acted upon his "peccadillos" or not. You have to be more careful with such sweeping generalisations. Hardylane (talk) 18:23, 19 May 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)