Talk:Neil Gaiman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as b-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

	comics Portal This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Help with current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project talk page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
More information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related work groups (general): Comics creators work group Related work groups (nations and regions): British comics work group

	This article is part of WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to children's and young adult literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project. Children and Young Adult Literature Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Tasks you can do: WikiProject Children's Literature Open Tasks Here are some open tasks for WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to create and standardize articles related to Children's literature. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks. Update: Author Biography articles and write about new books written for children Expand: articles in the Demonata series by Darren Shan Create new articles relating to Children's Literature Add this template ( {{Children'sLiteratureWikiProject}} ) to the talk pages of articles relating to Children's Literature. Expand and Edit Portal:Children and Young Adult Literature Cooperate with Wikipedians belonged to similar WikiProjects Discuss matters involving Children's literature on this wikiproject's talk page Cleanup the Philip Ardagh article. edit

Contents 1 The Gaim 2 Gaiman and Science Fiction 3 Pronunciation 4 Photos 5 Australian law 6 Father 7 Movie Reviews? 8 Open Rights Group 9 Recent Edit 10 Better Structure 11 Sandman: TEN volumes 12 Status of Miracleman Lawsuit??? 13 Firebird 14 Inspired by Fritz Leiber? 15 Death Movie 16 Reference to a book 17 Proposed split 18 Jewish 19 "New Fabulist" 20 Gene Wolfe 21 2000AD creator 22 Religion Classes 23 Scientology 24 Source citations 25 Policy reminder 26 Possible reference found 27 Residence 28 autograph 29 Another image. 30 Vagina Dentata 31 Scientology redux 32 Doctor Who 33 Shakespeare References

[edit] The Gaim

I would like a reference on this allegation that Strazinsky has alleged that the masks of the "Gaim" on his Babylon 5 series were NOT based on the Sandman mask? I find it extremely hard to believe that a race of aliens called "THE GAIM" bearing a mask that looks nearly identical to the Sandman mask were not intentionally created as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.222.59.191 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 27 June 2004 (UTC)

Without digging too deeply into the matter, I would point out that one of Gaiman's goals with the Dream mask was to resemble the gas mask worn by the Golden Age Sandman, and thus the similarities could be due to the common source of WW2 gas masks... Snowspinner 02:46, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

As I understand it, they were created as just another alien species. Maybe the makeup folks had Dream in mind, maybe they had Dodds in mind, or maybe it was just coincidence. Then someone noticed the similarity and nicknamed them; the name stuck and was made official. --Tverbeek 13:35, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I removed the categories classifying Gaimain as a cartoonist and comics artist, because he doesn't do either of those professionally. Yes, he can draw OK, he reportedly doodles every script he writes, and he's allowed one self-drawn comic (done as a creative challenge) to be published, but he's not known for drawing, any more than I am known as a stage actor. --Tverbeek 13:35, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Gaiman and Science Fiction

I would argue that the first paragraph should not mention science fiction, as (apart from the one Babylon 5 episode) Gaiman has never really been involved in SF. I would like to change this to something like 'fantasy and horror'. I don't want to step on anyone's toes though so let me know if you disagree!--Dreamday 20:58, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Some people consider superheroes to be a form of SF, and he's done some work in spandex (the characters, not him) that isn't really "horror" or "fantasy". He's won a few SF awards, I believe. But you're right; he's not generally known as a "sci fi writer". If I had to peg a genre on him I'd say "fantasy" but note that he routinely works in the adjacent/overlapping genres of SF, supers, horror, and kid lit. Tverbeek 16:01, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Check out the collection Smoke and Mirrors. Several of those stories could be considered sci-fi, although granted, not exactly -hard- sci-fi. This is far from the only time he's done scifi, mind.

How about calling him a Speculative Fiction & Fantasy/Horror writer?? Coraline DEFINITELY counts as horror if its affect on my nephew is anything to go by 8-) chrisboote 08:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

Does anyone know how to pronounce his last name? Perhaps it's obvious with a British accent, but it's not at all self-evident to me. grendel|khan 09:17, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)

I still tend pronounce the first syllable "Guy", having long done so, nearly rhyming it with "Diamond" but by most accounts it seems to be pronounced like "Gay"; I might have even heard him pronounce it like that in a sound file once, but am not certain of that. ~ Rumour 09:59, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: When, in 1997, he was accepting an award from GLAAD for his comic Death: The Time of Your Life, he commented that it was the first time he had ever heard people cheering the correct pronunciation of his last name. :-) So yes, it's pronounced "gay-man." (or "gaymun," depending) --Ray Radlein 10:05, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

It seems many people are skittish about pronouncing his name that way, because of what it sorta sounds like, but A) that doesn't seem to bother him, and B) it's correct. It rhymes with Cayman (as in Cayman Islands) and is roughly homophonous with gamin' (casual pronunciation of the gerund form of the verb to game). Tverbeek 16:12, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Or we could, instead of speculating, consult Mr. Gaiman. :-) http://www.neilgaiman.com/faqs/ongaimanfaq/ Koyaanis Qatsi 23:28, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Although lovely, that apostrophe between the [m] and the [n] isn't IPA. It should probably be [?], [?] or syllabic [n.]. --Peter Farago 21:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I do recall interviews with him on the MirrorMask dvd and he was relating a story to how he ended up involved with Princess Mononoke. He said something to the effect they went to Quentin Tarantino for translation and he said "No you want Gaiman." He pronounced his own name to something to the effect of Gay-man. I guess he would be the best source for the pronunciation of his own name, but I could be wrong - I'm not sure the exact pronunciation of my own last name nor even where it's from.Abrynkus 20:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

With the recent addition and shuffling and placement of photos, I'm beginning to feel like I'm watching a teenage girl decorating her room. :) Seriously, the article only needs one good portrait of the subject, and maybe another "action" shot of him (e.g. at a convention). Maybe if he were older, "Young Neil" and "Old Neil" photos would be appropriate, but anything more than that is redundant. Tverbeek 17:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles change and improve, and mostly for the better. (Which reminds me -- can someone find some decent photos of me that aren't me blinking in the middle of a booksigning for the Wiki entry on me?) [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koyaanis Qatsi (talk • contribs) 18:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

So that's what's happened! Unfortunately he didn't point out (not that he should have to) that the photos have to abide by Wikipedia policy, and copyright law. I've removed the apparent and likely copyright violations (and one simply not-very-good image), leaving just one properly-documented photo that's a fairly good likeness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tverbeek (talk • contribs) 18:33, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

If e-mailed, I expect Gaiman could point to at least one good photo that's cleared for use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.219.212.72 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Australian law

Neil explains that while his publishers may explain that this is due to recent changes in the publishing industry caused by the Harry Potter series it is in fact because of an Australian law that allows importation of books from other markets.

This sounds kind of strange. Does anybody know the source? It's not like a law forbidding importing books is a common thing, and why Australia? Conf 16:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've deleted this. Conf 19:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Father

Speculation removed per WP:BLP and WP:SYN. AvB ÷ talk 22:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Movie Reviews?

Hey I just wanted to ask if anyone has teh book the Sandman Companion? I ask because in it (which contains a series of interviews with Neil) he talks about working as a movie reviewer in his journalistic career. Though this article mentions specifically book reviews, there isn't a mention of movie reviews. It would be easy to stick into the journalism section and easy to reference. I would do it myself, but I'm on vacation this week and don't have the book, so I can't write up a proper citation. Freddie deBoer 17:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

He also talks about this in his journal in a couple of places. I remember one of them was in why he quit: he realized he'd seen a lot of films and that most of them didn't make his life any cooler. Koyaanis Qatsi 17:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

He'd mentioned that a documentary about female bodybuilders was one of the few films he'd seen that he thought had been worth the watching--I think that must be Pumping Iron 2 but I can't find the reference to it anywhere. I've tried searching his site by title and by various combinations of female/women bodybuilder/weightlifter, and half a dozen other searches (film-review and variants are all not so useful, due to his own films).... No luck finding it again, I'm afraid. Koyaanis Qatsi 21:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Open Rights Group

Gaiman is now the patron of the Open Rights Group. I am unsure where this should go in the article. At the end of what seems to be a chronological biograpghy, or in the same paragraph as his campaigning with the Comic Book Defense Fund? --Caek 01:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Edit

I have reverted the previous edit for the following reason: it does not add information, but removes it. English is more specific than British, so unless the references are incorrect (i.e. actually they refer to somthing Scottish for example), should not be changed. Equally the pronounciation should not be removed as it is relevant. If the pronounciation is incorrect, correct it rather than just remove it. — Poobarb 02:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Better Structure

This article could be better structured. I suggest one section on "Life" and one on "Works". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkman X (talk • contribs) 21:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• * *

From the Shakespeare section as of 4-21-07: "Allusions to Shakespeare's writings can be found in Anansi Boys, where several lines of Hamlet have a cameo appearance and where the situation of the protagonist is compared to Macbeth more than once."

I feel utterly compelled to point out two things: a). an allusion is a veiled reference, not a direct reference or quote. And, b). actors have cameos; words are quoted. Crom! Of all the malapropisms I've come across in Wikipedia, this use of "cameo" takes the cake. I'll probably have nightmares tonight, thank you very much.

(I realize this isn't really a structural problem, but it was the closest existing "discussion" category). --Lopf

• * *

[edit] Sandman: TEN volumes

Just to clarify a minor point: the 75 issues of the orignal Sandman run were entirely collected into ten volumes. What is erroneously called the 11th volume (Endless Nights) was a special of all-new material released some years after the series had finished. There have also been other Sandman-related books that aren't of the original series, ie The Dream Hunters. Satan's Rubber Duck 12:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Status of Miracleman Lawsuit???

Does anyone have any information re: this issue? Maybe even the case number, since this is public information? Yes, I see that Gaiman won a judgment against Image/ Todd M., but there is no mention as to whether the Miracleman rights have been resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.251.101.34 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 17 May 2006

It's mentioned as Gaiman v. McFarlane, but I'm not sure if that's the original or the appeal (or both?). McFarlane's appeal failed, btw, but the court in its decision didn't address the MiracleMan rights enough to for me to be able to figure out what's going on.

Gaiman talks about the case some [here]; he doubts that McFarlane actually has any legitimate claim to Miracleman. — Koyaanis Qatsi 23:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

"...won a sizable judgement." How big is a sizable judgement? Anyone have numbers (and sources)? --68.74.28.93 19:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Firebird

I heard Neil Gaiman wrote a short story called "Firebird." Does anyone know where to find it?

~ Sarabi1701 01:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It will be in his collection Fragile Things, to be released November 2006. Danguyf 15:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It is also in Noisy Outlaws, Unfriendly Blobs, and Some Other Things.... Danguyf 17:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! ~ Sarabi1701 22:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inspired by Fritz Leiber?

Reading The swords of Lankhmar by Fritz Leiber, I find it likely he has been inspired by this book in what he writes in Neverwhere. Any comments?

roy

I can't think of a single Fantasy author (OK, maybe Fletcher Pratt & L. Sprague de Camp) who HASN'T been influenced by - and acknowledged the influence of - Leiber's Lankhmar chrisboote 09:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Death Movie

Does anyone remember the miniserie of the Death? with 3 parts? He wasn't doing some movie about that? - sorry by my bad english... ú___ù

Death: The High Cost of Living may be what you're talking about --68.150.201.153 00:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference to a book

There is a reference to a book about Gaiman on Joseph McCabe (editor) that might be relevant to this article. Alan Pascoe 21:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed split

I'm proposing that the Bibliography section is split out of this article, and into a new one. I would suggest that the new article is called List of works by Neil Gaiman, but am open to suggestions. This would leave more space in this article (which's currently growing a bit long) to discuss both Neil Gaiman and his most important works. If noone opposes this split, I will carry it out in a weeks' time. Mike Peel 06:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure if that is justified yet. But if you do, I suggest a title like Neil Gaiman bibliography. "List of" doesn't sound right. -- Beardo 14:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, I'm behind it. "Bilbiography" does sound a bit better, though. Stilgar135 03:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm still inclined to go with List of works by Neil Gaiman, for the following reasons. I'm not so keen on "Bibliography", as that tends to refer just to books whereas Neil's also got audio and video works. The "List of..." part seems to be a standard wikipedian thing, going off Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Naming_conventions, but if people still oppose it I'd go with Works by Neil Gaiman Mike Peel 10:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Meriam Webster says "Main Entry: bib·li·og·ra·phy

1 - the history, identification, or description of writings or publications

2 a - a list often with descriptive or critical notes of writings relating to a particular subject, period, or author b : a list of works written by an author or printed by a publishing house

3 - the works or a list of the works referred to in a text or consulted by the author in its production"

2 b sounds like us. The naming conventions you mention aren't really applicable. This should be something within Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works) but policy hasn't been developed yet. Within articles, the term "bibliography" is widely used - why change when we move to a separate page. (Though see List of published material by Alan Moore which I think is terribly ungainly, and also Category:Bibliographies by author which seems underpopulated). -- Beardo 14:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

"2 b" says written and printed, which to me implies a textual document, be it comic book, short story, book, manuscript, etc. I wouldn't say that it includes audio and visual work, however - just the scripts associated with them. I guess that you could say that the listed audio and visual works have had scripts written for them, so they could fall under bibliography, but to me it makes more sense to use the more general "works", which covers pretty much everything. However, if you disagree, then I won't continue arguing the point; I'll just use "Bibliography of Neil Gaiman". Mike Peel 15:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish

Is it standard to state people's religeous beliefs in the lead section? It seems very odd to me. --SidiLemine 10:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

and me. Maybe it refers to his background rather than his personal beliefs. Still odd, though.

It shouldn't be standard, that's for certain. I changed the lead to a more sensible description.J.R. Hercules 14:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It DOES refer to his background - and for no reason whatsoever, since the article doesn't say that he even considers himself Jewish, much less practices it. I have noted that whenever a person is either Jewish or comes from a Jewish family, THAT gets mentioned in Wikipedia RIGHT AWAY. And yet this article certainly doesn't say whether or not he's a Scientologist - which his parents definitely are. Double-standard there, for sure.FlaviaR 22:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "New Fabulist"

I'm removing the sentence on Gaiman being "quoted" as a New Fabulist because

a) Who is quoted? It is an unsourced statement b) New Fabulist has no Wikipedia entry, and a quick Google search did not reveal it to be a well-established term c) It is not defined or explained in the article

[edit] Gene Wolfe

I think it should be mentioned somewhere in here, as I learned it from the book Hanging With The Dream King (a book of interviews about Gaiman) that Gaiman is the only person to have ever collaborated with notable author Gene Wolfe. Also it can be mentioned that Gaiman had no idea he was the only one until he was told in an interview for the book several years later - he always assumed that it was common. Abrynkus 20:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2000AD creator

Neil is included in the category '2000ad creator' - as far as I know he has never written for 2000ad and it is not mentioned anywhere else in the article. Is this correct?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.13.28.98 (talk) 02:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

Gaiman has written for 2000AD, he is not as famous for doing so as people such as Moore and Morrison et al, as many of these writers spent some time writing gfor 2000AD before their breakthrough, Gaiman had already been offered Miracleman (by Moore) and had produced Violent Cases before his 2000AD. As such he has not done much work for the comic and is not partcularly famous for it

Foxydavid 13:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)foxydavid

[edit] Religion Classes

Although of Jewish origins, he was educated at several Church of England schools, including Ardingly College, West Sussex, an independent boarding school. There, he studied both standard school topics as well as religion classes. This training gave him a wide background in both Jewish and Christian theology/apocrypha, which he incorporates heavily into his works, perhaps most notably in The Sandman.

`Religion Classes`, or religious education is a standard part of the UK school system. All schools are obligated to `provide religious education within a broadly Christian context.` http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_education -The tone of the article implies that religion is not taught in UK schools. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 133.29.103.238 (talk) 08:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Scientology

The statements made about Gaiman's attachements to Scientology seem broad. I have hear several places on the internet noting that he was declared a suppressive person (an SP, someone trying to opose the position of the CoS) in 1983, and I have also heard that despite the point that his parents were in the Church (his father especially) that he was still Bar Mitzvahed in Judaeism. He does not mention the faith of his parents often (or ever, to my knowledge) and even the info I can find about his connections to the church prior to 1983 are sketchy at best. Does anyone have more complete or academic sources? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.205.80.206 (talk • contribs).

Not to be flip, but why does it matter? Though it may be relevant in some distant tangental ways to his writing, the obsession with "discovery" on this issue seems rather gossipy to me. I mean, what does "academic source" mean? If Neil cared to talk about this, it would probably be on his blog.TopaTopa 04:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Normally, I would agree with you that it doesn't matter, but, as I noted above in the "Jewish" section, it's a double-standard to always be making sure to mention that someone has Jewish antecedents, or if they are Jewish, and yet not do it with any other religion (not you, personally, of course, but merely something I notice on Wikipedia). Either it should be done here with Gaiman, or we should go through all the other entries and take it out. FlaviaR 22:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Scientology isn't like a normal religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.244.7.35 (talk) 04:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It isn't that Scientology isn't like other religions, it's the fact there is no concrete evidence beyond certain Internet rumors to support his affiliation with it. Until a citation can be found where Neil Gaiman or another reliable source can explain his connection with it, Scientology should not be mentioned here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.61.146 (talk) 23:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Source citations

I have noticed that this article is almost entirely uncited. It will never improve its official quality rating with such little citations. We should really make an effort to clean this article up and seek out proper "reference quality" sources so that we can properly cite the facts and claims that are presented here. Gaiman deserves better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mfaith1 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Policy reminder

I have removed a number of WP:BLP and WP:SYN violations from the article and its talk page. If you do not agree, please (re)read the policies. Some quotes:

From WP:BLP: Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Attribution, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. Where the information is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel.

Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion criterion G10 for more details).

Jimmy Wales has said:

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."^[1]

He considers "no" information to be better than "speculative" information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity:

"Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia."^[2]

From WP:SYN: Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.^[3] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.

Thank you. AvB ÷ talk 01:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The most obvious thing to do, then, would be to clarify whether the Neil Gaiman who was turned away from Fonthill School at the age of seven in 1968 is the same Neil Gaiman who attended Fonthill School at the age of eight in 1969. Presumably the school itself will have the definitive answer to this question - I'll see if I can make some enquiries after Easter. -- ChrisO 07:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You can't repair a SYN violation with another type of OR, ChrisO. Should you get a positive answer and post it on Wikipedia, it will be removed again. AvB ÷ talk 09:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

We'll come back to this after Easter when I have more time and opportunity to do this, but you might want to consider what WP:OR says on the matter. It absolutely isn't a blanket prohibition of all research from primary sources. Instead, "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia."

What we have at the moment are two strands of evidence (consisting of multiple data points) which suggest very strongly that the Neil Gaiman in the Times story is "our" Neil Gaiman. However, it appears that we don't yet have a direct, explicit, authoritative statement from an independent reliable source to confirm that. The school enrolment records can potentially provide that link, but they are currently an unpublished source. If the school writes to me to confirm the link, it will be publishing the substantive content of the relevant records, in which case I see no obstruction to using the information here. I'm well aware of Jimbo's requirements (I read them on wikien-l at the time) and I think this approach is entirely compatible with that. -- ChrisO 14:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the second time you claim to be well aware of what WP:OR says on this matter. Now you're also suggesting I am not. The first time you did this you had just violated WP:SYN and WP:BLP which I cleaned up after you. (1) School enrollment records are primary sources which you can't use without secondary sources. (2) The school records will not contain any references to the man we now know as the subject of this article. (3) In the unlikely case that the school actually gives you information where they have put one and one together: I have discussed a similar situation with Jimbo recently and at least he agreed with my interpretation of OR there. I advise you to let it go until a reliable secondary source (a major newspaper, a book, etc.) puts one and one together. Why don't you try and get a good source to write about this? It looks like an interesting story. And by all means reread the warning on your talk page. AvB ÷ talk 14:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Assuming that the school administration replies positively, they are the secondary source; the original records are the primary source which the administration would have to interpret for us. We know from another reliable source that "our" Neil Gaiman enrolled at Fonthill prior to going to Ardingly College, as I've recorded in the article. From the timing given by that source it was clearly prior to 1970. The question is whether this is the same Neil Gaiman who was turned away from Fonthill in 1968. Neither of us at this stage know whether or not the school records will confirm this. The evidence that we're looking for is whether the name and birthdate of "their" Neil and "our" Neil match. Let's find out, shall we? As for the warning on my talk page, I thought it was unnecessarily aggressive and confrontational. We're all trying to build a better encyclopedia here, and needless confrontation doesn't help us to do that. Posting "final warnings" isn't helpful. I appreciate what you're trying to do, but there are better ways of doing it. -- ChrisO 15:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible reference found

I've learned of a 2005 Brighton Argus interview with David Gaiman (of Scientology fame) in which he apparently speaks of Neil Gaiman (of authorship fame) and clearly states a father-son relationship. I'll see if I can track it down - I think the British Library will have a copy. -- ChrisO 10:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Please bring it on and let's discuss it! In the meantime, see also the BLPNB here. AvB ÷ talk 11:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The current status is really weird. In Neil Gaiman, he is born from David and Sheila, lived in East Grinstead, which is the UK capital of scientology. Now David Gaiman, who was a spokesman in the UK for scientology (which is based in East Grinstead), for some reason has also a wife Sheila and a son Neil. But it can't be the same.

Could it be that there's an active OTRS complaint going on? --Tilman 12:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of (I'm an OTRS user). I'm not sure why there seems to be so much sensitivity about the issue - as far as I know Neil Gaiman himself hasn't said anything about it (though I did see an interview in which he stonewalled questions about L. Ron Hubbard). However, if we can track down a definitive statement on the issue, I think it will resolve many of the problems on this point. -- ChrisO 13:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Found the interview. It will definitely resolve a lot of our problems here. Neil Gaiman is definitely the son of David Gaiman. The article in question is a two-page spread captioned "Everyone has the potential to be great", subtitle: "The rise and rise of a playful vitamin tycoon with a contagious zest for life", in the Brighton Argus of October 11, 2005, p. 10-11. Amusingly, the interviewer seems not to have heard of Neil. :-) David Gaiman (the Scientologist) explicitly acknowledges the relationship with Neil (the author): "It's not me you should be interviewing. It's my son. Neil Gaiman. He's in the New York Times Bestsellers list. Fantasy. He's flavour of the month, very famous. I've just read a review of his latest work in the Telegraph'. It was glowing. He's a genius." There's a lot more too, albeit mainly of relevance to the David Gaiman article. I'll digest it on the way back home (I'm in the British Library at the moment) and try to work out a way of working it into both articles later today. Please don't jump the gun and add the info before I do - I want to make sure it reflects exactly what the article says. -- ChrisO 14:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The passage you quote from the Argus interview is repeated on several internet sites; I would like to see a reprinting of the entire interview (preferably under the Argus' own aegis) before I accepted it as a primary source. I just removed the Scientology sentences from the Early Life section of the entry for exactly the same reason. We actually need to be able to show that we've read the Times of London article from the Times itself, not an internet transcription; the Argus essay from the Argus itself; read the Parliamentary proceeding on Scientology; and listened to the BBC programme before we cite the material. Otherwise all that we're doing is citing transcriptions and presumed quotations whose veracity and provenance we can't actually verify.--Galliaz 11:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you possibly re-read what I wrote above? I went to the British Library and got a hard copy of the actual Argus article. It's in front of me as I write this. I can retrieve the Times article any time I like from the Times Digital Archive, which I can access with my library membership number [2], and I can confirm that it's quoted accurately. The "Report to Members of Parliament on Scientology" isn't a Parliamentary proceeding, it's a 16-page booklet produced by the Church of Scientology. It's also in the British Library in a collection of ephemera, which I've personally read. The BBC programme is cited in the "Report." In other words, we're not citing second-hand copies of quotes; we're citing original source material, which I've personally checked and verified. -- ChrisO 13:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The Times cite in the entry pointed to a webpage that provided only a selected excerpt from the article. My comment about the Argus article is prompted by the fact that the entry quotes from the exact same portion of the article that I have seen excerpted on several web pages/sites. Finally, I stand by what I wrote about the BBC programme: it's improper to cite what a written source says about a decades old radio programme without listening to the programme itself, or citing a written transcript. Please don't take this personally, but what's crucial in not what you have seen, or what you have in front of you, but how you can cite this material so that other readers can independently verify the information.--Galliaz 14:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

One last thing: The Brighton Argus is searchable online; following the archive link at the paper's homepage allows one to access the paper for an individual day: I called up the October 11, 2005 issue and could not find this article. (http://archive.theargus.co.uk/2005/10/11/) A search for David Gaiman turns up a May 3, 2005 (http://archive.theargus.co.uk/2005/5/3/103224.html) article, but it's a brief peice reporting about the fact that David Gaiman's company has been cranking out vitamins for 40 years.--Galliaz 15:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Not everything appears in online editions of newspapers. That's why the best policy is to look at what was actually printed, which is what I did. As for "the exact same portion of the article that I have seen excerpted on several web pages/sites", I've never seen the quote from David Gaiman on any web page before. A search for "david gaiman" argus 2005 finds nothing of relevance. I only found out about the article by chance; I certainly didn't see an online copy of it. Where did you see it? As for the radio programme, you're missing a key point - the written source is contemporaneous with the programme: December 1968 and the programme was broadcast in August 1968. What's more, one would think that an official Church of Scientology publication would be a fairly authoritative source for a statement that someone has received Scientology training. It's flatly false to assert, as you did, that "no evidence is cited" for the statement. -- ChrisO 16:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)

• Thanks: ChrisO et al., good find; this is certainly an improvement over the totally unsourced assertions made previously and I will not revert.
• Request: I would like to see some tangible evidence, e.g. to allow editors to judge the weight to give this information, and also to help us trust by letting us verify.
• Doubt: I'll of course AGF for now, but it still feels like we're becoming the primary vehicle for the spread of this titillating detail of someone's life and I would like to see input from other editors here or on the WP:BLPNB.
• Disclaimer: I'd like to caution ChrisO (and to some degree the other editors working on the related text in David Gaiman and Neil Gaiman) that they are personally responsible for any consequences of including this information in the encyclopedia. Sourced in a local paper and previously unavailable on the Internet, putting this up on one of the world's top-10 web sites may still harm Neil in many ways. Note that UK law may take a dim view of this type of disclosure even if true, let alone if not. I'm not only talking about libel here. Also note that the oft-mentioned Barrett v. Rosenthal precedent in the USA may well turn out to apply only to original material distributed verbatim unlike publishing an edited version like you did here. Bottom line - the Wikimedia Foundation, as always, will only protect itself, not individual editors who, as before, remain responsible for their own actions. AvB ÷ talk 09:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Chris: I stand corrected, I haven't seen the Argus info quoted or abstracted anywhere else. As you know, the material is also present in the reference added to the David Gaiman entry; that's where else I have seen it online. Again, don't take this personally, but my rigorous skepticism in this regard is driven by two factors: (1) I'd have expected something like this to have made it beyond the Argus and to have been reprinted somewhere else (with James Lancaster, the interviewer, looking up who Neil Gaiman is, and then following up on the story himself); (2) the Wikipedia is so far the only reference source that makes the David Gaiman/Neil Gaiman connection: the online Britannica and the various literary biography references published under the Gale group umbrella are silent upon this matter.--Galliaz 19:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That, after an exhaustive search, the only evidence of this connection is found in the Argus suggests that either it is incorrect or that twenty years worth of journalists and biographers have found reason to not mention it. I question the wisdom of Wikipedia bucking this trend. Danguyf 11:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdenting) I don't believe there's any reason for "rigorous skepticism", which frankly seems to be bordering on trying to find a reason to disqualify my recent additions to this article. A few points:

• The Argus isn't a minor outlet. It's a very long-established regional paper which has been around for nearly 130 years and sells about 34,000 copies daily.
• The fact that the article cited doesn't appear online means absolutely nothing. Regional newspapers in the UK customarily provide only a selection of stories online. They don't have big staffs or major online presences - they can't afford them.
• I see absolutely nothing in either this article or the original Argus interview that could be considered libellous. Don't forget it's been through the Argus's editorial processes, including legal scrutiny.
• The fact that other writers haven't mentioned it isn't surprising. The article was printed 18 months ago, offline, in a regional newspaper in the UK. As far as I know, the Argus isn't captured in databases such as Factiva or Lexis-Nexis. How likely is it that other journalists would have come across it in those circumstances? The obscurity of a source has no bearing on how reliable it might be.
• The fact that other encyclopedias doesn't mention it is meaningless. Other encyclopedias don't describe such things as the Old Deluder Satan Law, the kozolec or the Piraeus Lion. We do, because we have a bigger scope, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and we have a vastly bigger pool of researchers. Our advantages mean that we can produce better articles than the likes of Britannica.
• I have no idea whether James Lancester, the interviewer, followed up on the story. Why should he? NG doesn't live locally and hasn't done so for 20 years. It's not the kind of story that would get a regional news editor's interest. The interview with his father was prompted by the family company notching up 40 years of continuous business.
• Nor is it news that there's a father-son relationship, or that NG was involved in Scientology - the London Times reported that nearly 40 years ago. The information has been in the public domain for a very long time.
• Bottom line: the Argus is a reliable source, subject to editorial oversight. The facts in question come directly from NG's father. The sourcing is impeccable by any reasonable definition.

I should note that I've removed one item that another editor added, as I don't believe that it's of direct relevance to NG's biography. I also haven't included details from the other items I found in my research on Saturday - two London Times articles, three Church of Scientology publications and a UK parliamentary report, dating between 1968 and 1987 - which all gave details of NG's involvement with Scientology. As AvB says, we're not here to include "titillating detail". The only info on this subject which should go into the article is that which is strictly of direct relevance (viz. family background and education). It's not there gratuitously. -- ChrisO 18:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Two things: (1) The fact that no other reference tool includes a "fact" appearing in the Wikipedia's entry about a specific individual is indeed meaningful. (I'm open to interpretations of exactly what it might mean, but it's certainly meaningful.) (2) To be honest, it's not clear to me that his parents' presumed Scientology is actually relevant to an encyclopedia entry on Neil Gaiman in the first place.--Galliaz 20:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact that no other reference tool includes that information is meaningless as far as we're concerned, because we have no information to determine why it's omitted. We can't come to any conclusion because we have nothing to base the conclusion on. Maybe they don't know about it (hardly surprising, given the obscurity of the reference). Maybe they don't think it's important (unlikely, his family's history is interestingly colourful). Who knows? The point is that we have our own editorial judgements to make based on the facts before us. Those facts include what's set out in the Argus interview. The family history described in the Argus interview is clearly relevant to NG's biography. Therefore I added the key points. Simple as that. -- ChrisO 22:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)#

ChrisO, since my primary goal is to ensure that the entry is built upon a firm source foundation, I second what AvB has written: I would like to see some tangible evidence, e.g. to allow editors to judge the weight to give this information, and also to help us trust by letting us verify.--Galliaz 15:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There is still NO consensus on the legitmacy of your claims, furthermore if your behaviour is not gratuitious why has the far more relevant line about Gaiman being Jewish but raised in CofE schools been removed. Gaiman himself has stated this IN PRINT, and talked about how it has affected his writings. So we remove some lines that are deeply relevant to his philosophy and wiritng and add considerable about something which is hotly disputed, tenuous and of NO relevance. A great disservice is being done to wikipedias attempts to be a reputable non POV encyclopedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Foxydavid (talk • contribs). 12:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not a "claim", it's a referenced fact. Deleting valid referenced content because you don't like it is bordering on vandalism. -- ChrisO 12:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I merely feel the claim is not yet accepted by the community at large, as is obvious from reading this page. Furthermore there is now an entire paragraph about the Scientology link - you yourself muust accept this is excessive considering it is something that is NEVER mentioned by Gaiman and is never mentioned anywhere except in this very obscure article. I consider this especially the case when we consider how the references to the duality of his Jewish faith (confirmed) coupled with his education in a church of England school (confirmed) and how they influenced (in partuicular) Sandman, something Gaiman has stated in print has been pared down to the point of being almost invisible. No attem,pt at vandalism was intended and you assume I don't like the fact that Gaiman is allegedly a scientologist, this is an incorrect assumption. I apologise if you feel my actions bordered on vandalism, as a compromise I would suggest you make the Scientology references of a more sensible length, the bit about the fact they lived near the scientology headquarters for example is I feel completely unnecessary. Foxydavid 11:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I happen to have talked with Neil Gaiman's sister (Claire) who is a high Scientology official. Neil's family are scientologists. His father David worked for the now disbanded Guardian network. He was even commended at one time by Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard. A conversation started with Claire when she noticed I was reading a book from her brother. Through this conversation and another one with a relation to David Gaiman I learned Neil was highly educated in Scientology (OT V and Case Supervisor Class V Graduate). However Claire was elusive as to what he was currently doing Scientology-wise when I asked her. She stated he was "off-line," meaning not taking services from the church. As she was still in contact with him, I doubt he has the suppressive person status currently. More likely he doesn't wish further involvement with the church but will not state so as Church policy would force his Scientologist family members to "disconnect" from him, i.e. stop any communication with him. I do not see why some editors seem embarrassed or unbelieving that Neil is or has been a Scientologist. There are parts of his writing that have special resonance when one knows Scientology teachings. For instance, when it is stated at the death of Morpheus that what died is a viewpoint, it is a more-than-likely reference to the Factors, a Scientology text that Gaiman would be familiar with given his level of Scientology training. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leocomix (talk • contribs).

Thanks; that's certainly interesting information. FWIW, I don't doubt the father/son/CoS connection. However, we can't use editors' opinions (like mine) or personal experience (like yours). Wikipedia is not about the truth but about verifiability. We simply can't publish without reliable sources per our rules. Hence the importance of ChrisO's Argus find. AvB ÷ talk 02:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly so. -- ChrisO 07:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand that my experience has no value per se for the purpose of Wikipedia. I submitted it because it provides a framework in which research can be done. I.e. it removes possible uncertainties and gives pointers for research. Case in point, this site mentions some Scientology courses he did in 1988: http://www.adherents.com/people/pg/Neil_Gaiman.html --Leocomix 13:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a great source, I'm afraid; it even quotes this article! - can't be all that reliable then. ;-) It's certainly true that his name appears in a number of Scientology magazines in lists of "course completions". This allows you to build a bare-bones outline of his Scientology career - he was Scientology Clear 6909, for instance (I believe the first two digits indicate the year, i.e. 1969). However, I honestly don't think this is of relevance to a general encyclopedia article. It's relevant that he was in Scientology, just as his Judaism is relevant, but the fine details of his Scientology career aren't any more relevant than, say, background info on where he took his bar mitzvah. -- ChrisO 23:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right on this. I agree.--Leocomix 09:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I see the content introduced by ChrisO in April 2007 has disappeared (except for the Argus ref and the wikilink to David Gaiman). Just a note that - although I have not personally seen the article in question - I now fully trust ChrisO on the authenticity of the Argus article. I see no policy-based reason why we should leave the info out. I also note that there has been an OTRS request (by or on behalf of Neil Gaiman) that did result in this and this edit, so apparently even Gaiman himself did not challenge all of the content added by ChrisO, and, indeed, seems to confirm that he is mentioned in A Report to Members of Parliament on Scientology. At any rate, I do not see any subsequent discussion of the OTRS concerns. It should be possible to rewrite the deleted content (if necessary) and re-add it, complete with link to source (now also deleted). Avb 09:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Residence

Why doesn't the article just say that he lives in Menominee, Wisconsin? (see the IMDB page on him for the citation). 76.201.155.56 02:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Shane

...Because he lives in Minnesota? Katharineamy 06:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

\ No, he doesn't. And it's Menomonie, by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.33.49.251 (talk) 17:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] autograph

does anyone feel that a picture of Neil Gaiman's autograph would have any significance to this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.212.71 (talk) 02:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another image.

Just uploaded a fairly decent headshot to Image:Gaiman, Neil (2007).jpg. It's a tad fuzzy at full resolution, and I quite like the current lead image, but this one's there if you prefer it. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 00:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vagina Dentata

I've read in a book, and I'm fairly sure that it's either Neil Gaiman, Neil Stephenson, Greg Bear or Dan Simmons, a Native American legend involving vagina dentatas belonging to three "spider women". I wanted to add this to the Vagina Dentata article. Does anyone know if this comes from Gaiman? Could it come from Smoke and Mirrors or American Gods? Please note that I'm not refering to the God who consumes men via her vagina in AG - it's a fairly long tale involving a young rather feckless native american, who ends up using pliars (iirc) to remove the teeth from the good Spider Woman after killing her two evil sisters (iirc) Tomandlu (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not in any Gaiman book I know of. In American Gods, however, he has a young African slave girl character threaten a slavekeeper that if he rapes her, she'll bite his penis off with her "teeth down there". It's only a bluff, though, so it may not fit in the other article. Katharineamy (talk) 19:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Sigh. I'll track it down eventually. I'm on a mission! Tomandlu (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scientology redux

The article in the Argus that is cited does not provide evidence that has been confirmed by other sources. JellyBeanJill (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC) JellyBeanJill

Wikipedia policy about bios of living people are rather stringent - and clear - in situations like this. This isn't like other subjects were a "citation needed" is sufficient. Until there are sources confirming it that are generally accepted as reliable, the information should not be included in the article. - JasonAQuest (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thing is I am not sure what is controversial in the material removed [3]. His father is a leading Scientologist, which did inform where he lived as a child (as it is one of the centres for British Scientology). The controversial elements that have been discussed previously, are whether he is/was a Scientologist and if/when he left the Church (apostasy being quite a serious issue with a lot of religions). The paper seems to meet WP:RS and I assume no one is claiming it is made up so I don't really see the problem here. (Emperor (talk) 00:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC))

Neil Gaiman's affiliation with the Church of Scientology falls under the category of exceptional claims. It is a red flag that the article is not confirmed by other, outside sources beyond rumors on message boards and blogs. Again, while David Gaiman has been confirmed to have a son named Neil, and while it is quoted he is a sci-fi writer, it remains to be seen whether this is the same Neil Gaiman. Nothing Neil Gaiman has said in his online blog or during interviews appears to be solid proof he was or is involved with Scientology. Also, just because he lived in a certain area famed for having many Scientologists does not mean he or his family were apart of the religion. Help the Internet today to form a better tomorrow. 00:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC) JellyBeanJill —Preceding unsigned comment added by JellyBeanJill (talk • contribs)

The article makes no claim that Neil Gaiman is affiliated with the Church of Scientology, is says his father is, and is backed up with a verifiable source. Unless you can find a second fantasy writer called Neil Gaiman who's been on the New York Times bestseller list, your assertion that the newspaper article is referring to someone else is simply absurd. --Nicknack009 (talk) 00:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed before in considerable detail (see #Possible reference found below). The bottom line is that David Gaiman has publicly stated, in an interview in his town's local newspaper, that he's the father of Neil Gaiman, the best-selling author (how many Neil Gaimans have featured in the NY Times bestseller list referenced by David Gaiman?). The newspaper in question is one of the oldest local newspapers in southern England and is unquestionably a reliable source. We don't know what Neil Gaiman's relationship is with Scientology, so we rightly don't speculate on it (I don't think it's that important anyway) but there's no reason whatsoever why we can't quote a reliable source about his family's history - it's the bread-and-butter of any biography. Almost the entire "Early life" paragraph rests on that Brighton Argus story. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a 2nd article referenced within the David Gaiman article. Claiming that Neil Gaiman is a practicing Scientologist would certainly be exceptional, but at this point I don't think there's much doubt that his father is David Gaiman, who happens to be a Scientologist. Casting aspersions or drawing conclusions from this fact would be inappropriate, but stating the fact is not. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 00:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. As said in previous discussions his family is certainly worth mentioning (as it can be sourced) but it isn't something we'd want to make a big deal about - he doesn't discuss it and there are no major analysis or claims for its influence on his work. As it stands it strikes a good balance between helping flesh out some background (which is often missing) without over-emphasising this angle. (Emperor (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC))

It is a fair question whether his father's religion is relevant to an article about him. - JasonAQuest (talk) 01:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The religion of the parents is mentioned in biographical Wiki-articles as diverse as Abraham Lincoln, Edgar Allen Poe, Idi Amin Dada, and Charles de Gaulle. It's a reasonable fact to include in a biographical article. As long as original research is avoided, I don't see why it should be controversial, particularly since there are reliable sources which provide verifiability. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 03:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The question is why it's relevant, and it's a question that has to answered in each case. - JasonAQuest (talk) 03:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Turning your question around, why isn't it relevant? --GentlemanGhost (talk) 05:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The obvious answer is that it's relevant to his cultural and social development, which is why biographers customarily provide that sort of background. I notice that nobody's asking "why is it relevant to mention his Polish Jewish ancestry" - it seems to me that this is more of a reaction to the controversial nature of Scientology rather than any clearly defined issue of relevance. See Ben Bernanke#Early life for a comparable background section. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope this doesn't count for WP:Original Research, but I'm just going to ask Neil Gaiman on his Blog. He answers a good deal of questions from fans, and I think there is a healthy chance he may respond. Zidel333 (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not original research if it comes directly from the subject's mouth! Having said that, I've never seen him address Scientology in print or in an interview, and I recall reading one interview where he was asked his opinion of L. Ron Hubbard but instantly shut down that line of questioning (saying something like "I don't talk about that"). Come to think of it, the biographical profiles of him that have featured in the press have been very thin on background detail - usually not much more than saying where and when he was born. Maybe he just doesn't like speaking about his personal life. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The lack of information on his childhood is interesting isn't? All that I have heard is when he talks about the books that influenced him as a child. He makes it seem like such a bland, normal childhood so that his readers can pretend that his childhood was ours. Anyway, I already sent Neil the email. And if I get a response, I'll make sure to post it to this discussion. :) Zidel333 (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Jon Atack in "A Piece of Blue Sky" mentions that Neil Gaiman, son of David Gaiman the well-known PR man for Scientology who later went on to important positions in the Guardians' Office and its successor organization the OSA at the time David Miscavige took control of the Scientology organization, was barred from attending Fonthill School[4] in East Grinstead in Sussex because of his (his father's?) affiliation with the Scientology group. This was widely reported as an instance of religious persecution in Scientology periodicals. "The son of Scientology spokesman David Gaiman was refused a place at an East Grinstead school until Scientology had cleared its name [in Great Britain]." East Grinsted is where Scientology HQ UK has long been located, Scientologists consider it a kind of mecca. So Neil Gaiman's father lived there with his family. The ex-Scientology crowd is a furtive group (with good reason to fear for their privacy and physical safety) but there is a document that emerged from the ex-Scientologists on the internet in the last decade called "The Fable - Anon," which seems to have accurate information about celebrity Scientologists. This last document gives two versions of events for Neil Gaiman and a rather interesting item about his father, who reportedly went on to bigger and better Scientology posts in Russia. It says Neil AND his father David were declared SP (suppressive persons, subject to total harrassment by any Scientologist at any time under their doctrines). The declaration on David Gaiman was supposedly lifted. Neil either stayed out of the Church of Scientology after he was declared, or is still a member in good standing, according to one inside Scientologist who communicated this on the ARS bulletin board where exies, critics and members discuss pros and cons. Scientology wants to claim celebrities in any event, even those they don't "own," so this is automatically suspect. On the other hand, for David and Neil Gaiman to be declared SPs would basically end all chance of them returning to Scientology, so there is a very interesting story hiding here. Since Neil grew up inside Scientology presumably, and his father was essentially running propaganda, it's anyone's guess who in the family is in, who is out and why. I think the only fair way to approach this is to ask Neil Gaiman himself what happened, what went sour with Scientology, or if he was just kind of pulled along into it with his family when he was younger and is just another "ex-Scientology kid." The latter kind of makes more sense when you consider his parents tried to enroll him in a normal British school in East Grinstead rather than send Neil off to join the SeaOrg or to a camp in the deserts of Mexico where other children of Scientology languished. I look forward to hearing Neil Gaiman tell an interesting story about it in one or another interview or even right here on Wikipedia! Hypatea (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's likely that he will - he seems to prefer not talking about Scientology at all, let alone his past or present connection to it. Katharineamy (talk) 11:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Alas alack, Mr. Gaiman has not responded at all to my inquiry. We did try however to get to the bottom of this, that counts for something doesn't it? Zidel333 (talk) 17:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it does. And Katharineamy must be on the path of truth here as well. Gaiman's "career" in Scientology is difficult to document, and that is not meaningless. Nor is the fact David Gaiman is essentially a press and PR specialist. Neil Gaiman's "career" in Scientology is not it turns out, as significant as his bar mitzvah, meaning it is significant. He was allegedly a Class VII auditor (highest class then) and headed the Birmingham office. Or at least that's what the sources inside Scientology seem to indicate. And that's more than a full-time job, the head of an org would be on call 24/7. Plus, Scientology even now is promoting his work, graphic novels and so on, as the work of the well-known scientologist Neil Gaiman. This all goes a little beyond fears of "disconnection," I'm sorry to say. If these words are offensive, cut them out of here, but don't do what user Avm did and covertly threaten legal action, it produces a chilling climate on free speech. Cults and cultures aside, it seems this is an issue for the top brass at wikipedia, whether to include true information in a biography against that person's wishes or not to include it. It doesn't matter to me, honestly and truly. If he wants to hide the fact to sell more books, so be it.Hypatea (talk) 17:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Scientology does NOT promote his books. Make sense.TuppenceABag (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen anything to suggest that it promotes his books, or indeed anything other than L. Ron Hubbard's books. Got a source for that claim? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I've never heard of such before. If Scientology is promoting his books, it should be easy to document. If not, don't say it. Aleta ^Sing 03:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Doctor Who

Question. There was/is a rumor floating around recently that Gaiman is in talks to write for the new series of Doctor Who. I don't have access to the link at the moment, but I believe it was found on Ain'titcoolnews.com. My question is this- is AICN considered a reliable source for this kind of information? And if so, given that there's been no definite announcement, would it even be appropriate to add? (my guess is probably not, on both counts). Umbralcorax (talk) 16:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This post on Gaiman's blog seems to indicate it's at least a tentative possibility, but until it's more certain I don't think it's advisable to put it in the article. Hope it happens, though. --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shakespeare References

I think the Shakespeare references section should be removed. It's not as if Neil Gaiman is unusual for being a writer influenced by Shakespeare, and some of the references listed are tenuous: The Neverwhere one is just one mention of a Shakespeare quote, and the Stardust one is not even attributed to Gaiman himself. I don't doubt that Gaiman is influenced by Shakespeare, but I don't see that the influence is so great that it deserves its own section on his page. 86.21.9.41 (talk) 02:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't agree with you-- arguably Gaiman's biggest success with "Sandman" was his "A Mid-Summer Night's Dream", which earned him a major award. Of special significance is that this award is typically reserved for more mainstream fiction -- I believe Gaiman's story is the only comic to have received this award. (I can't recall the details off the top of my head.) Where many writers have been influenced by Shakespeare, Gaiman is all about him. I say keep it. Macduffman (talk) 03:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Not only did he win the major award, they were actually embarrassed by it and changed the rules so that comics could no longer be eligible after he won.Umbralcorax (talk) 05:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're saying that in support of removal or maintaining, or just for a point of conversation. I think it's kind of a shame that they changed the rules... a diamond in the rough is a diamond in the rough, regardless of how the overall genre is viewed. Gaiman's comics are in a class all their own. Regardless... keep the Shakespeare bit. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macduffman (talk • contribs) 19:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually it was more of a point of conversation, which is probably out of place for there, apologies. If makes any difference, I'm for keeping the Shakespeare material in there. Gaiman was very influenced by his work (among others, mind), and even had the Bard appear in Sandman several issues (including the previously mentioned award winning one, as well as the last issue of the comic). Umbralcorax (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I'm not the five-oh. :) Macduffman (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for replying to my comment. Fair enough, perhaps the section should stay; I'm not all that familiar with Gaiman's work. I still think it should be improved though- quoting one line of Macbeth is not really drawing on Shakespeare's work as a literary source... and neither is naming your character "Captain Shakespeare" if the character has nothing to do with Shakespeare at all. I would also like to point out that Sandman makes clear allusions to Greek myths, C.S. Lewis' Narnia books, and perhaps Milton's Paradise Lost. So I think perhaps the section should be remade into a "Literary References" section. (86.21.9.41 (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC))