Talk:David Gaiman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the David Gaiman article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details

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 Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] More information about this article... The following comments have been left for this page: 12 citations, could use image and expansion. Smee 08:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC). (edit) It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality. Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead. The Arbitration Committee has placed all Scientology-related articles on probation (see relevant arbitration case). Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages. Scientology Portal This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics. See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments

[edit] David Gaiman and Neil Gaiman - 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 10:05, 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)

Found the article. Please see Talk:Neil Gaiman#Possible reference found for further discussion. -- ChrisO 14:16, 21 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 09:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

  Excuse me while I boggle. If either David Gaiman or Neil Gaiman complain that our article states there is any relation between the two, I will buy you a lollipop. Two lollipops. - David Gerard 19:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, what's new? You're the original SYNner here. Do you still think we don't need sources for this assertion? AvB ÷ talk 20:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

PS The lollipop offer seems unrelated to the possible consequences ChrisO may want to consider. AvB ÷ talk 21:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The only "consequence" I'm considering right now is joining David in boggling at the reaction this addition seems to have produced. You'd think that after taking the time and trouble to settle a long-running debate I should be getting unqualified thanks. Instead people over at Talk:Neil Gaiman seem to be reacting as though I'd pissed in their corn flakes. What's going on here? After all, NG and DG's father-son relationship has been publicly documented for 39 years, courtesy of the London Times. We're not talking about some amazing new revelation here, nor is it something that comes from a disreputable source. I'm beginning to wonder if there's more than going on here than just simple BLP concerns. -- ChrisO 22:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• You have my unqualified thanks. I always thank people for resolving BLP concerns by providing citations of information in reliable secondary sources. Conversely, no one has ever thanked me for significant contributions to resolve BLP problems but you won't hear me complaining about that. Basically, it's a thankless job.
• I hope you don't mean me with your creatively worded POV accusation. This is neither the first nor the last time I'm adding a disclaimer to such thank-you notes. I do not want to leave the impression that I personally support the edits in question. And as we've seen on the e-mail list, many editors seem to think the Foundation is responsible for what they write here so I also put in some info that might prove useful to those who have added the information.
• In this specific case I also voiced some policy-related doubt and added a request for more information. The latter is still pending; all we have so far is your say-so that the interview exists, and your judgment regarding context/what to use/what to ignore.
• I don't quite understand why you go back to your original position that this was in the London Times in 1968. It wasn't. This is very comparable to the "glass closet" inhabited by many gay celebrities. See for example Jodie Foster - one publication has said the L-word out loud about her, just like one publication has uttered the S-word about Neil - difference being that in Neil's case the "outer" is David which clinches it, while in the other case it's a gay magazine basing itself on evidence similar to the London Times article. At least no one is saying the S-word there, and for good reason too I guess. AvB ÷ talk 01:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This is so well-documented (that David Gaiman is Neil Gaiman's father and that they were both Scientologists and David still is) it's almost unbelievable this question has come up on the talk page. It's documented by any number of works by former Scientologists, including Bare-faced Messiah by Russel Miller, A Piece of Blue Sky by John Atack, Lonesome Squirrel by Steve Fishman and in internal Scientology publications concerning alleged religious descrimination when Neil Gaiman was refused entry at Fonthill School, East Grinstead, Sussex (http://cosmedia.freewinds.cx/media/articles/tim130868.html). According to conflicting testimony in The Fable: Hollywood, Satanism, Scientology and Suicide by Anonymous, Neil Gaiman headed a Scientology "org" (church) in Birmingham and was a Class VIII auditor. Both Gaimans were apparently declared SP (suppressed persons, the worst state available to humans in Scientology and somewhat akin to excommunication), although the elder was reinstated. I suspect the objection here to listing Neil as David's son stems from the Scientology policy of disconnection: members in good standing in the church are supposed to "disconnect" from family members if said family members are "SP." To put it another way, David Gaiman is supposed to disown his son if his son is an SP. See the talk page for Neil Gaiman for more sources documenting their relationship. Hypatea (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)