Talk:Neil Gaiman/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

2004

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. 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)

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)

2005

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. :-) 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.]. --April Arcus 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)

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)

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)

2006

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)

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)

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)

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)

Shakespeare

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

Sandman: TEN volumes

Just to clarify a minor point: the 75 issues of the original 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)

While not a volume collecting the original run, it is still a special in the series, and it is a volume, so it is the 11th in a series of volumes about Sandman. Tyciol (talk) 02:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"New Fabulist"

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

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

-Unsigned

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)

2007

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

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.` 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).

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)

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).

Father

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

Article states that his parents were Scientologists -- Is Neil? Was he? What are his thoughts about Hubbard's religion? Austinmayor (talk) 05:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

His parents still are, he appears to have been one for a while but not any more, and as far as I know he's never spoken publicly about it. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It is my understanding that this is the case, however I have never seen a good reliable source on the matter. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I love Gaiman's work and he was very kind when I met him. But it sure is odd that he writes about mythology and his family is deep into a sci-fi religion, but he has never commented on that religion's mythos. The overlap of his usual themes and Scientology would be a natural... Austinmayor (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

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."

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."

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. "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)

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. --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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I do believe American Gods also features a scene with a prostitute who is able to swallow her clients down there. That's more about the 'mouth' aspect than the 'dentata' (teeth) aspect though. Tyciol (talk) 02:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

2008

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)

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)

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)) I really have to agree here. Gaiman's works all contain numerous references and influences, and to single out Shakespeare is just peverse. Shakesspeare remains one of the mostg (if not the most) quoted author in British history, and you'd be hard pushed to find a prolific author who hasn't borrowed ideas from him from time to time. Gaiman is no exception, but there are so many equally important literary references in his work, that to single out Shakespeare "influences" is just blatent over-emphasis - Shakespeare is no more of an influence than to mst others writing in English. If you include him you also have to have sections on Aristophenes, The Bible, Lovecraft, Homer and many others - NG is a well-read chap. All of these have been absorbed into collective consciousness and are ripe for picking by those who know what they are doing. 89.243.208.231 (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assessment required

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 17:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. There were a lot of requests for sources already in the article and a lot of statements that also needed sources (most worrying is the complete lack of sources in the litigation section - legal matters really need to be thoroughly referenced). I've been through and flagged what I saw that needed a reference, I think most can be easily sourced with reference to statements he has made in interviews and on blogs but they still need a source. (Emperor (talk) 02:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC))

Academic criticism

I've added some information on academic criticism, drawing on the recent issue of ImageTexT on Gaiman's work. So far I've only added one article, though I'll surely add at least one other here (and others to specific works). However, since I co-edited this issue, I'm letting people know so they can look for COI issues. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I did a bit more here, including converting the rather strange Shakespeare section into a more general section on Gaiman's literary allusions, and added more criticism from the ImageTexT issue. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Neil Gaiman Inquiry Part Deuce

Hi all, I'm going to the Neil Gaiman signing at the National Book Festival on September 27th. I'm going to ask Gaiman, again, if he would be willing to look at his Wikipedia article, and then blog about any inaccuracies or things that are missing from it.

With hope, and a fervent prayer to Destiny and Dream, perhaps we can some of the major issues in this article straightened out. Like the whole Scientology thing. When I emailed him this spring, he never responded. I cannot help but feel that I offended him, it could be me overreacting. In any case, if I don’t use the term Scientology, and just keep it as neutral as possible, perhaps he’ll agree. Cheers! Zidel333 (talk) 08:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think this is inappropriate. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

May I ask why? Zidel333 (talk) 02:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It creates a sense of obligation on both sides - it suggests that we are in some way beholden to article subjects to portray things to their liking, and also suggests that he somehow has responsibility for whether our coverage of him is good. Furthermore, broaching the Scientology thing is wholly inappropriate - you are not the first to ask him about it, and he has never commented on it. Clearly he does not wish to. He knows of Wikipedia. If he wanted to comment on our article, he would. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I also think it's inappropriate. How would you like it if people kept badgering you about details of your private life? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Friendships

"Gaiman maintains friendships with several celebrities outside the comic book and science fiction fields," - most of whom seem to be in the fantasy field, which is where Gaiman works. Why exclude SF but include fantasy? -- Beardo (talk) 16:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Why does this section even exist? "Friendships"? Really? Should we document the friendships of every person on Wikipedia? Ridiculous. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It does seem to be of at least dubious importance. Aleta ^Sing 03:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

2009

Social activism

In the past year I've come across a couple things mentioning his involvement with the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund and cases where he has tried to defend distributors and owners of comic books from prosecution for carrying controversial works that are being prosecuted for their contents. This is described in interviews by MTV in April and then recently in November. This isn't a totally out of the blue thing though, as it is an extension of defending his own products and people's right to read them. Releasing a perfume line to raise legal funds to keep this guy out of jail is pretty interesting. He's referencing very popular works which have been out a long time, and which could come into conflict with recent legislation (the PROTECT Act, produced a year after a previous attack on the First Amendment was defeated in Supreme Court, then upgraded with heavier sentencing 2 years later by John McCain).

Neither the CBLDF or the Open Rights Group discussed in a previous talk heading ([5]) are described in this article at all. His playing a leading role in these groups is relevant, as it shows someone stepping beyond the borders of making money off art, into also speaking to defend it for everybody. Tyciol (talk) 02:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Marriage

This morning's (27-01-2009) Washington Post article on The Graveyard Book winning the Newbery mentioned that he lived close to his ex-wife's family. (I'd provide a direct link, but I don't have an account with WashPost.) Is this ex-wife Mary T. McGrath, and if not, should she be mentioned in the article? (Or should the introduction be amended if the ex-wife is Mary, as it seems to be.) (128.143.100.80 (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

Barring additional information, I would assume it is a misprint. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I realize that this isn't conclusive, but in his journal post http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2009/01/insert-amazed-and-delighted-swearing.html he mentions his assistant Lorraine staying at his house to dogsit Cabal and calling him about the Newbery. Later in the post, he mentions calling his daughter Maddy and telling her and her mum about it. Taken together, I would read this as evidence that he may no longer live with Mary T. McGrath. Of course, it could be the case that they're just on vacation, or visiting relatives, but in light of the fact that the Washington Post is a reputable paper and the article in question was about a fairly major literary award, and on the front page of the section it was in, I think that it may warrant further consideration.(137.54.0.132 (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC))

To my mind, a passing mention in one story is not sufficient to make such a major alteration to a BLP. Support via close-reading and speculation on his blog is also not going to work. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

So I looked around in public records and found the following - http://wcca.wicourts.gov/caseDetails.do;jsessionid=C40FECA94A48EEDE50DD105BC2826C6B.render5?caseNo=2007FA000143&countyNo=17&cacheId=EC30C9C7203FE9F24DAB6B843E4E1806&recordCount=4&offset=1 - (sorry for the URL length). It's a public record from a Wisconsin court detailing a divorce proceeding between a "Neil Richard Gaiman" born November 1960 and a "Mary Therese Gaiman" born September 1956. This is in agreement with the publicly available dates of births, middle initials, and residences of Neil Gaiman, author, and his wife. I know that there was a little bit of controversy in prior years about whether or not a certain "Neil Gaiman" was "our" Neil Gaiman, regarding mention in a British newspaper - is this clear-cut enough? (I don't mean to sound argumentative, it's just that I'm new to Wikipedia and the mention in the article piqued my interest to go searching for more information.) (69.69.225.18 (talk) 03:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC))

Sorry for the double post, but I just heard back from the reporter who wrote the Newbery article (I don't know if this counts as 'original research' or as verification of facts in an article.) According to him, Mr. Gaiman said that he and his ex-wife had been amicably divorced for a few years (which would jive with the date of the court record above), they still live near each other, and their daughter, Maddy, goes back and forth between them. (69.69.225.18 (talk) 06:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC))

Both of those are probably OR, but I'm also now reasonably persuaded of the accuracy of the statement. That said, as it is not a widely reported upon detail, it is irrelevant to his notability, and he seems to have largely declined to comment on it, and as he is a BLP, I'm just going to remove the mention of his wife (who is not notable in her own right) from the article. That way we're not inaccurate, but we're also not bringing excessive detail to a minor and largely personal matter. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

That was my thinking - he hasn't mentioned it, may have asked one blog ^not^ to mention it, and it doesn't bear any direct impact on any of the things mentioned in the article, but on the other hand, since it seems to have happened, that part of the article was no longer accurate. Thanks for making the change. (69.69.225.18 (talk) 22:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC))

Gaiman references his "then-wife" in a Twitter post on 3/18/09 - http://twitter.com/neilhimself/status/1351598310 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.236.112 (talk) 03:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Interview in April/May '09 issue of BUST magazine (linked here by Gaiman) also mentions an ex-wife. turtleduck (talk) 06:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I am at this point suitably convinced he's divorced, and the article no longer refers to his wife. I see no particular merit in mentioning the fact explicitly, since it does not seem to be something that Gaiman is inclined to make a big deal out of, and is unrelated to his notability. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Still, if the children are mentioned, the identity of their mother, her status (living/dead), and hers/Gaiman's relationship to each other should at the very least be mentioned. Having absolutely no info about the mother of his children but an extensive info about his parents and his friendships with very many other people is odd and incomplete. There are certainly interviews, book jacket blurbs, etc., that mention McGrath as his wife, as well as the documents mentioned in this thread that indicate that she is now his ex-wife. On what grounds are you excluding all mention of her? 71.200.138.188 (talk) 13:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• He has, it should be noted, given a concise, direct answer to the question in his most recent blog post: (near the bottom). Now all we need is for him to say something - anything - about Scientology, and we'll have sorted all the simmering controversies on the page! 208.42.242.110 (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Bad Dream Catchers Link

The link for the dream catchers seems to point to the wrong article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.16.240.67 (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

1602

Why isn't this written in to the comics sections of his works? It's first mentioned under a litigation section. IMHO (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Dating Amanda Palmer?!

Is this something that would be included in this article? source: http://www.spin.com/articles/amanda-palmer-and-neil-gaiman-live-new-york-city 67.183.187.245 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC).

Personal Life

I think the list of people whom he rubs shoulders with is SO tacky and unnecessary. I think this is the first wiki article where I've seen such a thing. Angry bee (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

you need to read more WP bios Lentower (talk) 04:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Point me to them. This really reeks. Angry bee (talk) 18:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Neil Gaiman is not a Scientologist

On March 27th, 2009, Steve Bissette, comics author, artist and "a dear friend" of Neil Gaiman reports that any claim that Gaiman is a Scientologist is"an absolute lie" "malicious slander" "out-and-out bullshit" "malicious gossip of the worst kind" and "ABSOLUTE HORSESHIT". Internet Lies about Neil Gaiman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Austinmayor (talk • contribs) 17:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, but we can't use a blog (other than Gaiman's) to source the article. Aleta ^Sing 18:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the direct and verifiable word of Steve Bissette, a known acquaintance of Gaiman's, satisfies WP:RS. He certainly meets the criteria of an "established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know... Perhaps we could say something like "Steve Bissette, a long-time friend of Gaiman,(ref for friendship) says [direct quote from Bissette about NG's not being Scientologist]"? Aleta ^Sing 19:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be undue weight to include this. There is no evidence that I've ever seen that NG is a Scientologist. (He was one, certainly, but appears to have left many years ago.) The Internet claims about the Gaiman family's donations plainly miss the point that his parents and sister have been prominent Scientologists for many years, so a donation coming from them as "the Gaiman family" would be entirely unsurprising - but that does not imply that NG himself donated. But there's a more fundamental problem - unless such rumours have appears in a reliable source, we can't include them (and probably shouldn't anyway), so including a rebuttal to something we can't include seems rather pointless. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a rumor I've seen online dating back well over a decade, and much of the main purpose of discussing Gaiman's Scientologist connections has long seemed to be to advance a sort of guilt by association. So I'd ask this - if we're not going to include the clear fact that Gaiman himself is not a Scientologist, what is the larger point of the Scientologist stuff in terms of his overall significance and notability? What is it adding to the article? Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It is part of his upbringing. For example, I'm not a Catholic but I was brought up as one and went to a Catholic school. So that fact that he isn't one and the fact he was brought up in a Scientologist home are two different things. I'd suggest we don't include the Bissette material as we don't include anything that says he is still one so there is nothing to counter. (Emperor (talk) 04:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC))

Were Catholicism as widely controversial as Scientology, perhaps I'd see your point. But right now, we have a bunch of information linking him to an enormously controversial group. To my mind, clarifying that these are family ties, not his own ties, is only fair. Phil Sandifer (talk) 12:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Seventeen year old children discussing the details of the life of a person they will never know does not an encyclopedia make. BLP- DO NO HARM. The end.EchoofReason (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that you deleted the statement that the Gaimans moved to East Grinstead "when his parents moved there to work for the Church of Scientology, of which his father, who died in March 2009, was a prominent member." The Brighton Argus piece cited in our article does actually say this; both parents were officials of the Church's Guardian's Office. (For the record, the late David Gaiman was the Public Relations Chief World Wide and was for a time the Church's chief spokesman, and his wife Sheila served as Public Relations Assistant World Wide or PRAWW). -- ChrisO (talk) 21:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Why does any note about Scientology need be made? Neil Gaiman himself has rarely, if ever, mentioned anything about this. As far as I'm concerned, Gaiman isn't a Scientologist, his immediate family are/were. My Uncle is a Catholic priest, I am not a Catholic. If I were notable, I would not expect there to be any mention of Catholicism on my Wiki, unless it were to quote a source where I mentioned it. I propose removing all references to his parents religion and Scientology from the article. I am interested in the discussion, as a Gaiman fan and a nerdy anti-Scientologist, but it's totally irrelevant with respect to this article. Fol de rol troll (talk) 22:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe it is irrelevant, since it's a significant part of his life. You might just as well argue that it's irrelevant that the Gaimans are of Polish Jewish origins, but that's relevant to why they came to the West in the first place (there were bloody pogroms in turn-of-the-century Poland). Scientology is relevant to how and why Gaiman moved to East Sussex and lived there for many years. Like it or not, it's a reliably documented, significant part of his life story. We're in the business of writing a biography, not a hagiography scrubbed clean of anything which fans might dislike. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Gaiman moved as a small child and lived there at the choice of his parents. Because Scientology is such a controversial religion, I feel that to mention it all gives rise to disputes such as this, as to whether Gaiman is a Scientologist. As he has himself made no statement about his religious beliefs, I feel that to bring Scientology into his article is irrelevant. The sentance could easily be rendered that his parents moved to East Grinstead for religious reasons. I don't think removing the information that his parents were Scientologists turns an article into a hagiography. If he had a widely documented Scientology connection based upon his own adult choices (like Tom Cruise) then it would be worth including. I realise that this is somewhat of a personal crusade of yours, and commend you on your commmitment to keeping it in the article, but I genuinely believe that it is an irrelevancy. I also don't think it's particularly important that Gaiman is a Polish Jew, it may be important into understanding why he has an unusual surname, but that's about it. Again, using myself as a reference point, an article on myself wouldn't need to note that I am of Irish extraction on my fathers side. Just because something is documented fact doesn't mean it is relevant fact. If Gaiman were to put on his blog that he'd taken a big crap on a particular day, I wouldn't add it to this article, regardless of it's stated existence. The emigration of Poles to the UK is worthy of documentation and I'm sure the numerous times and reasons that population has came here is documented elsewhere on Wikipedia. To a second generation emigré writer, I would suggest that it's a bit meaningless. I'm sure, though, you'll find reason to disagree. Fol de rol troll (talk) 23:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that we see what other editors think. The article has been stable for a long time and this information has also been in it for a long time; let's get some more views to see where the consensus lies. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

you are exactly what Bisette points out, an internet stirrer looking for attention for himself. Do Bios routinely list the religions of someone's father here? Answer, no they do not. Linking someone to a fairy tale religion which is likely not true violates strict BLP DO NO HARM. It's people like ChrisO who will bring us all down you hear me!EchoofReason (talk) 04:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Please be civil. Disagree with the opinion; do not attack the person. Aleta ^Sing 04:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This would be a curious encyclopedic entry, indeed, if the fact of whether Neil Gaiman's parents were Scientologists is relevant but the fact of whether or not Neil Gaiman himself is a Scientologist is not relevant. Austinmayor (talk) 01:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not think anyone has made that particular claim. I think whether or not he is, is relevant, but I question our ability to cite someone else's blog in refernece to it (no matter which side of the discussion the blog takes). Aleta ^Sing 03:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that we find ourselves at the awkward crossroads of having a reliable source to show Gaiman's parents as prominent Scientologists, but not a reliable source to show that Gaiman is no longer affiliated with the cult (I mean, religion). I think a key aspect is—how long for, if ever, did Neil consider himself to be Scientologist? Has anyone considered emailing Gaiman to resolve this problem on his blog, which we could then source?

On the Polish Jew situation, I believe there is consensus to keep this genealogical kind of thing in. Personally I think it can be an awful choice as it gives undue weight to things that even the subject would consider minor aspects of themselves. Notable examples include the current dispute to list Winona Ryder as a Russian-American, and previous discussion of labeling Bob Dylan as Turkish. However, this problem is caused by POV idiots looking to "claim" a certain celebrity for a nation/country/religion etc, the wealth of footnotes (see #3) to describe Alexander the Great as "Greek" is but one example of the lengths needed to defend this info. On the other hand, I think the brief statement of "family is of Polish Jewish origins" and the category "British people of Polish descent" sums it up just fine. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 12:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You have no reliable source to show he was ever affiliated with the cult. It like "when did you stop beating your wife." He'll never reply to your email I can assure you. So DO NO HARM. Ps ChrisO who I firmly believe is the person trying to condemn Gaiman around the internet made a threat on my talk page. I don't like it.EchoofReason (talk) 17:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Echo, you really need to stop making personal attacks - you've been warned not to do it by two administrators (myself and Aleta), and it's a blockable offence. As for the substantive part of your comment, there are some reliable but very old (~40 years ago) sources that describe NG as a Scientologist - the London Times and some Church of Scientology publications. I'm not aware of any sources newer than about 1970 which mention NG in those terms. It was decided a long time ago on this talk page that it would be undue weight to include those sources in this article. I believe NG himself has been asked on a number of occasions, but he's consistently declined to talk about it. Which is fair enough; it's his own business after all. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. My concern remains that if we're going to include sources that give an impression of a Gaiman/Scientology link, and we have a clear reliable source saying that no such link exists (which we do), we ought include that source. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Glad that this has had some people supporting my ideas. I'm not sure how (if it's formal) one sets up a poll for forming consensus. Is it possible we could do this? Fol de rol troll (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

"Church of Scientology publications" are reliable sources? When it comes to membership? Really?!? Austinmayor (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed this nonsense from the page. Gaiman's blog recounts his saying of Kaddish over his father at the grave; not the behavior of Scientologists. Further, it certainly has that 'guilt by association' feel to it. I can see no value in it to this article; it would be relevant to show sources stating that he was himself a member but left in 1970, or whenever.ThuranX (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll agree with that. If the Gaiman himself refuses to clarify or make a statement, and it is barely merits a mention in the press, then it's probably not worthy of inclusion. If you're having to go back to sources from the 1970s to show something about a modern author then that should send alarm bells ringing in the first place. I think there is a distinct difference between a hagiography and an on-topic bio. Maybe this isn't acting in good faith ChrisO, but if you see removal of this as something to "scrub clean" then it somewhat reveals your perspective of putting this information in the article in the first place. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 07:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. All the sources on Gaiman's parents were dead links, curiously. I find the whole thing very dubious. Mezigue (talk) 09:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It is interesting to read ChrisO mention " but he's consistently declined to talk about it. Which is fair enough; it's his own business after all", surely this is not the same ChrisO who has been consistently reinstating links to this supposed link toScientology for at least two years now. I came back to this article and was disappointed to see this whole addition/removal of the Scientology stuff is still continued. I posted in 2007 that it was not deserving of such a big part of the article and was accused of nonsense by the same ChrisO. I am glad that I am still, as I was also tthen, not alone in my opinion. I mean we may as well expand that he was raised as Jewish yet attended a church of England school, and the Jewishness of his parents if we want to include something that HE has never mentioned and that ANY search on seems to bring us back to the same old obscure arrticles, I remain unconvinced and also must question ChrisO's motives and agenda Foxydavid (talk) 11:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I am far more suspicious of an editor who returns after two years of no edits just to cast aspersions on another editor. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

My suspicions were in line with edits that have been made on this page, and in consenseus with experiences that I and others have been subjected too, for you to say you are suspicious of me without reference to any of the edits that I have made, is personal (without knowing me) and quite frankly disgraceful. My edits are recorded, YOU have never undid ANY of them - so what are you suspicious of? The frequency of my edits is not your concern, this is not my job Foxydavid (talk) 22:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)) 22:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Because you came back after two years to make a personal attack on another editor, and that stinks to high heaven. /shrug. Do you have anything useful to contribute? It doesn't seem like you're actually objecting to or wanting to change this article so much as to gloat. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Again my feelings on the article are clear from the discussions and edits I have made previouslly. The reason I have not edited the article, and will not do so, are that I have taken on board the arguments made against the edits I wanted. I believe that is acting in a VERY respectful manner as I am not making the changes that I believe are right as I accept there is not a consensus. I was merely pointing out the fact that similar things had been done/saiod to me two yyears ago and bringing to the public eye that people are not alone in their views (something I was accused of.) I would like to ask WHAT do you feel I am gloating about? I wish I had something to gloat about, but I do not so how I could be gloating is beyond me. Again would you point out what edits you have a problem with,, and are you now telling me you are NOT happy with, are you telling me that you want me to make edits that would not have the general consensus? I try not to do that, sometimes it happens but never willingly so. Again you may think I stink but I have done NOTHING suspicious and that is a personal insulyt to far. My post was merely pointing out what I believed where inconsitencies,based upon experiences I was subjected to, others may disagree I am sure they do, but wikipedia is about debate NOT making unfounded personal attacks. I was not doing so, I ask you to refrain from doing the same. Particularly theis this the neil Gaiman talk page not the foxydavid vs Phil talk page, my original point related to the arguments about NEIL GAIMAN, yours do not. 07:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxydavid (talk • contribs)

I'm here because a New Yorker article has just pointed out that Neil Gaiman's Scientology connections are always removed from this article. As far as I can tell from reading the comments here, this is because Scientology is "controversial". I had never realized that the point of Wikipedia articles was to stay away from "controversial" subjects! I'll bear that in mind in future. But seriously, why should we stay away from Neil Gaiman's connections to Scientology when it clearly had a large influence on his upbringing? I don't see that there are any BLP problems, because the information is reliably sourced, and does not reflect badly on Gaiman himself in any way. cojoco (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It is reverted. Mr Software, because the same article you cite confirms he is NOT a Scientologist. Aside from the fact that he didn't get into a school, there is no evidence that the religion of his father had any effect on him HomolkaTheAllKnowing (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Scientology question

I'd like to know whether he supported or opposed his parents' (or certainly his father's) scientologist beliefs, in order to decide whether I should read and enjoy his books or not. That may not make much sense, but consider this: if a prominent author also had deep-seated Neo-Nazi beliefs, would that alter your willingness to read and enjoy their work? That's how I feel about this issue. So at least a mention of whether or not he endorsed or rejected those beliefs on his page would be appreciated. Have there been no interviews that touched on this? Jekteir (talk) 00:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Not that anyone's seen. LadyofShalott 03:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a document floating around the internet somewhere that lists his status re. scientology as an enemy of scientology. I believe the same document also states he was once a proctor. Clearly he wants very little to do with scientology now.72.147.103.156 (talk) 13:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't sound like this document is a reputable source by wikipedia standards. Lentower (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Atheist Remark uncited, taking it down until confirmed

Atheist Remark uncited, taking it down until confirmed -Tony —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.248.90 (talk) 03:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Scientology

You know guys, I think it's about time y'all included the topic in the article. Even the New Yorker is snickering at us - by name - for being unable (or unwilling) to address it. The New Yorker! From http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/01/25/100125fa_fact_goodyear?currentPage=all :

"The pivotal fact of Gaiman’s childhood is one that appears nowhere in his fiction and is periodically removed from his Wikipedia page by the site’s editors. When he was five, his family moved to East Grinstead, the center of English Scientology, where his parents began taking Dianetics classes. His father, a real-estate developer, and his mother, a pharmacist, founded a vitamin shop, G & G Foods, which is still operational. (According to its Web site, it supplies the Human Detoxification Programme, a course of vitamins, supplements, and other alleged purification techniques, which Scientology offers at disaster sites like Chernobyl and Ground Zero.) In the seventies, his father, who died last year, began working in Scientology’s public-relations wing and over time rose high in the organization. Gaiman has two younger sisters, both still active in Scientology; one of them works for the church in Los Angeles, and the other helps run the family businesses.

At times, Scientology proved awkward for the Gaiman children. According to Lizzy Calcioli, the sister who stayed in England, “Most of our social activities were involved with Scientology or our Jewish family. It would get very confusing when people would ask my religion as a kid. I’d say, ‘I’m a Jewish Scientologist.’ ” Gaiman says that he was blocked from entering a boys’ school because of his father’s position and had to remain at the school he’d been attending, the only boy left in a classroom full of girls. These days, Gaiman tends to avoid questions about his faith, but says he is not a Scientologist. Like Judaism, Scientology is the religion of his family, and he feels some solidarity with them. “I will stand with groups when I feel like they’re being properly persecuted,” he told me.
....

While still in England, Gaiman met an American woman named Mary McGrath, who was studying Scientology in East Grinstead and living in a house owned by his father. They had a son, Mike, in 1983 and got married two years later. Shortly after that, they had a daughter, whom they named Holly, after the transvestite in the Lou Reed song. In the early nineties, the family moved to the United States, in part because Gaiman was being paid by DC Comics in dollars, which were weak against the pound. Mary’s family lived in Minneapolis; the plan was to be within driving distance of them but, as Gaiman puts it, not so close that the in-laws didn’t have to call before visiting. Maddy, their third child, was born there. Gaiman and his wife grew estranged and, after a long separation, divorced in 2008. Mary lives in a cottage on Gaiman’s property, and Maddy, who is in tenth grade, splits her time between the two households. "

--Gwern (contribs) 14:10 18 January 2010 (GMT)

Add what ? WP is not the New Yorker. To write that he "says he is not a Scientologist" (implying that he might be), may be fine in a magazine feature but not here. You'd not even get away with it in a good newspaper, where concise factual reporting is favoured over rumour and hearsay. --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The deletionists made Wikipedia a laughing stock again. Good job guys...  Grue  19:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I made a comment up above before I noticed this discussion. However, reading all the comments above, it seems like Neil Gaiman's Scientology connections are always removed from this article because Scientology is "controversial". I had never realized that the point of Wikipedia articles was to stay away from "controversial" subjects! I'll bear that in mind in future. But seriously, why should we stay away from Neil Gaiman's connections to Scientology when it clearly had a large influence on his upbringing? I don't see that there are any BLP problems, because the information is reliably sourced, and does not reflect badly on Gaiman himself in any way. cojoco (talk) 23:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

removed comments by sockpuppeteer & stalker. --Gwern (contribs) 22:18 21 January 2010 (GMT)

Did anyone say he was? cojoco (talk) 02:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Whatever Gaiman's current personal beliefs are, we now have a reliable source (The New Yorker) describing the move to East Grinstead and his parents' involvement in Scientology as "the pivotal fact of Gaiman's childhood". I think it would be entirely appropriate to note (briefly!) his parents' involvement with Scientology and his own position on the subject. I disagree with JohnBlackburne's suggestion that "says he is not a Scientologist" implies that he might be — why not read that neutrally? By all accounts, Gaiman is not a Scientologist, but it seems that Scientology, like Judaism, was a noteworthy part of his upbringing and background. Since we have a reliable source saying as much, I don't see why it shouldn't be reflected in the article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

removed comments by sockpuppeteer & stalker. --Gwern (contribs) 22:18 21 January 2010 (GMT)

Homolka, I'm not trying to cast aspersions on Gaiman (indeed, I'm a longtime fan of the man's writing, and give The Sandman partial credit for my introduction to my wife). I'm not sure what you mean when you say "it also says he isn't a Catholic" — I don't see any mention of Catholicism in the New Yorker article. However, it does devote two paragraphs to his family's connections to Scientology. I fail to see how an acknowledgement of his family's connections to Scientology, followed by a statement that Gaiman says he is not a Scientologist, would be harmful. We would be reflecting what a reliable source has already stated. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised anyone finds the above to be a reliable source. It's a tabloid feature: the trick of asking people a leading question you know they will deny and print it anyway is a cheap writing trick to make less attentive readers think there's some substance to it. Similarly writing "Scientology is the religion of his family, and he feels some solidarity with them", based on no evidence. The rest is stuff way beyond the bounds of any BLP - details on his non-notable family, especially digging up his marriage & divorce.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 07:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The New Yorker is not a tabloid. It's a respected magazine, which publishes investigative journalism, fiction, and criticism. Its writers include several Pulitzer Prize winners, including Seymour Hirsch. The author of this article clearly interviewed Gaiman several times, as well as his friends, colleagues and family members. I see no reason not to treat it as a reliable source.

And David Gaiman is not non-notable. Based on our page on him and the obituaries linked from it, it would seem that he was noteworthy for both his roles in Scientology and his charitable and business work.

As for Gaiman's marriage and divorce, these are standard biographical facts. I don't think that the article is particularly salacious; it states the facts of Gaiman's marriage, children, and divorce, much as our article does, and adds some details that would be beyond this article's scope (that his ex-wife lives in a cottage on his property — which we wouldn't mention just because it's not a terribly relevant detail). What's the problem? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, for what it's worth: our article on The New Yorker says that it is well known for its rigorous fact checking. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Well WP is not a reliable source, and that in particular seems to veer far from a NPOV for a WP article. But what is there to include? There's no evidence he's a Scientologist or has ever been one, just gossipy rumours. There's an article on his father already (which I was not aware of before). And the rest of his family are not notable so should not be included, certainly not with their religions so readers can be encouraged to draw conclusion about his religious beliefs (the New Yorker's approach).--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I've read teh earlier discussions abuot this issue. The main objection was the lack of reliable sourcing. That is no longer a problemn. I've added some biographical material from the New Yorker article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.83.172.121 (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

His father has his own article but obviously the normal way to write a Wikipedia article would be to also briefly mention the most important things about his father in this one. The fact that his father was a prominent figure in British Scientology is one of those things. Anyway this isn't really about his parents but about him--Gaiman says in the NYer article that he was raised as a "Jewish Scientologist," so the article should mention that--a person's childhood religion is an important biographical fact.Prezbo (talk) 13:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a quote from his (non-notable) sister, not him, and what his sister said she said as a child does not establish anything. There's no evidence at all that he was scientologist - if there was it would be in the New Yorker article, as I'm sure they're not above including facts amongst speculation.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Having reviewed it I've just reverted it, as per WP:BLPSTYLE. The conclusion in particular "Brought up in two traditions, Gaiman says that he is not now a Scientologist" would seem to be both unfounded (the first part) and unnecessary. He would deny many things if asked, but that does not make it right to include them. Unless there is some real evidence that he was a scientologist the denial makes no sense. Even suggesting he was once in what most people consider a dangerous cult is not fit for the article. --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually it establishes a lot--it establishes what his family religion was as a child. This is also established by the fact that the New Yorker--an impeccable source--states that "Like Judaism, Scientology is the religion of his family." To leave this out of the article involves casting a degree of suspicion on the New Yorker that it's done nothing to deserve. So far seven or eight people have weighed in here and one agrees with you. I'm going to take this to the BLP noticeboard, maybe that will save some time.Prezbo (talk) 14:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. I was thinking that would be my next stop if something similar was put in again, as to me there does not seem to be a consensus here. Contributions from editors familiar with BLP issues would I think help a lot.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

No, there's a consensus here alright. There's a consensus of 6 or 7 editors to add it, with one person (you) opposing. --Gwern (contribs) 15:24 19 January 2010 (GMT)

I see one other, so I am not alone but definitely in the minority. Thank goodness we're not a democracy. !--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

removed comments by sockpuppeteer & stalker. --Gwern (contribs) 22:18 21 January 2010 (GMT)

No personal attacks, Homolka. (Wouldn't an obsessed fan want to keep it out? Most would not perceive it as flattering.) And why wouldn't it be included? It is impeccably sourced and it is an important part of his biography - the 2 of you notwithstanding. --Gwern (contribs) 18:06 19 January 2010 (GMT)

Comment from WP:BLPN: the scientology is, from the New Yorker article, unambiguously an important part of his family background, and should be included. Care should of course be taken not to imply anything about his adult beliefs which is not clearly warranted by reliable sources. Rd232 ^talk 18:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It already is included in a footnote, appended to his father's name which links to an article with far more detail. The problem with the New Yorker is it doesn't introduce any new facts, just some implications via a denial and a dubious suggestion he feels solidarity with scientology. Even if the New Yorker is at times a reliable source this piece is far too slanted to be used as such.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, everyone, Homolka has been accused of being a banned user: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Banned user returns?. Nice allies you have there, John. :) --Gwern (contribs) 18:43 19 January 2010 (GMT)

John Blackburne, why are you so bigoted against Scientology, calling it a dangeruos cult? I'm very offended by your bigotry against my religion. Neil is not on lines now but he is very well known by british Scientologists. He did Scn courses in the 1980s. I have The Auditor #202 (undated but printed in 1988) which lists him completing 3 courses. The New Yorker article says he was "brought up in two traditions" and quotes Neil as saying "he is not a Scientologist". You are wrong to delete it, concensus is against you. Oh and congratulations for proving the New Yorker right about people trying to delete this data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.83.172.121 (talk) 18:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting: first Homolka assumes that I'm "desperate to cast aspersions on my betters", and then, when I make it clear that this isn't so, he calls me an "obsessed fan". The truth is that I'm neither: although I am a fan of Gaiman's work, I'm far from a fan of Scientology. My sole interest here is improving the article, by including relevant information backed by a reliable source. For what it's worth, I think that the anon's wording was appropriate for the article: neutrally worded, and avoiding placing undue emphasis. --Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I just came here after reading the article in the New Yorker. I would have to agree that this information should be included in the article. He is not a Scientologist, but it was a distinctive part of his upbringing and as with all authors his background would influence the origin and character of his art. - SimonP (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason to treat Scientology as different from any other religion. Normally in BLPs, if a person was born into a family of a certain religion, or was in some other way raised or educated with those religious beliefs, we say so, though we don't apply the label to them (Christian etc), unless they embraced it themselves as an adult. There's no reason to do any differently here, so long as the sources are solid. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 22:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It may be part of his upbringing, but so were being Jewish and English at least as much, and they seem to have shaped him more in later life (at least he speaks of them more). The New Yorker's claim that scientology was "The pivotal fact of [his] childhood" seems unfounded, and they have not found anything new. As for the status of scientology I'm sorry if anyone took offence at my earlier characterisation of it but what I wrote was correct: in the UK where I am it is not regarded as a religion, and "dangerous cult" is far from the worst thing said or written about it. --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Follow the sources! --John (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Does this belong ?

Gaiman's sister Lizzy Calcioli comments: "It would get very confusing when people would ask my religion as a kid. I’d say, 'I’m a Jewish Scientologist.'"

It's just about her experiences as a child. She is not mentioned anywhere else in the article, is distinctly non-notable, and especially she says nothing about the article's subject. So by WP:BLPNAME, which particularly mentions family members, she should not be mentioned.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The material under discussion is still buried in a footnote at the bottom of the article: Scientology isn't actually mentioned anywhere in the body. If nobody adds it I guess I'll have a go on the weekend, as without the banned user it seems like a pretty clear consensus. cojoco (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the 1st paragraph here together with the above quote.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

An argument could be made for including the quotation but not his sister's name; the point of including the quotation is that it illustrates the religious complexity of Gaiman's family of origin. How would people feel if the sentence simply read, "...They remained closely involved with Judaism, though Gaiman's sister comments: "It would get very confusing...""? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I decided to be WP:BOLD and try that out. I think that John's WP:BLPNAME point is correct, but I think that including the quotation without the sister's name resolves the issue adequately. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia wins again! Finally, the facts are in the article, in an informative and non-inflammatory way. cojoco (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Given the amount of time, RSs, and arguing it took, I don't think Wikipedia 'won' so much as 'stopped failing so hard'; but I'm happy too that it's finally in. --Gwern (contribs) 23:29 20 January 2010 (GMT)

Me too. Good call, guys. --JN466 04:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick follow up to say he has been asked about this on the BBC [6]. (Emperor (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC))

If he's a scientologist why isn't he listed in the category of Scientologists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.36.212.243 (talk) 04:56, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Because he's not one: [7]--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 05:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Incomplete Bibliography

The bibliography is incomplete. Three picture books are not mentioned: The Day I Swapped My Dad for Two Goldfish (Illustrated by Dave McKean); The Wolves in the Walls (Illustrated by Dave McKean); and The Dangerous Alphabet (Illustrated by Gris Grimly). Please update accordingly. 90.196.234.154 (talk) 03:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not intended to be complete here. See Neil Gaiman bibliography for the full thing. LadyofShalott 03:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was referring to the box on the bottom of the page.90.196.234.154 (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The articles should be written first (as per WP:NAV), which for such books should be easy and fun if you want to give it a go.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

One down, two to go, whenever anyone feels keen enough. --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Makes sense. Maybe if I get some time I'll write my first Wikipedia entry. :) 90.196.234.184 (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I nominated it for Did You Know? so it may appear on the front page in the next few hours, along with the author so this article may get a bit more attention than usual for a short while, in case anyone is watching it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Penthouse

After this, he was offered a job by Penthouse. On one side, it was steady income to support his wife and two kids. On the other, it was an adult magazine. He refused the offer.[2]

I can't work out exactly which of the many [2] references is meant to support this, but it is incorrect. I have a copy of Penthouse from 1986 with articles by Gaiman in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickpheas (talk • contribs) 12:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The source is this: Biography Today. Detroit, Michigan: Omnigraphics. 2010. pp. 90–91. It's offline so I can't check. Christopher Connor (talk) 17:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I've read before that he did right for Penthouse – like the Duran Duran bio it's something he did early on, perhaps just to make money, but before he got famous writing comics – and just read it again in a new interview here. I would think Biography Today – which is what? a compendium of mini-bios, not an in-depth biography of Gaiman? – is simply wrong in this, though we could do with something other than the primary sources we seem to have now.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Neil may well have refused an offer to work for Penthouse but someone of the same name most definitely worked for Knave, as seemingly confirmed Wikipedia's very own article. Among his contributions, an interview with Alan Moore. 92.29.229.64 (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Footnote wrong?

What's currently footnote 55 seems to be wrong to me. It might be a duplicate of 56, but it seems confusing to me, so I'd rather leave it to the hands of someone more knowledgeable. HTH anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.202.239.23 (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your query. 55 looks to be a citation to the Tori Amos song "Tear in Your Hand" itself, used to cite that the the song mentions "Neil and the Dream King". 56 is this source, presumably the lyrics to the same song, used to cite "Amos also mentions Gaiman in her songs, "Tear in Your Hand" ("If you need me, me and Neil'll be hangin' out with the dream king. Neil says hi by the way")". But yes, you're right, there seems to be some redundancy and confusion in the way it's written and sourced. What we really need is a source for "a Sandman fan who became friends with Gaiman after making a reference". Christopher Connor (talk) 17:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Does it Count as Popular culture?

A recently published series, The Iron Druid Chronicles, features a reference to Gaiman in the third installment, Hammered. In the book, the main character is attempting to explain the concept of "squeeing" to a vampire and claims to have squeed when he once met Gaiman at a convention.

Given that the series is still new and relatively unknown, I don't actually know if it is significant enough to warrant mention in the section.

Please advise. TheHoit (talk) 19:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Considering there isn't even a Wikipedia article for The Iron Druid Chronicles or Iron Druid Chronicles, I'd say no. If an article is created for the book, it would be better mentioned there, imho. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Border Town ‖ 19:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Unless there's a reliable independent source, such as a review of the book, that mentions Gaiman's appearance then I'd say not.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it counts as a "Passing mention" in a book and therefore should not be listed in the article. Span (talk) 23:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree, and that's why I was unsure. As the series has had 3 volumes published this year and is likely to have more in the future, I'm sure it will eventually merit mention. TheHoit (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Though, do bare in mind that Wikipedia currently hosting an article on a subject or not has no bearing or reflection whatsoever on its notability. Whether an article has been written here on The Iron Druid Chronicles is neither here nor there. Span (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

"Karen Berger read Black Orchid and offered him a job on The Sandman"

The paraphrase in the title of this section seems very wrong to me. In several early interviews (Amazing Heroes, Comics Journal) Gaiman describes the "scouting" of British talents (what will become the second wave of the "British invasion") by Karen berger and another DC executive. When asked by Berger about other ideas (after some where not doable), Gaiman came up with Black Orchid which Berger misunderstood as "Blackhawk Kid" (this is well-known Gaiman lore, IMHO). Also, Black Orchid was published to further interest in the Sandman, which was a spanking new monthly about an obscure charcter by an unknown new writer, and so the Black Orchid miniseries was released (this is from memory) about 5 months before the first Sandman issue to give the monthly a better chance to be accepted by the fans. McKean was already somewhat known because of his Hellblazer covers and "Arkham Asylum" was already planned. To say that Berger "read" Black Orchid and then gave Gaiman the Sandman job is astonishingly wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.203.242.80 (talk) 20:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Dubious

The assertion "Gaiman generally posts to the blog several times a week" is a bit out of date; a quick look at the blog and it's updated very irregularly now, with the last update almost a month ago. I'm not sure how to update it though as that's original research and I don't have a source for it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I just deleted it. It is, as you said, original research, and it's not terribly important. LadyofShalott 15:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Heart of Lothian

Well firstly I watched the video and I couldn't spot him. The video cited wasn't uploaded in respect to the copyright holder so cannot be linked to per WP:LINKVIO. Since it's both trivial and not even obvious from the video, we'd need a very good reliably published source (i.e. a reputable news article covering it). I highly doubt such a source exists. Яehevkor ✉ 21:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, Rehevkor, I spotted it first time. I am sorry, you are not the arbiter of what is trivia and what is not. Wikipedia is about what is reliable and verifiable. If Gaiman appears in a music video and is demonstrable that he does, then he does. If the section is on his work in film, then that is his work in film. WP:LINKVIO does not apply here, as the video is posted for research purposes, and does not constitute a copyright violation. The first objection was no source for the claim, now that there's a source, the objection is the source can't be used...not because it's suspect, but because the right person didn't provide it? Really? 66.87.4.222 (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

In fact, he's in it at exactly 2:54 seconds. Watch it again, its quite obvious. 66.87.4.222 (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Someone in a pop video looks a little like Neil Gaiman. That's all you can say from a poor quality illegal copy of a decades old video. So it's definitely not reliably sourced, which means we can't be sure of it, and even if sourced it's trivia: search YouTube and you'll find hundreds of videos with Gaiman in, most of them far more interesting and relevant. But even the interesting ones we don't link to as Wikipedia is not a collection of links.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't even look like him. a13ean (talk) 03:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow, talk about failure to assume good faith. The video is not illegal, not poor quality and that it is decades old is not relevant in any way to the inclusion of the information. It is most certainly reliably sourced. If you say Tom Cruise is in Top Gun, you see the movie, and he's there, is he there, or not? It doesn't matter if Gaiman is is one video, ten or ten million, he is in Heart of Lothian, and that is the topic here. If it is trivial that he is in it, it is then trivial to say that he appeared on the Simpsons? Also, this is not a link, it is information....so come back with a relevant objection, please. 66.87.4.222 (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Link is a WP:LINKVIO, end off. It cannot be used. Please explain how a brief cameo (that may or may not be him, nothing verifiable has been presented) in a music video 17 years ago is historically notable in the grand scheme of things? The apparent consensus is that it is nothing but trivia. His Simpsons appearance was subject to coverage, such as this BBC News article (I thought you said Heart of Lothian was the topic here anyway?). Яehevkor ✉ 22:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is not taking a vote. There is no consensus here. Here's the objections listed to posting the information that Gaiman was in Heart of Lothian.

1. There is no source. (There is, the video itself) 2. Someone who watched it didn't see him. (He's there) 3. Even if he is in it, it's trivial. (Says who? As opposed to what?) 4. Even if he is in it, the video is poor quality. (Says who? Why does this matter?) 5. Even if he is in it, the video is illegal. (Says who?) 6. Saying he's in the video is a link. (No, linking to the video is the verification.) 7. But, the video is OLD. (So What? He's in the video.) 8. Saying he is in The Simpsons is mentioned is changing the subject. (I thought we were discussing triviality?) 9. The video is a copyright violation. (EMI hasn't mentioned this...are you lawyers?)

Give me a reason, using Wikipedia rules why this shouldn't be in here. Please, do it without the threats sent to my talk page to have me blocked from editing. Are we children here? 66.87.4.222 (talk) 22:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

You will need a reliable source that says he is in the video before adding a statement that he is in the video. Anything else (regardless of the quality, or copyright, or age of the video) is originial research and is not permitted in articles. Thanks for asking. --Tgeairn (talk) 22:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I have reviewed your talk page and the history for your talk page. I do not see any threats there, I only see warning against edit warring and against placement of links to material that may be copyright infringement. Those are not threats, they are warnings against continuing a behaviour. Please assume good faith on the part of your fellow editors. Just like you, they are primarily interested in improving the quality of our enyclopedia. --Tgeairn (talk) 22:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I too agree that it's non-notable trivia. As you've been told already, you need to find a reliable, third party source that explicitly says that it's him, before it can really even be discussed about whether or not it's worthwhile to mention. Read WP:VERIFY. (Sidenote: There is nothing out of line about being warned that you can be blocked for editing if you break policy. Very standard stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 22:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Please provide a reliably published source that confirms his appearance. Even if the video were usable as a source, it'd be a no original research (another "rule" for you) violation to presume it's actually him. Right now the consensus (there, another "rule") is very much against you, unless you can bring another source to the table, I have nothing more to say to you. This WP:IDHT mentality won't get you far. Яehevkor ✉ 22:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is not taking a vote. There is no consensus here. Here's the objections listed to posting the information that Gaiman was in Heart of Lothian.

originial research is nonsense. That isn't what original research means. If you read something in an article, and place it in Wikipedia, that's how articles are built. Seeing something in a video which is verifcation that it is there, is not original research...you folks are streching here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.4.222 (talk) 22:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Tom Cruise is listed in the credits for Top Gun. Is Gaiman listed in the credits for this video? No? Then we must have a 3rd-party reference that says he is in it. Your personal identification of him does not a reliable source make. LadyofShalott 01:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're not quite understanding Wikipedia's concept of "original research" or "consensus". It's as all these other editors are telling you, not your definition. You're not going to convince anyone off your current logic, if there were any chance of convincing people, it would be through reliable sources backing up your assertion it happened, and showing why it's important. Sergecross73 msg me 13:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Sergecross - Original Research, by Wikipedia guidelines, means there must be a published source for the information. There is. The video itself shows Neil Gaiman, therefore it is the source. If I film a video of you on Maple Street at three O'clock on Tuesday, that video is the source that you were there. Likewise, Gaiman is in the video. The video is published. I have heard that the video is old, that it is of "poor quality" or that it is "illegal"...None of these factors have relevance here. The question is, does it verfiy the information, at 2:54, it does.

Consensus, No one has addressed. What it seems to come down to is this...I'm the only one who thinks the information belongs here, I'm outvoted, so therefore, there is consensus. That, is not consensus. Either Gaiman appears in the video, and it should be listed, or he doesn't, so it shouldn't. The video proves that he does, so it needs to be listed, or someone needs to give a better reason than "I just don't like it." 64.222.94.115 (talk) 00:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. If you continue in your current course of action, refusing to address the concerns of the other editors above regarding both the significance of this supposed appearance, the lack of solid evidence that the person in the video is really Gaiman and not just someone else who looks like him, and the copyright violation issues, you are likely to get blocked. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm hearing everyone here and addressing all concerns. The reaction seems to be, we simply are ignoring what you're telling us. Oh well. Never asked for a vote. 64.222.94.115 (talk) 01:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah.. continued violations here, reported to WP:AIV. Яehevkor ✉ 01:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I've also requested page protection as the ever changing IP address means a block won't stick.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Outstanding. I'd love to see an adminsitrator review the vandalism against my edits.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.94.115 (talk • contribs)

Good luck with that. Яehevkor ✉ 01:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Repeated blanking of edits is clear vandalism. I checked. 64.222.94.115 (talk) 01:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Before an admin comes in, would anyone care to explain why a verified piece of information should not be here? They may find it helpful. Please use wikipedia guidelines in laying out your issue.64.222.94.115 (talk) 01:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Because what you personally saw in a music video is utterly irrelevant to Wikipedia. Furthermore, linking to a copyright-violating youtube video is completely forbidden by Wikipedia policy, even if it is your only source for an assertion. Start actually addressing the policy issues instead of simply declaring they don't apply, or you'll find yourself locked out of the talk page permanently. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It's very simple, 64.222.94.115-- nowhere in the video does it explicitly say "This man is Neil Gaiman". There is no credit to his name in the video. There is just a man in the video that you think looks like him. Because you're basing your assertion strictly on your personal observation of "This man looks like Neil Gaiman, so it is him", it is classified as "original research". All you have verified, as is, is that a man that looks like Neil Gaiman is in the video. What if it's someone else that just looks close to him? Or an impersonator? You can't tell strictly by the video. And thus, like you've been told already, you need some sort of source that specifically asserts it is him. Sergecross73 msg me 02:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

A source stating that it is Gaiman is not sufficient. While it would resolve the WP:V and WP:OR issues, we need a source that demonstrates is is worth mention in this article per WP:NPOV as well as WP:NOT and WP:BLP. --Ronz (talk) 04:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Right, I'm just saying he'd need to do what I'm talking about before it could really even be considered for inclusion. Judging by this response on my talk page, hopefully the IP seems to at least understand my explanation at this point... Sergecross73 msg me 14:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Former scientologist?

This category doesn't seem the best fit -- as far as I can tell from the article he was raised in a scientologist family, but I don't see anything about him ever identifying himself as a scientologist at any point. Thoughts? a13ean (talk) 03:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You're right: he has never self-identified as such, the evidence for it is all circumstantial, by WP:BLPCAT it definitely does not belong so I've removed it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 03:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a recently emerging news item - it appears he was definitely interviewed as a child about Scientology:

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/07/scientology_neil_gaiman_bbc_1968.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.6.206 (talk) 06:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

(1) It's a blog, and even though it's a Village Voice blog rather than one on some uncontrolled site like wordpress or livejournal, we need to take extra care with sources in a BLP. (2) I don't think what he said when he was a small child can count as a true profession of religion. It merely corroborates the "raised in a scientologist family" bit that we already knew about. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

New Book "Lettie Hempstock's Ocean"

Putting this here because the article is locked, so if one of you wants to add this that would be super. He recently completed a new novel for adults, tentatively titled "Lettie Hempstock's Ocean" http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2012/07/evening-with-in-edinburgh-also-falling.html No release date is set as of yet, but in another recent blog entry he mentions artist Charles Vess whom he had previously worked with on Stardust will be doing the illustrations http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2012/07/tesla-coils-stardust-cover-sinister.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.223.218 (talk) 21:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually that's Vess doing some more pictures for a new edition of Stardust. Check his Tumblr for more examples. As for the new book it's a bit early: all there is is a title, which may not be the final title: no date, publisher, genre, no indication even if any work is to be done on it (such as adding illustrations).--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, good to know. Let's hang on till at least a release date is given. Thanks Span (talk) 21:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

We now have a release date, a new title "The Ocean at the End of the Lane", & a (very) brief synopsis http://aidanmoher.com/blog/2012/10/asides/the-first-synopsis-for-the-ocean-at-the-end-of-the-lane-by-neil-gaiman/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.237.117 (talk) 03:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Anybody care to update the wiki? I'd do it myself but its locked. Here's him talking about the new book on his own blog

http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2012/10/the-ocean-at-end-of-lane-other-bits-of.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.53.73 (talk) 22:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 December 2012

As a friend of Neil's I'd be remiss if I didn't keep pushing this, can someone at least add a blurb about "The Ocean at the End of the Lane"? It comes out on January the 18th, and is only semi related to American Gods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.238.59 (talk) 00:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

British, English, American

We label him British in {{infobox writer}}, describe him as English in the lead, and put him in zillions of English categories. (Only one British cat, British Jewish writers, which seems to be an oversight with English available.)

See WP:UKNATIONALS. Do we know whether he considers himself British or English now?

By the way, was his wife from Minnesota, USA or did her family relocate there between 1985 and 1992? The article might indicate that so briefly as by specifying "Mary McGrath from Minnesota" at the end of Early life. Were their children all born in Britain? The article might indicate that so briefly as by specifying "They have three children ... who were then under age two." --P64 (talk) 20:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he's retained his British citizenship while in the US: he would have to give it up if he became a US citizen which would be very noteworthy but is not in the article. Which makes him English or British wherever he is (in the UK now, according to his tumblr). As for where and when his children were born and where his wife is from, those aren't really notable facts about him. So I've fixed the category but don't think anything needs changing or adding.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

But do we know whether he considers himself British or English? See WP: UKNATIONALS.

It seems likely that he was eligible for the Newbery Medal#Criteria as a resident, which probably means permanent resident, in 2008 and/or 2009

Notable fact? It's odd that the biography of a transnational family, or a British or English family that relocated internationally, says nothing about when or where children were born (having the date of the move, one would reveal something about the other). That the marriage ended by death or divorce in 2007, per infobox, is another reason we should know something about the age of the children in 1992 (or 2007, equivalently).

He was eligible --P64 (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

He calls himself English here and here. As for where his various children were born, I agree with Blackburne: it's not particularly relevant. He's famous for his writing, not for his reproductive skills. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

If you really want to know more about his family you can find out much for yourself, as apart from his ex-wife he hasn't tried hard to keep them from the public eye. But WP is not the place for such information. Wait until they are famous enough themselves for their own WP articles, if ever.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Wait until they are famous notable enough themselves for their own WP articles...

Fame & notability are not the same thing. See WP:N. Lentower (talk) 23:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Just a correction of fact - he certainly could be both a British and US Citizen: I am. The US dropped the requirement for naturalized citizens to give up other citizenships (and vice versa for US citizens abroad) close to 10 years ago now. I emigrated to the US from Britain, hold both US and UK citizenship and consider myself British and American. My kids (all born in the US) are and will remain Dual Citizens by birth unless for some reason they chose to formally renounce one of their citizenships. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.24.150.226 (talk) 05:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Sources

{{Authority control}} in the article footer links library catalog data.

I have provided a formal reference to the directory of 2010 CILIP book awards press releases, but the official website remains underutilized for the mere fact that Gaiman won the 2010 Award.

• (Carnegie Winner 2010). [2012-11-05, target the correct year] Living Archive: Celebrating the Carnegie and Greenaway Winners. CILIP. Retrieved 20 August 2012.
• [ref name=prdir2010] "Releases for 2010 Awards". Press Desk. CILIP. Retrieved 20 August 2012.

Two of the contemporary press releases feature Gaiman and The Graveyard Book and some other releases may be relevant.

CILIP does not publish Gaiman's acceptance speech, if any. He has won so many awards, I suspect that a few acceptance speeches are available online. --P64 (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

"Biography" at Neil Gaiman: About Neil

This official biography may be useful. Evidently the website has been reorganized; at least the section About Neil. I have tagged two {dead link} there, currently Refs 18 and 19, distinct URLs that now return the top page.

--P64 (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request on 15 May 2013

There is a minor grammatical error in the section titled "Novels". In the fifth paragraph, second sentence, second line, there is a repetition of the word "same" twice in a row. I found this error very frustrating, and I think it would be best if this error is solved as soon as possible. Thank you. Rsbenjamin (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

edit request

Todd Macfarlane recently stated publicly that their final settlement (previously unrevealed) was to swap rights. He gave up his rights to Angela (meaning the character can be published by Marvel) and Gaiman gave up the rights to Medieval /Dark Ages Spawn. I wanted to add this because the section on litigation currently has no closure even though the court cases are all over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.65.253 (talk) 11:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Could you add some links to reliable sources? Span (talk) 11:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 September 2012

In a section regarding Niel Gaiman's life today, it is mentioned that he lives "near Minneapolis". He lives in Menomonie Wi, which is about 75 miles away. My sources are that I live there and also it can be found in his biography I'm sure. Im sure in the sources you listed for the "near Minneapolis" comment actually say Menomonie, please just be acurate, perhaps "he now lives in Menomonie, a town near Minneapolis" 71.230.104.136 (talk) 16:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done No, we cannot add something based on someone's personal experience: that is original research. You need a reliable source that says where he lives, such as a newspaper or other published report. That it's not in the article suggests it's not actually in his biography.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you misread the request. They are asking for a reliable source to be added and the town amended. Is that so hard? Span (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

It is if a source is not provided or indicated. I see one has been found but not one I would have known to check.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Article currently states he lives in "Menomonie, Minnesota." Menomonie is, in fact, in Wisconsin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.230.248.34 (talk) 23:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Oops. Fixed. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Place of residence requires further update. The Author's Bio on the back flap of the hardcover edition of Gaiman's The Ocean at the End of the Lane identifies Gaiman as living in Cambridge, MA ("Born and raised in England, he now lives in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and dreams of endless libraries." http://www.amazon.com/The-Ocean-End-Lane-Novel/dp/0062255657/ref=pd_sim_sbs_b_1#reader_0062255657 — Preceding unsigned comment added by One-Off Contributor (talk • contribs) 13:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Article photo with Cabal

Cabal passed away this year and it might be better to choose a different photo of Neil that does not have the dog in it. http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2013/01/the-power-of-dog-cabal-2003-2013.html

Junglecrazd1 20:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junglecrazd1 (talk • contribs)

Edit Request - audio theatre

To quote from the opening paragraph: "an English author of short fiction, novels, comic books, graphic novels, audio theatre and films."

Can someone remove audio theatre from that? As far as I'm aware there is only the radio play of Neverwhere, but that was adapted by Dirk Maggs, not Gaiman. Equally, audio book versions of novels and stories wouldn't count. May be worth mentioning TV scripts though, with the original version of Neverwhere plus an episode of Babylon 5 and two of Doctor Who. Thanks. --2.25.123.101 (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

There's also Two Plays for Voices, available on CD and cassette from Gaiman's website. --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Mistake

The chapter about his comic book writing says that his Sandman run consists of 12 trade paperbacks, 14 if you include "Death: The High Cost of Living". That would be 13. However, 14 is correct, since the text forgets to mention "Death: The Time of Your Life".80.131.34.67 (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Fixed that. --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

A simple list of works

Please include a simple list of works. This should be done for any artist. It is for most. For example, recording artists and their record albums- a discography; and in the case of prolific actors and directors, a filmography. There needs to be a biblio-ography of Gaiman's works. 50.159.75.116 (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Like Neil Gaiman bibliography? Яehevkor ✉ 20:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Mistake

Under novels "Gaiman has not written a direct sequel to American Gods but he has revisited the characters. A glimpse at Shadow's travels in Europe is found in a short story which finds him in England, applying the same concepts developed in American Gods to the story of Beowulf." The correct sentence should be "A glimpse of Shadow's travels in Europe is found in a short story which finds him in Scotland". — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScotiaNova (talk • contribs) 14:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done —David Eppstein (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Is Neil Gaiman a "Former Scientologist"

I think Neil Gaiman should be included in the Category:Former Scientologists, User:David Eppstein disagrees. I'm copying this from a discussion on his talk page:

You reversed my inclusion of Neil Gaiman in the category Category:Former Scientologists claiming there is no "textual evidence" he ever was one. Actually there is - first of all the article itself says that as a child he referred to himself as "Jewish and Scientologist" but, moreover, there's this. Downwoody (talk) 04:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The artcle says that his sister referred to herself as Jewish and Scientologist. Not the same. The interview is clearer but I'm not convinced that what he was coached to say at age seven really counts as his (former) religion. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

It strains credulity to say otherwise. If someone is a practitioner of a religion as a child, as Gaiman clearly was being in a Scientologist family and put forward as a model Scientologist child, and no longer practices by the time they are an adult (or even by late childhood) they are still a former practitioner of that faith. He says he is not a Scientologist, he does not say he has never been one. Downwoody (talk) 11:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

True, I misread his sister's quote as being his own. Nevertheless, the interview of Gaiman as a child clearly identifies him as having been a Scientologist and he is referred to as a former Scientologist by Time magazine for example[8]. Downwoody (talk) 12:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Time isn't a reliable source for this: if you follow the link i.e. [9] you just get the normal circumstantial 'proof' based on his family and him denying it. The blog is even worse, it's a blog reproducing something in an almost 50 year old Scientology publication, i.e. some propaganda that's impossible to verify. This has been discussed before and there's no proof he was ever a Scientologist.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The BBC interview that the propaganda publication is based on is certainly not impossible to verify, the audio of it is right here. 192.235.242.38 (talk) 03:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLPCAT says

Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources.

And he has not publicly self-identified as a Scientologist, current or former. A Youtube video is a no better source than a Scientologist publication, and the only clear information on Scientology in that interview was his reply that he was not but his family are. So it's nothing new.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 05:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. This has been discussed before. a13ean (talk) 04:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

the eternal's cover artist

the post currently reads:

"The Eternals was a seven-issue limited series drawn by John Romita, Jr. which was published from August 2006 to March 2007."

Mr Romita did not produce the covers so please include, "the cover art was produced by Rick Berry." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstegma (talk • contribs) 21:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

He did do some, some of the time. The problem with comic covers, especially in a prestige/high profile release like this, is there are often variant covers done by different artists. And this only multiplies when the comics are collected as a trade paperback; or in this case there were hardback and paperback collected editions, as well as electronic editions, and there may be more in the future. The writer and interior artist are fixed but not the covers.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Lead image

Hi- I've updated the lead image to a more recent one. If the old one is preferred for some reason, please do revert me. I'm happy to discuss the merits of the respective images. J Milburn (talk) 11:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

You did right: better image and more up to date. Great that KyleCassidy makes such high quality images available.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Lead image nominated as a Featured picture

I have nominated the image at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Neil Gaiman. J Milburn (talk) 10:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Redundancy in Career section

In the first paragraph under Career, the first sentence lists a slew of science fiction writers that influenced Gaiman. Then the next sentence said, "He later became a fan of science fiction after reading work by Alan Moore." This is redundant, or at least poorly written, as he was either already a fan of sci-fi, or Moore initiated his interest in sci-fi. I recommend Moore's name just be added to list of previous authors (with the Moore citation added to the first sentence citations) and the second sentence be struck entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.155.249.115 (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

✔ Done. To discuss this with me, please {{Ping}} me. Thnidu (talk) 06:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Voice Sample

Could someone put a small 24 second clip from the radio broadcast here for the voice sample? It is cumbersome to be linked to a link of a download of a broadcast. Having an .ogg sample here will make it user friendly. Sorry I don't have the tools. Or rather I have the wheel, just that the nut behind the wheel is cracked.Kristinwt (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I am unsure exactly what you want, in particular which radio broadcast, but more importantly I don't think it's normal or necessary to include a voice sample. It's not done normally even for a performer known for their voice, and Neil Gaiman isn't even a vocal performer or performer, he's a writer. Most such things are covered by copyright anyway so it's unlikely we could use them. If you want to hear his voice then he does post videos to his blog, and link to interviews and readings he does, while many examples can be found via a search.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Typo

Under "Comics and Graphic Novels" it says: The 75 issues of the regular series, along with an illustrated prose text and a special containing seven short stories, have been collected into 12 volumes that remain in print, 14 if the Death: The High Cost of Living and Death: The Time of Your Life spin-offs are included.

I believe "if" should say "of". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:27FF:2EF0:0:0:0:3A (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done - thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 09:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Personal Life Section

Under Home and Family subheading, Bard College is not located in Red Hook, NY; it is located in Annandale-on-Hudson, NY. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.189.3 (talk) 03:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

You're correct. I've fixed it. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Novels Section

The last paragraph of the Novels section currently reads:

"As of 2008, Gaiman has several books planned. After a tour of China, he decided to write a non-fiction book about his travels and the general mythos of China. Following that, will be a new 'adult' novel (his first since 2005's Anansi Boys). After that, another 'all-ages' book (in the same vein as Coraline and The Graveyard Book). Following that, Gaiman says that he will release another non-fiction book called The Dream Catchers.[58] In December 2011, Gaiman announced that in January 2012 he would begin work on what is essentially, American Gods 2.[59]"

It's 2015 now, and none of this really happened. I'd say this paragraph is now irrilevant and should be deleted.

Plus, there is no mention of The Ocean at the End of the Lane here, it should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.26.140.36 (talk) 15:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done. If you would like to suggest other text, please do so here. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 09:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

In the short reference to his latest novel, there is an opportunity to link with the Norse mythology page (for registered accounts).

• • • — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.242.149.240 (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done Muhandes (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

TV series "Neil Gaiman's Likely Stories"

There is a 2016 TV series of four episodes called "Neil Gaimean's Likely Stories": http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5182786/

In addition to writing the stories, he is in "Looking for the Girl" as himself.

Neil appears uncredited in the second episode, "Feeders and Eaters" as the man on TV talking about dreams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidAmis (talk • contribs) 16:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Neil Gaiman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://cbgxtra.com/knowledge-base/for-your-reference/comics-industry-birthdays
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/06/05/get-your-free-neil-gaiman-and-michael-zulli-sweeney-todd-comic-here/
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.wired.com/underwire/2013/07/neil-gaiman-sandman-overture/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=44385
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131013143317/http://blogs.publishersweekly.com/blogs/genreville/?p=2092 to http://blogs.publishersweekly.com/blogs/genreville/?p=2092
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2011/11/hey-hey-were-er-on-simpsons.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ew.com/article/2015/06/16/neil-gaimans-american-gods-coming-starz
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/121364084.html?refer=y
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/names/2015/03/18/amanda-palmer-pregnant/z1YgrDfZP0J2sxd1zVb4gJ/story.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080928032720/http://digitalcommons.bolton.ac.uk/emcs_journals/1/ to http://digitalcommons.bolton.ac.uk/emcs_journals/1/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081201034720/http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/LocusWinsByCategory.html to http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/LocusWinsByCategory.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081201034720/http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/LocusWinsByCategory.html to http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/LocusWinsByCategory.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100403071852/http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Stoker2000.html to http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Stoker2000.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131014232309/http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/NomLit50.html to http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/NomLit50.html
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6TEE7QhPF?url=http://www.mythsoc.org/awards/winners/ to http://www.mythsoc.org/awards/winners/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100920085226/http://comic-con.org/cci/cci_clampett.shtml to http://www.comic-con.org/cci/cci_clampett.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Neil Gaiman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130818123747/http://www.egnet.co.uk/halloffame/neilgaiman.htm to http://www.egnet.co.uk/halloffame/neilgaiman.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120625235711/http://video.stv.tv/bc/info-outFilmsVideo_interviews-20071120-neil-gaiman-and-roger-avary-shaping-beowulfs-story/?redirect=no to http://video.stv.tv/bc/info-outFilmsVideo_interviews-20071120-neil-gaiman-and-roger-avary-shaping-beowulfs-story/?redirect=no
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110313060152/http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118033705 to http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118033705
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100923072041/http://everythingtori.com/go/galleries/view/312/2/31/albums to http://everythingtori.com/go/galleries/view/312/2/31/albums
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100923055703/http://everythingtori.com/go/galleries/view/378/3/28/albums to http://everythingtori.com/go/galleries/view/378/3/28/albums
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100922200306/http://everythingtori.com/go/galleries/view/234/1/26/albums to http://everythingtori.com/go/galleries/view/234/1/26/albums
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100922171008/http://everythingtori.com/go/galleries/view/220/1/30/albums to http://everythingtori.com/go/galleries/view/220/1/30/albums
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100922171008/http://everythingtori.com/go/galleries/view/220/1/30/albums to http://everythingtori.com/go/galleries/view/220/1/30/albums

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Neil Gaiman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120504055627/http://www.carnegiegreenaway.org.uk/pressdesk/index.php?year=2010Awards to http://www.carnegiegreenaway.org.uk/pressdesk/index.php?year=2010Awards

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Citation for Superheroes Unmasked credit

I found a citation needed for Mr. Gaiman's Superheroes Unmasked appearance at AllMovie.com. AllMovie is listed in WP:Suggested sources, though it's just an essay.. However, I am a new user and can't add the link to this semi-protected page. If someone wants to, they can add the link themselves. If not, I'll come back in a few days and add it myself. TheGreatConsultingDetective (talk) 02:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2019

Add [[Category:British Jews]] to the article, as per his background. 173.162.46.33 (talk) 03:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done --Trialpears (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2020

For the line:

Neil Gaiman was featured in the History Channel documentary Comic Book Superheroes Unmasked.[citation needed]

The IMDb page for the documentary https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0373763/ is a valid citation Withmustardplease (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: IMDb is not typically cited on Wikipedia for most uses since the content is largely user-generated. See WP:Citing IMDb for further information. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2020

Please use blockquote for the quote which occupies almost the entire paragraph beginning "Asked why he likes comics more than other forms of storytelling..." 80.3.103.8 (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done Maka, the Two Star Meister! (talk·✉) 18:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

War and Peace?

I can't recall having read such a painfully long and detailed promotional article about an author. I've just done a word count and can confirm that the article about Gaiman is longer than the one about War and Peace, a fact easier to explain by self-/fan-publicity than by literary merit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.56.5 (talk • contribs)

Agree. This is clearly a self-promotional article of exactly the sort that reduces the value of Wikipedia as an 'encyclopaedia'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.56.65 (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

You often talk to yourself like this? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:29, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

== War and Peace? ==

I can't recall having read such a painfully long and detailed promotional article about an author. I've just done a word count and can confirm that the article about Gaiman is longer than the one about War and Peace, a fact easier to explain by self-/fan-publicity than by literary merit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.56.5 (talk • contribs)

Agree. This is clearly a self-promotional article of exactly the sort that reduces the value of Wikipedia as an 'encyclopaedia'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.56.65 (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

You often talk to yourself like this? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:29, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

   A palpable hit by Eppstein!! And enough fun to make my weary day before noon.

   This ‘’Casus macht mir lachen’’, as IIRC (after ~6 decades since we were introduced to Goethe’s Meisterwerk) observes... I think I finished the more-read ‘’erster Teil’’, in a bilingual paperback edition. I’ll presume our joint colleague is blameless, and merely YA sufferer of what I (probably) misremember as “the full flower of blown youth” (perhaps from ‘’Hamlet’’). Thanks to both colleagues, for probably my biggest smile of the morning. And cheerio, as they may still say.--2601:199:C201:FD70:143B:600F:1F84:C055 (talk) (ex-User:Jerzy, ex-User:JerzyA 17:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)