| Revision as of 07:20, 19 January 2010 editHomolkaTheAllKnowing (talk | contribs)18 edits →Scientology← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 18:56, 21 January 2025 edit undoDecowen (talk | contribs)3 edits →Scientology: ReplyTag: Reply |
| (502 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
|
{{Talk header|search=yes|disclaimer=no|bottom=yes}} |
|
{{WPBiography |
|
|
|
{{On this day|date1=2020-11-10|oldid1=987709717}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|blp=yes|vital=yes|listas=Gaiman, Neil|1= |
|
|living=yes |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|a&e-priority=high|a&e-work-group=yes}} |
|
|class=C |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Hampshire|importance=low}} |
|
|priority=high |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Comics|importance=High|Creators-work-group=yes|British-work-group=yes}} |
|
|a&e-work-group=yes |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Children's literature|importance=top}} |
|
|listas=Gaiman, Neil |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Horror|importance=low}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{hants|class=C}} |
|
|
{{Comicsproj |
|
|
|class=C |
|
|
<!-- B-Class checklist --> |
|
|
<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |
|
|
|B-Class-1=no |
|
|
<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |
|
|
|B-Class-2=yes |
|
|
<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |
|
|
|B-Class-3=yes |
|
|
<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |
|
|
|B-Class-4=yes |
|
|
<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |
|
|
|B-Class-5=yes |
|
|
|importance=High |
|
|
|Creators-work-group=yes |
|
|
|British-work-group=yes |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Children'sLiteratureWikiProject |
|
|
|class=C |
|
|
|importance=Mid |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
|blp=yes |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
{{onlinesource |
|
|
|
{{British English}} |
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|blp|brief}} |
|
|
{{Press |
|
| year = 2010 |
|
| year = 2010 |
|
| title = Kid Goth |
|
| title = Kid Goth |
| Line 43: |
Line 21: |
|
| org = ] |
|
| org = ] |
|
| section = January 2010 |
|
| section = January 2010 |
|
|
|small=yes |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 200K |
|
|
|counter = 2 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Neil Gaiman/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Archives |bot=MiszaBot I |age=90 }} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Potential vandalism? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
it looks like someone has find and replaced every instance of "Gaiman" with "gayman" ] (]) 07:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
==Archives== |
|
|
*] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:It has been fixed. ] (]) 08:19, 10 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
==Social activism== |
|
|
In the past year I've come across a couple things mentioning his involvement with the ] 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 and then recently . 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). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Scientology == |
|
Neither the CBLDF or the ] discussed in a previous talk heading () 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. ] (]) 02:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As well as expanding on the allegations of sexual assaults the recent Vulture piece has more about Gaiman's early work for the Church of Scientology, and his treatment under that organisation's rues, by his father. Should we add something? <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 19:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
==Marriage== |
|
|
|
: I agree, especially with the mention that his parents were close friends of the Founder and forced out in a coup. There is a lot of reporting in the new ''Vulture'' article that could be integrated into the article. Some of the allegations in particular, as outlined, are extraordinarily evil if true and worth inclusion. The allegations include paying women >$400,000 for therapy, nonconsensual BDSM (slave/master dynamic), assaulting women in front of his son (grim). |
|
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.) (] (]) 15:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
: General consensus from the perennial source board is that <span style="color:#0000FF">Rolling Stone's opinion pieces and reviews, as well as any contentious statements regarding living persons, should only be used with attribution.</span>Rolling Stone's opinion pieces and reviews, as well as any contentious statements regarding living persons, should only be used with attribution". '''''' Rolling Stone's opinion pieces and reviews, as well as any contentious statements regarding living persons, should only be used with attribution".] piece in question. The allegations are largely made by people who identify themselves. I don't want to make these contentious changes. Gaiman says the article is an attack by Palmer as a negotiation tact in their divorce and custody battle. |
|
|
: Additionally, I think there is something odd about having "Other personal relationships" include both his wife and child, and devoting more words in the same section to Tori Amos. These do not feel equivalent to me and the stuff about his wife, child and he living NZ for years) belongs at the top of the Personal life details. — ''''']''''' (]∙]) 23:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
::The article's discussion of Neil Gaiman's father's involvement with Scientology should also be incorporated into ]. There is also a brief comparison between Gaiman and Richard Madoc that should probably be incorporated into the article on '']''. With regards to the sexual assault allegations themselves, their sheer severity makes not including them a form of whitewashing. Considering the amount of coverage that the allegations are receiving, they are likely central to his notability going forward. ―] ] 08:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
::: I think there is strong justification to include the Scientology material on Gaiman's own page. It says '']'' began as a therapeutic exercise, making it very relevant to his life and work. — ''''']''''' (]∙]) 13:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I do not disagree with you, hence my usage of the word "also". ―] ] 00:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: Oops, my bad. — ''''']''''' (]∙]) 01:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
::Frankly, given that Gaiman likely had many friends and acquaintances, I do not see what him knowing Tori Amos and being her child’s godfather has any real relevance to the piece. Why is she singled out? Should we add the post-accusation statements she has made about claiming not to know that “side” of Gaiman and that if the accusations are true she would be very upset with him? I imagine everyone who is or was a friend of his would be totally shocked at these allegations. ] (]) 18:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2025 == |
|
:Barring additional information, I would assume it is a misprint. ] (]) 03:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Neil Gaiman|answered=yes}} |
|
::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.(] (]) 20:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
Change "As of 2013, Gaiman also resides in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Since 2014 Gaiman has been a professor in the arts at Bard College, teaching courses in theatre and performance, written arts and experimental humanities. At Bard he also serves on the advisory board for at the Fisher Center for the Performing Arts, where he hosts public lectures and conversations with notable figures in the arts." to "From 2014-2017, Gaiman was a professor in the arts at Bard College, where he also served on the advisory board for at the Fisher Center for the Performing Arts." ] (]) 21:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{Not done}}: please provide ] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 05:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
::Here is a source regarding the fact that Neil Gaiman no longer serves on the advisory board for the Fisher Center for the Performing Arts: https://fishercenter.bard.edu/about/leadership/ ] (]) 13:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Why is Neil Gaiman’s child’s involvement not included in the sexual assault allegations? == |
|
:::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. ] (]) 20:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is included in both of the sources used for that section. I feel that if we’re gonna include the allegations made by multiple women, we should include how they said he exposed his child to such acts as well. ] (]) 15:35, 14 January 2025 (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 Misplaced Pages and the mention in the article piqued my interest to go searching for more information.) (] (]) 03:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
: There is an ongoing conversation about this in the Scientology section above, where consensus seems to be developing that it should be added.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small> 16:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
::The queston is about "Neil Gaiman’s ''child’s'' involvement"; you're referring to "Neil Gaiman’s ''childhood'' involvement". <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 13:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Response from Neil Gaiman == |
|
::::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. (] (]) 06:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He has broken his silence about the allegations: |
|
:::::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. ] (]) 20:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
https://journal.neilgaiman.com/2025/01/breaking-silence.html |
|
::::::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. (] (]) 22:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
--] (]) 16:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
:::::::Gaiman references his "then-wife" in a Twitter post on 3/18/09 - http://twitter.com/neilhimself/status/1351598310 <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I've edited the sexual assault section to include his denial of the allegations, I might've messed it up with saying it was the day after the article though, as it was just a quick look at the date of article and post, so I suggest someone double check that ] (]) 17:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
::::::: in April/May '09 issue of BUST magazine (linked by Gaiman) also mentions an ex-wife. ] (]) 06:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:: I've added more detail on his response. I do not like that it is a primary source but, given how much traffic this article will get, I think it is important to include this detail right now. — ''''']''''' (]∙]) 18:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
:::<s>] makes it clear that this case should be ok as it's written by the person in question (Gaiman).</s> Currently, it's not going to get any better than using the blog post, until he makes comments to secondary outlets regarding the scandal. It's also important to keep going forward, as it's the first public response he made to the allegations of sexual assault. ] (]) 18:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: {{replyto|V. L. Mastikosa}} What you have linked is not a policy; it is a deprecated essay. The correct policy to cite is ]. — ''''']''''' (]∙]) 19:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Oops, thanks for correcting me, I'm still a novice when it comes to editing, still I stand by my other points for keeping it. ] (]) 19:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
--This section should probably be re-written to use the NPR article, e.g., which references his blog, although citing the blog is also acceptable in this circumstance so long as there's no editorializing. Main concern here is providing interpretation, which I think, the phrase "categorically denied" does. N.B.: I would edit here, but don't want to clobber someone since this is a current event and no doubt active. ] (]) 22:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Agreed on NPR, and I'm sure other stuff will surface. I wrote "categorically" in the first place & happy to take it out. — ''''']''''' (]∙]) 23:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Hearsay == |
|
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. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 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: . 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! ] (]) 18:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amanda Palmer is an articulate and outspoken individual, and can make her own statement on the recent reports. The article should not include "quotes" from her which are not verifiably directly attributable to her. The Vulture is clearly happy using material from anonymous sources but such does not belong in an article here, particular one on a living person. See ]. --] (]) 14:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
==Neil Gaiman is not a Scientologist== |
|
|
On March 27th, 2009, ], comics author, artist and "a dear friend" of Neil Gaiman reports that any claim that Gaiman is a ] is"an absolute lie" "malicious slander" "out-and-out bullshit" "malicious gossip of the worst kind" and "ABSOLUTE HORSESHIT". <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:OK, but we can't use a blog (other than Gaiman's) to source the article. ] ] 18:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::I think the direct and verifiable word of Steve Bissette, a known acquaintance of Gaiman's, satisfies ]. 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." ] (]) 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 "? ] ] 19:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I think it would be ] 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. -- ] (]) 19:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Missing a small bit at the end of the scientology section == |
|
:::::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? ] (]) 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. (] (]) 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. ] (]) 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.] (]) 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 ], 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 ]. (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). -- ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ] scrubbed clean of anything which fans might dislike. -- ] (]) 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 ]) 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 Misplaced Pages. 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. ] (]) 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. -- ] (]) 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!] (]) 04:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::Please be ]. Disagree with the opinion; do not attack the person. ] ] 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. ] (]) 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). ] ] 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 ] as a Russian-American, and previous discussion of labeling ] 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 ] 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. ] (]) 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.] (]) 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 ]. 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 ] 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. -- ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 20:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::"Church of Scientology publications" are reliable sources? When it comes to membership? ] (]) 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.] (]) 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 ] 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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[REDACTED] 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) <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
:I'm here because a 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 Misplaced Pages 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. ] (]) 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 ] (]) 02:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Bad Dream Catchers Link== |
|
|
The link for the dream catchers seems to point to the wrong article. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== 1602 == |
|
|
|
|
|
Why isn't this written in to the comics sections of his works? It's first mentioned under a litigation section. ] (]) 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 |
|
|
] (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 21:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
==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. ] (]) 15:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:you need to read more WP bios ] (]) 04:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Point me to them. This really reeks. ] (]) 18:36, 13 August 2009 (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? ] (]) 00:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Not that anyone's seen. <font face="Old English Text MT">]<font color="#0095c6">of</font>]</font> 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.] (]) 13:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Doesn't sound like this document is a reputable source by[REDACTED] standards. ] (]) 14:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Atheist Remark uncited, taking it down until confirmed== |
|
|
Atheist Remark uncited, taking it down until confirmed -Tony <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Scientology == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The end of "Early life and education" notes that he met his first wife, Mary McGrath, while she was "studying scientology". Up to this point in the article, the discussion of scientology was entirely around his family and his young childhood, but it doesn't say anything about his involvement in the religious group into his adulthood. He was a recruiter for the church through a fair number of his adult years, which is why he met McGrath under those circumstances, because he was still fully involved in scientology at that point. Should this point be added to that end paragraph of the section? It seems like a confusing omission otherwise. ]]<sup>]</sup> 04:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
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 : |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Is the inclusion of this “recruiting work” meant to have relevance in describing who is, his works and the allegations now so prominent? Is it meant to imply that he learned to allegedly groom through this recruiting? Is it meant to imply that somehow these allegations have greater or lesser weight because ofthis recruiting? I think it is just nonessential “window dressing” which likely is likely to be taken as denigrating Scientology because of his past association with it. ] (]) 18:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
<blockquote>"The pivotal fact of Gaiman’s childhood is one that appears nowhere in his fiction and is periodically removed from his Misplaced Pages 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.<br> |
|
|
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. <br> |
|
|
....<br> |
|
|
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. "</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::? No, it's meant to be descriptive of a number of years of his life that's currently missing from the article for no apparent reason and also is chronologically confusing in its omission because it raises questions of how he ended up meeting his first wife while she was involved in Scientology if he wasn't also doing the same. ]]<sup>]</sup> 18:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
--] ] 14:10 18 January 2010 (GMT) |
|
|
|
:::] to paragraph before McGrath's mention, given the wording in the ''Vulture'' source. If other reliable sources provide better info, please feel free to cite those instead and improve the wording as appropriate. ] (] '''·''' ]) 23:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Sexual Misconduct == |
|
: 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. --<small>]</small><sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-5.0ex;">]</sub> 14:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:The deletionists made Misplaced Pages a laughing stock again. Good job guys... ] 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 Misplaced Pages 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. ] (]) 23:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: Mr Software, he is NOT a Scientologist. They are laughing at you because you are silly.] (]) 02:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: Did anyone say he was? ] (]) 02:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have removed an unreferenced section; "Beginning in 2024, several women accused Gaiman of sexual misconduct. This affected or halted production on several adaptations of his work." If this allegation has sufficient substance to meet the standards for a Misplaced Pages article, it can be re-added with citations that meet BoLP standards. As it was, it was just hearsay. ] (]) 10:04, 17 January 2025 (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. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 06:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:The lead is the summation of the article. There is a subsection, ], about this. And several discussions on this very talk page. Please check next time before unnecessarily removing content and claiming it was "just hearsay". ]. ] 10:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
:::I don't know, Josiah could it be because stopping the article to say "Gaiman is not a scientologist" is not what BLP DO NO HARM means. It also says he isn't a Catholic so if you add the one I will add the other. Your desperation to cast aspersions on your betters is troubling.] (]) 07:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
As well as expanding on the allegations of sexual assaults the recent Vulture piece has more about Gaiman's early work for the Church of Scientology, and his treatment under that organisation's rues, by his father. Should we add something? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Change "As of 2013, Gaiman also resides in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Since 2014 Gaiman has been a professor in the arts at Bard College, teaching courses in theatre and performance, written arts and experimental humanities. At Bard he also serves on the advisory board for at the Fisher Center for the Performing Arts, where he hosts public lectures and conversations with notable figures in the arts." to "From 2014-2017, Gaiman was a professor in the arts at Bard College, where he also served on the advisory board for at the Fisher Center for the Performing Arts." Jwlhuang (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
This is included in both of the sources used for that section. I feel that if we’re gonna include the allegations made by multiple women, we should include how they said he exposed his child to such acts as well. JungleEntity (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
--This section should probably be re-written to use the NPR article, e.g., which references his blog, although citing the blog is also acceptable in this circumstance so long as there's no editorializing. Main concern here is providing interpretation, which I think, the phrase "categorically denied" does. N.B.: I would edit here, but don't want to clobber someone since this is a current event and no doubt active. Andwats (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Amanda Palmer is an articulate and outspoken individual, and can make her own statement on the recent reports. The article should not include "quotes" from her which are not verifiably directly attributable to her. The Vulture is clearly happy using material from anonymous sources but such does not belong in an article here, particular one on a living person. See WP:BLPGOSSIP. --2A04:4A43:909F:F990:B9B2:30E7:8464:2B28 (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
The end of "Early life and education" notes that he met his first wife, Mary McGrath, while she was "studying scientology". Up to this point in the article, the discussion of scientology was entirely around his family and his young childhood, but it doesn't say anything about his involvement in the religious group into his adulthood. He was a recruiter for the church through a fair number of his adult years, which is why he met McGrath under those circumstances, because he was still fully involved in scientology at that point. Should this point be added to that end paragraph of the section? It seems like a confusing omission otherwise. Silverseren 04:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
I have removed an unreferenced section; "Beginning in 2024, several women accused Gaiman of sexual misconduct. This affected or halted production on several adaptations of his work." If this allegation has sufficient substance to meet the standards for a Misplaced Pages article, it can be re-added with citations that meet BoLP standards. As it was, it was just hearsay. Danylstrype (talk) 10:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Ultraodan (talk) 05:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)