Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HomolkaTheAllKnowing (talk | contribs) at 07:20, 19 January 2010 (→Scientology). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Arts and Entertainment This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Hampshire This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hampshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hampshire on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HampshireWikipedia:WikiProject HampshireTemplate:WikiProject HampshireHampshire ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Comics: Creators / British High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Misplaced Pages. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Related work groups: /  This article is supported by Comics creators work group. This article is supported by British comics work group. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Children's literature Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Tasks you can do: edit history watch purge Here are some open tasks for WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to create and standardize articles related to children's literature. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks. Add {{Portal|Children's literature}} to the See also section of related articles. Tag the talk pages of related articles with {{WikiProject Children's literature}} Join WikiProject Children's literature and list yourself as a Participant in the project. Cleanup: A cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects. Deletion discussions: listed at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability Rate the Unassessed articles in the Children's literature WikiProject. References: Add references to Unreferenced BLPs. Requested articles: Create a requested article on literature Stubs: Improve a stub-class article edit

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Dana Goodyear (25 January 2010). "Kid Goth". The New Yorker.

Archives

• Archive1

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 () 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 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 "? Aleta 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 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. 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 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 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[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) —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 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. 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)

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)

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[REDACTED] 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 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.

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_deeds 14:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The deletionists made Misplaced Pages 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 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. cojoco (talk) 23:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Mr Software, he is NOT a Scientologist. They are laughing at you because you are silly.HomolkaTheAllKnowing (talk) 02:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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.HomolkaTheAllKnowing (talk) 07:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• C-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• High-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class Hampshire articles
• Unknown-importance Hampshire articles
• C-Class Comics articles
• High-importance Comics articles
• C-Class Comics articles of High-importance
• C-Class Comics creators articles
• Comics creators work group articles
• C-Class British comics articles
• British comics work group articles
• WikiProject Comics articles
• C-Class children and young adult literature articles
• Mid-importance children and young adult literature articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press