Talk:David Gaiman/Archive 1

Arbitrary section heading
Does he really warrant his own page ? -- Beardo 22:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hell yeah. He was pretty much the public voice of Scientology in the UK in the 1960s. I'm expanding this article as I go - David Gerard 20:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I remember having seen David Gaiman on a document about Operation Cat. It is briefly mentioned here. It was mentioned on a german show about the activities of David Gaiman in Russia a few years ago, to show his dark past :) --Tilman 21:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Neil Gaiman?
There is a request at the BLP noticeboard, stating that Neil Gaiman has no relation to the subject of this article. As there is no source provided to assert that relationship, I have removed it as per WP:BLP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What about this? --Tilman 21:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have added the citation, but removed the wikilink, as we cannot be sure per that particular citation which Neil Gaiman it refers to. Smee.


 * Hrm, upon further inspection, the article from The Times states that the boy "Neil Gaiman" in the article was at the time 7 years old in August 1968, which would jive exactly with Gaiman's birth of November 1960 ... Smee 23:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Sir Foster's sources in Enquiry into the Practice and Effects of Scientology confirm this as well... Smee 07:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
 * There was a recent photo published of Neil with his parents. The father sure looked like this David Gaiman ... - David Gerard 06:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sure that you'll find references that he is that Neil Gaiman. Keep in mind, however, that this may be an extremely sensitive family issue for him—which he has previously declined to discuss. (Publically leaving is seen as a crime by a Suppressive Person leading to disconnection. If someone is out on the quiet, they might be doing a careful balancing act with the church and family members who are still in.) AndroidCat 14:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

As it is accepted oon the above discussion that there is no evidence that the Neil Gaiman in the supposed article is fantasy author neil gaiman, the line referenceing his son as being a famous fantasy author must be removed.


 * Eh? Magic Pickle 00:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Notable?
Private person. Minor businessman. Ex-CoS exec. Shows up in some courts docs. Not charged? How is he notable? Please prove notability as other than his name appearing in a little bit of press appearing as a PR person. The rest of the article is manufactured "notability" out of the details of a private person's life. --Justanother 03:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see comment by User:David Gerard above: Hell yeah. He was pretty much the public voice of Scientology in the UK in the 1960s. I'm expanding this article as I go   Yours, Smee 03:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
 * OK, so was a PR flack. Still not notable. This one is not even close! This is a private person. He does not need an article here. --Justanother 03:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of verifiable sources, and the individual was a key historical figure, as stated by others above. Consensus is against you on this.  Smee 04:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
 * I think he is notable so I am removing the tag. Vivaldi (talk) 04:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds weird. Usually tags are left in place pending some discussion, maybe an RfC. --Justanother 04:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Nobody has a duty to leave another's tags up, especially if they feel they are totally inappropriate and unsupported by evidence. If the consensus of editors think the tag is deserved then it can be put back in.  I doubt you'll find a consensus that agrees with you, but you are certainly willing to try to develop one.  I'd like to see some coherent argument from you that justifies this tags inclusion. Vivaldi (talk) 07:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

He was also involved in Operation Snowwhite ("Operation Cat"), he cashes big from the scientology vitamin ideology (G+G), and he had an involvement in Russia for scientology. There's a TV interview with him about this. --Tilman 06:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC) I am taking this page off of my watchlist. Will someone please notify me on my talk page - if it goes up for AFD, and/or other major changes? Thanks. Smee 05:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC). Anyone who says Gaiman is not a prominent figure in the cult either knows very little about Scientology (in which case why are they here?) or more likely, is part of the David Gaiman PR machine. (TTJ)
 * Not if consensus is in the other direction. It is similar to a prod.  One user can add one, but another user, other than the creator of the article usually, can remove it.  Then the next step is AFD.  Smee 05:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
 * No, Smee, AfD is not the next step, at least for me. There are other steps I would take first as I do not lightly AfD articles as can clearly be seen in both my edit history and my current AfD. But I will support it if another editor cares to be WP:BOLD and AfD this one. And if they want my input in a sandbox AfD nom statement I will help. --Justanother 14:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note
 * Add me to the "hell yes" list. After L. Ron Hubbard, he was easily the most prominent Scientologist in the UK during the 1960s and 1970s. He played a key role in the attempt to take over the NAMH, which is the subject of an entire book (see Believe What You Like). There's lots more material that could be added to this aericle. -- ChrisO 10:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

David Gaiman and Neil Gaiman - possible reference found
I've learned of a 2005 Brighton Argus interview with David Gaiman (of Scientology fame) in which he apparently speaks of Neil Gaiman (of authorship fame) and clearly states a father-son relationship. I'll see if I can track it down - I think the British Library will have a copy. -- ChrisO 10:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


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


 * Found the article. Please see Talk:Neil Gaiman for further discussion. -- ChrisO 14:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

unindent)
 * Thanks: ChrisO et al., good find; this is certainly an improvement over the totally unsourced assertions made previously and I will not revert.
 * Request: I would like to see some tangible evidence, e.g. to allow editors to judge the weight to give this information, and also to help us trust by letting us verify.
 * Doubt: I'll of course AGF for now, but it still feels like we're becoming the primary vehicle for the spread of this titillating detail of someone's life and I would like to see input from other editors here or on the WP:BLPNB.
 * Disclaimer: I'd like to caution ChrisO (and to some degree the other editors working on the related text in David Gaiman and Neil Gaiman) that they are personally responsible for any consequences of including this information in the encyclopedia. Sourced in a local paper and previously unavailable on the Internet, putting this up on one of the world's top-10 web sites may still harm Neil in many ways. Note that UK law may take a dim view of this type of disclosure even if true, let alone if not. I'm not only talking about libel here. Also note that the oft-mentioned Barrett v. Rosenthal precedent in the USA may well turn out to apply only to original material distributed verbatim unlike publishing an edited version like you did here. Bottom line - the Wikimedia Foundation, as always, will only protect itself, not individual editors who, as before, remain responsible for their own actions. AvB ÷ talk  09:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Excuse me while I boggle. If either David Gaiman or Neil Gaiman complain that our article states there is any relation between the two, I will buy you a lollipop. Two lollipops. - David Gerard 19:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, what's new? You're the original SYNner here. Do you still think we don't need sources for this assertion? AvB &divide; talk  20:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * PS The lollipop offer seems unrelated to the possible consequences ChrisO may want to consider. AvB &divide; talk  21:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The only "consequence" I'm considering right now is joining David in boggling at the reaction this addition seems to have produced. You'd think that after taking the time and trouble to settle a long-running debate I should be getting unqualified thanks. Instead people over at Talk:Neil Gaiman seem to be reacting as though I'd pissed in their corn flakes. What's going on here? After all, NG and DG's father-son relationship has been publicly documented for 39 years, courtesy of the London Times. We're not talking about some amazing new revelation here, nor is it something that comes from a disreputable source. I'm beginning to wonder if there's more than going on here than just simple BLP concerns. -- ChrisO 22:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You have my unqualified thanks. I always thank people for resolving BLP concerns by providing citations of information in reliable secondary sources. Conversely, no one has ever thanked me for significant contributions to resolve BLP problems but you won't hear me complaining about that. Basically, it's a thankless job.
 * I hope you don't mean me with your creatively worded POV accusation. This is neither the first nor the last time I'm adding a disclaimer to such thank-you notes. I do not want to leave the impression that I personally support the edits in question. And as we've seen on the e-mail list, many editors seem to think the Foundation is responsible for what they write here so I also put in some info that might prove useful to those who have added the information.
 * In this specific case I also voiced some policy-related doubt and added a request for more information. The latter is still pending; all we have so far is your say-so that the interview exists, and your judgment regarding context/what to use/what to ignore.
 * I don't quite understand why you go back to your original position that this was in the London Times in 1968. It wasn't. This is very comparable to the "glass closet" inhabited by many gay celebrities. See for example Jodie Foster - one publication has said the L-word out loud about her, just like one publication has uttered the S-word about Neil - difference being that in Neil's case the "outer" is David which clinches it, while in the other case it's a gay magazine basing itself on evidence similar to the London Times article. At least no one is saying the S-word there, and for good reason too I guess. AvB &divide; talk  01:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Death references
I listed the death because Neil Gaiman put it on his blog. That's not a newspaper, but Neil Gaiman is sufficiently famous and his blog well-known enough that it's a good enough source to be trusted. Though newspaper reports would be good too, if any - David Gerard (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * An obituary may appear in the local press in Sussex, since he was a fairly significant business figure in East Grinstead. I don't know if we'll see anything on the Internet, though. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Date of Birth
Do you not have to substantiate the date of birth, then, of a person's entry in WP? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnalexwood (talk • contribs) 01:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The year that I put up in the lead came from elsewhere in the article, but you are right: it should be cited. I have added a fact tag accordingly. (BTW, you could have added that as well. It would have been at least as easy as it was to ask the question on this page.) Aleta  Sing 01:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Cirt (talk) 14:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You could have just put it in, you know ;-p - David Gerard (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding it. :P Cirt (talk) 01:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It occurs to me that we may have a reference loop on the date of birth - I might contact the East Grinstead Courier and Observer and check their source on the 1933 date ... - David Gerard (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The Argus has given his age and I have added that ref Johnalexwood (talk) 09:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Not a claim nor odd
I removed 'claim' and 'odd' from: "One of Gaiman's odder claims to fame was that he came joint last in the inaugural London Marathon, in 1981." because it wasn't a claim - it was reported as fact by the BBC and neither was it odd. Johnalexwood (talk) 09:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)