Talk:Neil Gaiman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

This article has been rated as b-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

	This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Edit the article attached to this page or discuss it at the project talk page. Help with current tasks, or visit the notice board.
B	This article has been rated as b-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] The Gaim

I would like a reference on this allegation that Strazinsky has alleged that the masks of the "Gaim" on his Babylon 5 series were NOT based on the Sandman mask? I find it extremely hard to believe that a race of aliens called "THE GAIM" bearing a mask that looks nearly identical to the Sandman mask were not intentionally created as such. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.222.59.191 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 27 June 2004 (UTC).

Without digging too deeply into the matter, I would point out that one of Gaiman's goals with the Dream mask was to resemble the gas mask worn by the Golden Age Sandman, and thus the similarities could be due to the common source of WW2 gas masks... Snowspinner 02:46, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

As I understand it, they were created as just another alien species. Maybe the makeup folks had Dream in mind, maybe they had Dodds in mind, or maybe it was just coincidence. Then someone noticed the similarity and nicknamed them; the name stuck and was made official. --Tverbeek 13:35, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I removed the categories classifying Gaimain as a cartoonist and comics artist, because he doesn't do either of those professionally. Yes, he can draw OK, he reportedly doodles every script he writes, and he's allowed one self-drawn comic (done as a creative challenge) to be published, but he's not known for drawing, any more than I am known as a stage actor. --Tverbeek 13:35, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Gaiman and Science Fiction

I would argue that the first paragraph should not mention science fiction, as (apart from the one Babylon 5 episode) Gaiman has never really been involved in SF. I would like to change this to something like 'fantasy and horror'. I don't want to step on anyone's toes though so let me know if you disagree!--Dreamday 20:58, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Some people consider superheroes to be a form of SF, and he's done some work in spandex (the characters, not him) that isn't really "horror" or "fantasy". He's won a few SF awards, I believe. But you're right; he's not generally known as a "sci fi writer". If I had to peg a genre on him I'd say "fantasy" but note that he routinely works in the adjacent/overlapping genres of SF, supers, horror, and kid lit. Tverbeek 16:01, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Check out the collection Smoke and Mirrors. Several of those stories could be considered sci-fi, although granted, not exactly -hard- sci-fi. This is far from the only time he's done scifi, mind.

[edit] Pronunciation

Does anyone know how to pronounce his last name? Perhaps it's obvious with a British accent, but it's not at all self-evident to me. grendel|khan 09:17, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)

I still tend pronounce the first syllable "Guy", having long done so, nearly rhyming it with "Diamond" but by most accounts it seems to be pronounced like "Gay"; I might have even heard him pronounce it like that in a sound file once, but am not certain of that. ~ Rumour 09:59, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: When, in 1997, he was accepting an award from GLAAD for his comic Death: The Time of Your Life, he commented that it was the first time he had ever heard people cheering the correct pronunciation of his last name. :-) So yes, it's pronounced "gay-man." (or "gaymun," depending) --Ray Radlein 10:05, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

It seems many people are skittish about pronouncing his name that way, because of what it sorta sounds like, but A) that doesn't seem to bother him, and B) it's correct. It rhymes with Cayman (as in Cayman Islands) and is roughly homophonous with gamin' (casual pronunciation of the gerund form of the verb to game). Tverbeek 16:12, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Or we could, instead of speculating, consult Mr. Gaiman. :-) http://www.neilgaiman.com/faqs/ongaimanfaq/ Koyaanis Qatsi 23:28, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Although lovely, that apostrophe between the [m] and the [n] isn't IPA. It should probably be [?], [?] or syllabic [n.]. --Peter Farago 21:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I do recall interviews with him on the MirrorMask dvd and he was relating a story to how he ended up involved with Princess Mononoke. He said something to the effect they went to Quentin Tarantino for translation and he said "No you want Gaiman." He pronounced his own name to something to the effect of Gay-man. I guess he would be the best source for the pronunciation of his own name, but I could be wrong - I'm not sure the exact pronunciation of my own last name nor even where it's from.Abrynkus 20:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

With the recent addition and shuffling and placement of photos, I'm beginning to feel like I'm watching a teenage girl decorating her room. :) Seriously, the article only needs one good portrait of the subject, and maybe another "action" shot of him (e.g. at a convention). Maybe if he were older, "Young Neil" and "Old Neil" photos would be appropriate, but anything more than that is redundant. Tverbeek 17:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles change and improve, and mostly for the better. (Which reminds me -- can someone find some decent photos of me that aren't me blinking in the middle of a booksigning for the Wiki entry on me?) [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Koyaanis Qatsi (talk • contribs) 18:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC).

So that's what's happened! Unfortunately he didn't point out (not that he should have to) that the photos have to abide by Wikipedia policy, and copyright law. I've removed the apparent and likely copyright violations (and one simply not-very-good image), leaving just one properly-documented photo that's a fairly good likeness. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tverbeek (talk • contribs) 18:33, 7 August 2005 (UTC).

If e-mailed, I expect Gaiman could point to at least one good photo that's cleared for use. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.219.212.72 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Australian law

Neil explains that while his publishers may explain that this is due to recent changes in the publishing industry caused by the Harry Potter series it is in fact because of an Australian law that allows importation of books from other markets.

This sounds kind of strange. Does anybody know the source? It's not like a law forbidding importing books is a common thing, and why Australia? Conf 16:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've deleted this. Conf 19:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Father

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

[edit] Movie Reviews?

Hey I just wanted to ask if anyone has teh book the Sandman Companion? I ask because in it (which contains a series of interviews with Neil) he talks about working as a movie reviewer in his journalistic career. Though this article mentions specifically book reviews, there isn't a mention of movie reviews. It would be easy to stick into the journalism section and easy to reference. I would do it myself, but I'm on vacation this week and don't have the book, so I can't write up a proper citation. Freddie deBoer 17:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

He also talks about this in his journal in a couple of places. I remember one of them was in why he quit: he realized he'd seen a lot of films and that most of them didn't make his life any cooler. Koyaanis Qatsi 17:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

He'd mentioned that a documentary about female bodybuilders was one of the few films he'd seen that he thought had been worth the watching--I think that must be Pumping Iron 2 but I can't find the reference to it anywhere. I've tried searching his site by title and by various combinations of female/women bodybuilder/weightlifter, and half a dozen other searches (film-review and variants are all not so useful, due to his own films).... No luck finding it again, I'm afraid. Koyaanis Qatsi 21:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Open Rights Group

Gaiman is now the patron of the Open Rights Group. I am unsure where this should go in the article. At the end of what seems to be a chronological biograpghy, or in the same paragraph as his campaigning with the Comic Book Defense Fund? --Caek 01:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Edit

I have reverted the previous edit for the following reason: it does not add information, but removes it. English is more specific than British, so unless the references are incorrect (i.e. actually they refer to somthing Scottish for example), should not be changed. Equally the pronounciation should not be removed as it is relevant. If the pronounciation is incorrect, correct it rather than just remove it. — Poobarb 02:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Better Structure

This article could be better structured. I suggest one section on "Life" and one on "Works". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darkman X (talk • contribs) 21:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Sandman: TEN volumes

Just to clarify a minor point: the 75 issues of the orignal Sandman run were entirely collected into ten volumes. What is erroneously called the 11th volume (Endless Nights) was a special of all-new material released some years after the series had finished. There have also been other Sandman-related books that aren't of the original series, ie The Dream Hunters. Satan's Rubber Duck 12:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Status of Miracleman Lawsuit???

Does anyone have any information re: this issue? Maybe even the case number, since this is public information? Yes, I see that Gaiman won a judgment against Image/ Todd M., but there is no mention as to whether the Miracleman rights have been resolved. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.251.101.34 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 17 May 2006.

It's mentioned as Gaiman v. McFarlane, but I'm not sure if that's the original or the appeal (or both?). McFarlane's appeal failed, btw, but the court in its decision didn't address the MiracleMan rights enough to for me to be able to figure out what's going on.

Gaiman talks about the case some [here]; he doubts that McFarlane actually has any legitimate claim to Miracleman. — Koyaanis Qatsi 23:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Firebird

I heard Neil Gaiman wrote a short story called "Firebird." Does anyone know where to find it?

~ Sarabi1701 01:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It will be in his collection Fragile Things, to be released November 2006. Danguyf 15:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It is also in Noisy Outlaws, Unfriendly Blobs, and Some Other Things.... Danguyf 17:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! ~ Sarabi1701 22:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inspired by Fritz Leiber?

Reading The swords of Lankhmar by Fritz Leiber, I find it likely he has been inspired by this book in what he writes in Neverwhere. Any comments?

roy

[edit] Death Movie

Does anyone remember the miniserie of the Death? with 3 parts? He wasn't doing some movie about that? - sorry by my bad english... ú___ù

[edit] Reference to a book

There is a reference to a book about Gaiman on Joseph McCabe (editor) that might be relevant to this article. Alan Pascoe 21:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed split

I'm proposing that the Bibliography section is split out of this article, and into a new one. I would suggest that the new article is called List of works by Neil Gaiman, but am open to suggestions. This would leave more space in this article (which's currently growing a bit long) to discuss both Neil Gaiman and his most important works. If noone opposes this split, I will carry it out in a weeks' time. Mike Peel 06:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure if that is justified yet. But if you do, I suggest a title like Neil Gaiman bibliography. "List of" doesn't sound right. -- Beardo 14:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, I'm behind it. "Bilbiography" does sound a bit better, though. Stilgar135 03:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm still inclined to go with List of works by Neil Gaiman, for the following reasons. I'm not so keen on "Bibliography", as that tends to refer just to books whereas Neil's also got audio and video works. The "List of..." part seems to be a standard wikipedian thing, going off Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Naming_conventions, but if people still oppose it I'd go with Works by Neil Gaiman Mike Peel 10:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Meriam Webster says "Main Entry: bib·li·og·ra·phy

1 - the history, identification, or description of writings or publications

2 a - a list often with descriptive or critical notes of writings relating to a particular subject, period, or author b : a list of works written by an author or printed by a publishing house

3 - the works or a list of the works referred to in a text or consulted by the author in its production"

2 b sounds like us. The naming conventions you mention aren't really applicable. This should be something within Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works) but policy hasn't been developed yet. Within articles, the term "bibliography" is widely used - why change when we move to a separate page. (Though see List of published material by Alan Moore which I think is terribly ungainly, and also Category:Bibliographies by author which seems underpopulated). -- Beardo 14:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

"2 b" says written and printed, which to me implies a textual document, be it comic book, short story, book, manuscript, etc. I wouldn't say that it includes audio and visual work, however - just the scripts associated with them. I guess that you could say that the listed audio and visual works have had scripts written for them, so they could fall under bibliography, but to me it makes more sense to use the more general "works", which covers pretty much everything. However, if you disagree, then I won't continue arguing the point; I'll just use "Bibliography of Neil Gaiman". Mike Peel 15:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish

Is it standard to state people's religeous beliefs in the lead section? It seems very odd to me. --SidiLemine 10:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

and me. Maybe it refers to his background rather than his personal beliefs. Still odd, though.

It shouldn't be standard, that's for certain. I changed the lead to a more sensible description.J.R. Hercules 14:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "New Fabulist"

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

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

[edit] Gene Wolfe

I think it should be mentioned somewhere in here, as I learned it from the book Hanging With The Dream King (a book of interviews about Gaiman) that Gaiman is the only person to have ever collaborated with notable author Gene Wolfe. Also it can be mentioned that Gaiman had no idea he was the only one until he was told in an interview for the book several years later - he always assumed that it was common. Abrynkus 20:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2000AD creator

Neil is included in the category '2000ad creator' - as far as I know he has never written for 2000ad and it is not mentioned anywhere else in the article. Is this correct?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.13.28.98 (talk) 02:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

Gaiman has written for 2000AD, he is not as famous for doing so as people such as Moore and Morrison et al, as many of these writers spent some time writing gfor 2000AD before their breakthrough, Gaiman had already been offered Miracleman (by Moore) and had produced Violent Cases before his 2000AD. As such he has not done much work for the comic and is not partcularly famous for it

Foxydavid 13:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)foxydavid

[edit] Religion Classes

Although of Jewish origins, he was educated at several Church of England schools, including Ardingly College, West Sussex, an independent boarding school. There, he studied both standard school topics as well as religion classes. This training gave him a wide background in both Jewish and Christian theology/apocrypha, which he incorporates heavily into his works, perhaps most notably in The Sandman.

`Religion Classes`, or religious education is a standard part of the UK school system. All schools are obligated to `provide religious education within a broadly Christian context.` http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_education -The tone of the article implies that religion is not taught in UK schools. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 133.29.103.238 (talk) 08:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Source citations

I have noticed that this article is almost entirely uncited. It will never improve its official quality rating with such little citations. We should really make an effort to clean this article up and seek out proper "reference quality" sources so that we can properly cite the facts and claims that are presented here. Gaiman deserves better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mfaith1 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Policy reminder

I have removed a number of WP:BLP and WP:SYN violations from the article and its talk page. If you do not agree, please (re)read the policies. Some quotes:

From WP:BLP: Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Attribution, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. Where the information is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel.

Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion criterion G10 for more details).

Jimmy Wales has said:

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."^[1]

He considers "no" information to be better than "speculative" information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity:

"Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia."^[2]

From WP:SYN: Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.^[3] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.

Thank you. AvB ÷ talk 01:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The most obvious thing to do, then, would be to clarify whether the Neil Gaiman who was turned away from Fonthill School at the age of seven in 1968 is the same Neil Gaiman who attended Fonthill School at the age of eight in 1969. Presumably the school itself will have the definitive answer to this question - I'll see if I can make some enquiries after Easter. -- ChrisO 07:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You can't repair a SYN violation with another type of OR, ChrisO. Should you get a positive answer and post it on Wikipedia, it will be removed again. AvB ÷ talk 09:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

We'll come back to this after Easter when I have more time and opportunity to do this, but you might want to consider what WP:OR says on the matter. It absolutely isn't a blanket prohibition of all research from primary sources. Instead, "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia."

What we have at the moment are two strands of evidence (consisting of multiple data points) which suggest very strongly that the Neil Gaiman in the Times story is "our" Neil Gaiman. However, it appears that we don't yet have a direct, explicit, authoritative statement from an independent reliable source to confirm that. The school enrolment records can potentially provide that link, but they are currently an unpublished source. If the school writes to me to confirm the link, it will be publishing the substantive content of the relevant records, in which case I see no obstruction to using the information here. I'm well aware of Jimbo's requirements (I read them on wikien-l at the time) and I think this approach is entirely compatible with that. -- ChrisO 14:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the second time you claim to be well aware of what WP:OR says on this matter. Now you're also suggesting I am not. The first time you did this you had just violated WP:SYN and WP:BLP which I cleaned up after you. (1) School enrollment records are primary sources which you can't use without secondary sources. (2) The school records will not contain any references to the man we now know as the subject of this article. (3) In the unlikely case that the school actually gives you information where they have put one and one together: I have discussed a similar situation with Jimbo recently and at least he agreed with my interpretation of OR there. I advise you to let it go until a reliable secondary source (a major newspaper, a book, etc.) puts one and one together. Why don't you try and get a good source to write about this? It looks like an interesting story. And by all means reread the warning on your talk page. AvB ÷ talk 14:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Assuming that the school administration replies positively, they are the secondary source; the original records are the primary source which the administration would have to interpret for us. We know from another reliable source that "our" Neil Gaiman enrolled at Fonthill prior to going to Ardingly College, as I've recorded in the article. From the timing given by that source it was clearly prior to 1970. The question is whether this is the same Neil Gaiman who was turned away from Fonthill in 1968. Neither of us at this stage know whether or not the school records will confirm this. The evidence that we're looking for is whether the name and birthdate of "their" Neil and "our" Neil match. Let's find out, shall we? As for the warning on my talk page, I thought it was unnecessarily aggressive and confrontational. We're all trying to build a better encyclopedia here, and needless confrontation doesn't help us to do that. Posting "final warnings" isn't helpful. I appreciate what you're trying to do, but there are better ways of doing it. -- ChrisO 15:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I documented that warning pretty conclusively. I guess Wikipedia has become more serious about WP:BLP than you seem to think. I also guess that when I'm discussing something with another editor who pretends to agree with me only minutes after having made the same disputed edit to another article, that tends to take away my ability to AGF regarding that editor. And you are doing nothing to rebuild my faith in the truthfulness of your words. AvB ÷ talk 18:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's your loss, frankly. BLP is a policy, not a fetish. Let's not turn it into one. -- ChrisO 18:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/e/i/Talk%7ENeil_Gaiman_f1ee.html"