[WikiEN-l] 17,268 badly referenced living biographies

[Joe Szilagyi]

On 5/11/07, Matthew Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> IIRC this was because there were sources saying David Gaiman the
> notable scientologist had a son called Neil, and lived in town X; and
> sources saying Neil Gaiman the author's father was named David and
> they also lived in town X - but no source saying 'David Gaiman the
> scientologist' and 'Neil Gaiman the author' were related.
>
> The question was whether we were allowed to make the leap of logic
> that the two sources could be added together to create the obvious
> fact.


If I recall correctly, Neil Gaiman for whatever personal reasons has gone
out of his way to not speak of/about his father generally in public forums.
There's a citation now in Neil's article with comments from David Gaiman,
indicating or at least alluding to Neil being his son. Is that sufficient
for BLP purposes? Or would extra third party verification be needed beyond
that for something that on the surface seems non-controversial, but
apparently is controversial on some level for Neil Gaiman?


-- 
Regards,
Joe
http://www.joeszilagyi.com