On 5/11/07, Matthew Brown morven@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?