Talk:Neil Gaiman

6	Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2021
Dear all,

There doesn't seem to be a Further reading section? I am happy to make some preliminary suggestions, with the full disclosure that I am the author of one chapter and one article in the list below:

Edit request
Reference 123 misspells "Edinburgh". Thanks.

Please add "Ghost story writers" to article; category is correct, as he written ghost stories, including Coraline and The Graveyard Book. Thanks. 79.67.152.6 (talk) 01:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Bump. 2A00:23C7:ED18:A301:E4D6:43FF:A785:F982 (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

✅ Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:03, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

please add to audiobooks https://www.audible.com/pd/Anansi-Boys-Audiobook/B002V8LI0U — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.245.17.105 (talk) 18:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Good Omens is one of his biggest projects, both the book and the series, and does not fit into any of the currently existing categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:F3C0:F170:8CB0:40CE:D40E:3987 (talk) 16:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Divorce
Was announced today the he is no longer with Amanda Palmer, and will be getting a divorce. (again) Aka charlos (talk) 01:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2023
change misspelled "Anasi Boys" to "Anansi Boys" Jarlapple (talk) 05:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Cannolis (talk) 08:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2023
Please add Staged season 3 episode 1 of Staged to the Filmography section. As seen here: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt23713410/ 2600:1700:96F1:550:51C8:921A:976C:B54D (talk) 01:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Sexual assault allegations
There is absolutely nothing in the mainstream media about this, despite Gaiman having been internationally famous for decades. There is exactly ONE source for these claims, a podcast on a right wing TERF website, not exactly a trustworthy place to get information. The reference to the allegations should either be removed, or modified to indicate that these are unsubstantiated claims from outside of mainstream media. 2600:1700:F3C0:F170:8CB0:40CE:D40E:3987 (talk) 16:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I've removed it, where it was referenced by The Wrap, which has a WP:RSP entry that says, "TheWrap is a good source for entertainment news and media analysis. There is no consensus regarding the reliability of TheWrap's articles on other topics." I don't think TheWrap meets BLP-quality requirements given the RSP entry. Looking at the specific source, it relies upon poor sources itself. --Hipal (talk) 17:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * +1. Material of this type requires excellent sourcing before it can make it into an article. --19:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The editors on Wikipedia won't let the world see what they don't want the world to see. 128.151.71.8 (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes yes, we are busily censoring what you are allowed to know. Good thing you've got Facebook and Breitbart, eh? -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, please. Pretend you aren't willfully turning a blind eye to these allegations.  Tell me, are *these* good enough for you?  If so, I'd appreciate it if you added the information personally.128.151.71.8 (talk) 18:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "There is consensus that The Daily Telegraph (also known as The Telegraph) is generally reliable. "
 * "There is consensus that The New Zealand Herald is generally reliable."
 * Those are much better sources. Thank you.
 * WP:RECENTISM applies, so we need to take care with how much weight we give it while it's a developing event.
 * I'm restoring it with the new refs. I'm not sure about where it belongs in the article, but it's previous placement seems UNDUE.
 * The Refill citation tool is not working. My initial attempts at work-arounds have failed and I don't currently have time to delve further. --Hipal (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right that to point out this is a recent event. In addition, the anonymous editor is pointing toward second-hand sources which are quoting the original unreliable podcast source. More original news sources would be required to expand this section. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 22:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The claim that the original podcast is "right wing TERF website" and therefore unreliable is only brought up by the original editor, with no evidence to back up their claim. I could not say how reliable Tortoise Media is, but I cannot find any reports being unreliable as a source - in fact, it was recognized by the British Journalism Awards in 2019, and has serious journalists attached to it, such as the former head of BBC News James Harding. Obviously, what Tortoise Media was in 2019 doesn't necessarily reflect what it is in 2024, but without proof that it's unreliable and with coverage from papers like the Telegraph, it should probably not be brushed off as inherently unreliable.
 * Additionally, the podcast claims that the New Zealand police is involved and that Gaiman himself stated that he had been in a consensual relationship with both women. If true, that gives the report itself some credibility. The text could do with some context, that specifically Tortoise Media reported these allegations. Jaguarnik (talk) 00:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with mentioning the original source, and that we shouldn't expand that paragraph further without independent reporting. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 01:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We have strict rules for what we can say in biographies of living people. Sometimes that means that Wikipedia cannot call attention to an event, even if we as individual editors would like to. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPCRIME applies here. Per sources used, the current article-text is IMO acceptable. Removing it per BLPCRIME, WP:PROPORTION etc, is also acceptable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. Currently, it can tip either way given the good sources but a lack of detail and impact. If nothing further develops that we can work from, it will become more difficult to argue for continued inclusion. --Hipal (talk) 23:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Because of WP:BLPCRIME, I would strongly suggest excluding it. We have two reasonably good sources that both rely for their reporting entirely on the podcast and are clear about that in their articles. The podcast itself is not a reliable source, certainly not for a serious accusation against a living person, so IMO this material should not be included until we have sourcing that's truly independent of the original podcast. Loki (talk) 22:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPCRIME says, "For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." Is the claim that Neil Gaiman is not a public figure? And where has Tortoise Media been rejected as a reliable source? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:PUBLICFIGURE says, "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." We have The Telegraph, New Zealand Herald, Rolling Stone, and The AV Club, The Jerusalem Post covering the matter. None challenge Tortoise Media's credibility as dubious. Though it's curious to see why some other publications have not covered it. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You're right that WP:BLPCRIME doesn't apply to public figures. However, we don't in fact have multiple sources that are reliable in context because there's no independent reporting here. They're all relying on the podcast. See WP:RSBREAKING, and particularly the guidance that in the case of breaking news, sources that rely on other sources should be treated with significant skepticism. Loki (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You haven't "strongly suggested excluding it", you have actually removed it, . Can you please explain how WP:BLPCRIME applies? Gaiman is very much a public figure and there are multiple reliable sources. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No there aren't, there are multiple generally reliable sources that are relying on a single source in a breaking news matter. See WP:RSBREAKING: this is an exact example of a situation in which even generally reliable sources are consistently known to be unreliable. Loki (talk) 14:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, we'll agree to disagree on that. Now please explain how WP:BLPCRIME applies, as Gaiman is very much a public figure? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It doesn't, I missed that bit of it. But WP:PUBLICFIGURE does so the result is the same. Loki (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:PUBLICFIGURE says We can find multiple reliable sources - two that were removed include The Telegraph and New Zealand Herald. There are many more. They all report that The Tortoise podcast published the allegations by the two alleged victims. We can certainly report that. WP:Publicfigure goes on to state  and of course we should do that, too. The material you removed did exactly what is required by the Publicfigure section of the WP:BLP policy. Unless there are other policy-based objections, I intend restoring the content. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, because of WP:RSBREAKING sources that are generally reliable still have major caveats regarding breaking news stories (like this one). So we, as far as I can see, don't have any sources that are reliable in this particular situation. If we got some independent reporting, that would be a different story. Loki (talk) 18:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. WP:RSBREAKING in no way prevents us stating that The Tortoise published the allegations, and that Gaiman denied them, with the NZ Herald and The Telegraph as our reliable secondary sources. There are other sources, too. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it is a difficult case given that all the sources seem to rely on a single source for the information. Attributing the accusations to the source seems to only address part of the concern. I also want to note that WP:BLPCRIME applies to any BLPs in that we cannot have Wikipedia imply that a person is guilty before they are convicted, regardless of who they are. We have to be very careful with our language and what we include, and that policy works with other policies, such as WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:BLPSOURCES, to urge caution when including content about criminal accusations against any living peole. – notwally (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, obviously. That goes without saying. Nobody has suggested that we imply anyone is guilty of anything. All we can say is... well, what we said in the last-but-one edit to the article:, with references. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Trust me, that does not go without saying in some cases I've seen at BLPN, and I didn't mean to imply that is a problem here. I think your suggested language is a neutral, accurate description of the situation. What gives me pause, though, is WP:BLPSOURCES, which says "material should not be added to an article when the only sources are tabloid journalism". When all other sources are citing a single tabloid report for their content, I think that may justify withholding the information from the article until more reliable sources have independently confirmed the accusations. – notwally (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, but what are you basing the claim that Tortoise is a tabloid on? I've not seen that claim anywhere. They seem to be reasonably reputable, even if their editorial line might not be as neutral as one would hope. But then many media outlets that are definitely WP:RS have definite editorial slants. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It was stated at the top of this source, which just happened to be the first one I read. Even if they are more reputable, caution may be warranted if the source is particularly biased. I don't know enough about the source in question to have a useful opinion on that. – notwally (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Nor me. I've heard it's a TERF-y site, but the fact remains they've published the allegations and are standing over them; other press have reported on their publication; Gaiman has denied the allegations. I still feel nothing precludes us from including exactly those facts. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I knew none of you had the guts to include it. You'll hide anything you don't want to see.  There's always some guideline you can twist to support removing what you want.  Thanks for the confirmation.128.151.71.8 (talk) 19:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Good that we didn't let you down. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It’s kind of wild, these allegations have been around for at least 5 years; there was a whole discussion on Twitter about it. Not a reliable source in itself, but it’s not just one podcast (which definitely isn’t right wing, TERFy maybe if you stretch it, more both sidesy).
 * There are allegations, Gaiman denied them, that is a fact. Why can’t it be included? 95.168.120.8 (talk) 17:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It can (actually, it was), but editors are discussing in this thread to try to find a WP:CONSENSUS if it should be included per WP-policies like WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. On this website, these things can take time. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I had a look at the arguments above and the policies, and imho there is not yet sufficient independent sourcing to include the information. BLP policy from the WP:PUBLICFIGURE section was quoted above in support of including it based on multiple sources, however crucial information was innocently left out of that quotation which makes that interpretation mistaken. The quotation appears to have been pulled from the rendered page, rather than the wikicode. Had it been quoted including the underlying links, the poster probably would have reached the opposite conclusion that they did, and realized that this policy militates for the exclusion, not inclusion of this material. The crucial sentence (including links) is this one:
 * If you cannot find reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

The point is, that the link target for third-party sources is Independent sources via a redirect, and the sources listed above, The Telegraph and the others, all quote the original source, therefore none of them are INDEPENDENT. What is needed for inclusion is independent reporting on the alleged incident in multiple, reliable sources that do not base their reports on TheWrap (or each other). If we do not have that, then we cannot include it. (As a side issue, I can see how an editor of good faith could be tripped up by that sentence at WP:PUBLICFIGURE, and the policy wording may need to be amended to specifically include the word independent, even though the somewhat surprising link already goes there.) Mathglot (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The word "independent" does have the meaning you ascribe to the policy: something like "has investigated the matter for themselves, not just relying on the word of another source". As far as I'm aware WP:INDEPENDENT is not about that meaning, focusing specifically on the matter of a source being disconnected from the subject being covered. Are the Telegraph and Herald independent of Gaiman and the people making the allegations? Are they a third party to this dispute? I think so, and I think those are the only questions suggested by the phrase "third-party sources" and the link to INDEPENDENT.
 * I'm in favor of a short mention of the allegations and the denial. I'm somewhat on the fence, to be honest, so don't be surprised if I change my mind as more coverage comes in, or doesn't. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Agreed - "independent" here means independent of the subject. On the subject of inclusion, it's unlikely more sources will cover this until such time as charges, if any, are made, or a civil suit is filed. That would leave us with The Telegraph, NZ Herald, and a slew of others (Pinknews, Rolling Stone, NME, MSN, etc.), who all also essentially repeated the facts I'm proposing we reinstate, which I included above. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I actually do think that there's a WP:INDEPENDENT issue, though I think it's stated more clearly in WP:RSBREAKING.
 * So, the first party here is obviously Gaiman himself. But the second party is Tortoise Media, since they're making the accusation. And while the Telegraph etc etc are third party as whole organizations, the specific stories reporting this accusation can't really be said to be third party since they're only repeating the accusation of one of the parties.
 * In many other situations this would be fine: if the NYT says that Biden says Trump is a threat to democracy, we can say that Biden says that, at least. However in this situation it's an accusation of a major crime against a living person. If the NYT said Biden said Trump was a rapist (for example), I don't think we'd repeat that even though it was in the NYT without some kind of independent reporting. Loki (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that's an untenable analysis of the parties. The first party is Gaiman, the second party comprises the accusers. Tortoise is a potentially biased third party. Even if we counted Tortoise as a 2nd party, the summary and analysis provided by the other sources show that they're third parties. We're well out of breaking news territory at this point. When E. Jean Carroll first alleged that Trump raped her, we did indeed include reliable coverage of it as soon as it was available, despite the third-party sources only repeating the accusations (at the time). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

So right now, what I'm seeing is a small majority in favour of inclusion of minimal, factual detail. That would include, , , , and me. Those opposed include, , , and. And is neutral. If I've mischaracterised anyone's opinion, please correct me. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Per my comment at, I'd classify myself as neutral. For clarity, the text I was commenting on was
 * "In July 2024, Tortoise Media reported that Gaiman was accused by two women of sexual assault, and that Gaiman had denied both of the accusations. "
 * Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. So that would then be a ratio of 6:3:2 in favour:opposed:neutral. I think that would count as a rough consensus for inclusion, and on that basis I will re-add the above sentence tomorrow (there's no rush on this.) Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if 6:3:2 is a wide enough consensus to do that. WP:BLP stresses WP:NPOV right at the top of the page, and neutral point of view is one of the very few policies that cannot be overturned by consensus, even if that is what we have here. Is there really *no* source reporting on this that isn't parroting TM's report? Nobody else talked to the women and were able to report on it? Or nobody cared enough/had sufficient budget to do their own investigation? That just seems sketchy to me; why isn't there? What has Wikipedia done in other cases like this one, when an accusation like this comes from a single source about a public figure?
 * If that is enough for inclusion, I think your wording with in-text attribution ("...Tortoise Media reported...") is definitely the only way to go, because nobody (except TM) is saying women accused him of anything, the only other reports are about what TM said; i.e., they are secondary wrt TM (tertiary wrt the accusations), and we are one step removed. But that raises the possibility that a single report in a usually reliable source, even if it cannot be confirmed by any other source, is sufficient to put this kind of accusation into a Wikipedia article, as long as other sources report on the reporting. Is that really where we are now at Wikipedia? Mathglot (talk) 17:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Neutral here too, per . Also, I don't see the consensus to include that's required of BLP. --Hipal (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)