Talk:Neil Gaiman

Sexual assault accusations revisited

This might be a little early, but it’s been several weeks since the story broke and I’m curious about what anyone thinks about the inclusion of the accusations in the article. A few things: 1, In the time since the initial flurry of mostly identical coverage I’ve only found one article discussing it, this piece in The Manila Times, which may be a sign that this is already veering into WP:NOTNEWS territory; 2, even if there’s a substantial number of accusers the claims carry no real weight unless some kind of action (legal or otherwise) is taken against the accused; 3, at risk of veering into WP:NOTCRYSTAL territory, given the nature of the accusations it’s unlikely that any legal action will be taken, much less result in Gaiman being found culpable of misconduct. Unless such action is taken (whether it’s criminal or civil charges or some informal sanctioning of Gaiman like so-and-so major organization declares him persona non grata) I personally think we should just assume the accusations will go nowhere (not taking any sides on whether they’re true or not) and leave them out. Dronebogus (talk) 07:48, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I guess that's were it is headed, but I'd say give it at least a month before declaring lack of ongoing coverage. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Strong disagree. Literally, wP:V, which you linked. Accusations were made, they were covered by multiple reliable sources, he denied the sexual assault allegations while admitting to sexual relations with the accusers. None of that is in dispute, that's all verifiable and is referenced. You know what happens now? No, neither do I. His accusers may take things further, they may not. If they do, it may take literally years for a civil or criminal trial to happen. Something doesn't have to be continually in the news for it to be WP:DUE, and Wikipedia is not censored. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Accusations were made, they were covered by *multiple* reliable sources, he denied the sexual assault allegations while admitting to sexual relations with the accusers. None of that is in dispute I wasn’t denying any of those things. I have no idea why you think I am. it may take literally years for a civil or criminal trial to happen. then the information likely isn’t notable until that happens which you yourself admit may never happen. Something doesn't have to be continually in the news for it to be WP:DUE yes but if it’s in the news for all of a week in the context of a decades-long career it probably isn’t Wikipedia is not censored. What’s that even got to do with it? WP:NOTCENSORED isn’t a blanket license to include whatever content just because its controversial. Dronebogus (talk) 13:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

then the information likely isn’t notable until that happens which you yourself admit may never happen. I don't know where you're getting this from, but it's absolutely not a policy or guideline anywhere on WP. By that logic, we should remove the information about Benjamin Netanyahu having an ICC arrest warrant out for him, because there's been no news on it for a week or so and it could be years before there's a trial, even if he does get arrested? Anyway - we've both stated our positions and we're not going to agree, so let's leave it to others to have their say. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I’m just going to point out an unsubstantiated accusation and an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court are two vastly different things. Dronebogus (talk) 13:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

And I'm just going to point out that we include coverage of allegations and accusations all the time on many, many articles, throughout the encyclopedia, including BLPs, and always have done, once they're sourced. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I guess just so there's at least one other person having such a say, I'll restate the obvious fact that "must be continuously reported on" is an absurd standard that is not part of policy. Personman (talk) 09:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

No, but there is Wikipedia:SUSTAINED Dronebogus (talk) 09:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I mean, did you read it? That page makes a clear case that we shouldn't have an *article* on these allegations unless public interest is sustained. It's very obviously not about individual facts in an article. If it were, 98% of Wikipedia could be speedy deleted under this policy. Personman (talk) 13:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Good job nobody proposed that, then. I'm not finding any recent news about Gaiman's version of Sweeney Todd - but nobody is suggesting removing that, either. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm kinda confused by this comment. In case you were replying to me, let me clarify that I was fully agreeing with you. But I'm not sure why you'd say nobody was proposing the very thing Dronebogus was proposing when you've just been arguing about it at length, so maybe you weren't replying to me, indentation level notwithstanding? Personman (talk) 13:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, I was replying to Dronebogus and made a mistake in my indentation. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Strongly disagree that this should be included in the article at this time, especially since there are not multiple third-party sources. Those editors who says the accusations have been covered by "multiple sources" are really saying, "one source reported it and other sources reported that it was reported." Right now this is just gossip/scandal. When and if the accusations are followed up on or substantiated, that's when we can revisit this. But it should just be deleted. Right now this item does not have sufficient weight or validation to be included. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

It looks like you may have missed some of the later discussion in the other section on this page. A bunch of new sources were added, including a Rolling Stone interview. There is unambiguously sufficient weight and validation to include it. Personman (talk) 13:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

You're right. Missed the new sources in the back and forth above. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 19:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• To everyone who says “but what about other figure accused of sexual misconduct”— what about Michael Gira? What about David Bowie? Both had notable accusations levied against them; neither are discussed in their articles. Dronebogus (talk) 03:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  whataboutism  Mr JM  19:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  I’m pointing out that other people are already engaging in whataboutism to support imclusion, and that it doesn’t hold up when you look at all the examples of celebrities accused of sexual misconduct. I’m particularly thinking of Gira, where there was a big to-do over the rape allegations against him that ultimately went nowhere. I think we should learn from that lesson and include the allegations if and only if they lead somewhere. Otherwise it just doesn’t seem in the spirit of WP:BLPCRIME. Gaiman is obviously a public figure but in this day in age there’s a “guilty until proven innocent” mindset among a lot of people (i.e. allegations are automatically true if they pass reasonable doubt) that we shouldn’t facilitate. Dronebogus (talk) 05:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  When you say people are bringing up “but what about other figure accused of sexual misconduct” - who has done that? Be specific. Provide diffs. I'll wait. In the meantime, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. But if you want to go down that road, I'm personally not aware of SA allegations against Bowie (though I'll google now), and I've literally never heard of Michael Gira. It's immaterial, anyway - this is the Neil Gaiman article. But if you (you, not us) are going to start pointing at other articles, have a look at Andrew Tate, Cristiano Ronaldo and Conor McGregor for examples of SA and rape allegations being covered, where there has not yet been a conviction. Now, as to but in this day in age there’s a “guilty until proven innocent” mindset among a lot of people (i.e. allegations are automatically true if they pass reasonable doubt) that we shouldn’t facilitate. - could you stop poisoning the well, please, and actually stick to the facts, and what people have actually written here? I mean, it's literally here in black and white! Gaiman has been accused of sexual assault, and has denied the allegations, and that fact has been reported on by multiple reliable sources. That's all that's been said on this page, that's all that's been said in the article. Your unrelated 'old man shouting at clouds' rant is something you should save for your personal Twitter account. It doesn't belong here. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  You are getting needlessly personal. Consider reading the talk pages before saying “I don’t know about this therefore it must not be important”. Plus I never said it had to lead to a conviction to be notable— just something more than empty accusations. In any case the examples you provide are poor: Andrew Tate is well-known for being under investigation on suspicion of sex crimes, Renaldo had a years-long police investigation into the allegations before they were dropped, and McGregor’s article in general devotes far too much space to barely notable “controversial” behavior (given that the second sexual assault case was dropped within months it should probably be outright removed, which just strengthens my case here). Dronebogus (talk) 21:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  You are the one who has literally accused other editors of saying things here that nobody has said, which is pretty personal. Still waiting on those diffs. Or a retraction and apology. Either one. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  You literally said “And I'm just going to point out that we include coverage of allegations and accusations all the time on many, many articles, throughout the encyclopedia, including BLPs, and always have done, once they're sourced.” Just scroll up to see it. Dronebogus (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  You literally said “but what about other figure accused of sexual misconduct” and I literally gave one prior example of someone accused of something, with no conviction, where that's mentioned in their article. That was Benjamin Netanyahu, who has not, to my knowledge, been accused of sexual assault. Also, I did not say “I don’t know about this therefore it must not be important” - do not put words in my mouth! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  You really just seem to want to argue semantics. I will not be responding any further. Dronebogus (talk) 22:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

In any case the allegations have since lead to a bunch of projects involving him being iced or cancelled (or rather coincidentally paused/axed at a very convenient moment), meaning that notability has been established beyond reasonable doubt. But I think in the spirit of BLP we should nevertheless avoid immediately assuming every allegation is automatically notable. I still think contemporary misconduct allegations against celebrities are frequently so tenuous they veer close to WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTTEMPORARY territory, but that’s a different issue. Dronebogus (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Notability is certainly established. It should be in the lead as it is manifestly important, and I have put it there. Emmentalist (talk) 23:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the inclusion of the accusations themselves is okay but I do think that some of them are not put into proper context. He wasn't accused of just immediately groping and trying to kiss a woman after he met her. It was more nuanced than that. And I feel like these one line accusations don't contain enough nuance to make it clear that they're not open and shut cases Emeraldflames (talk) 01:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't Julia Hobsbawm be named?

One of the five women who made the accusations is Julia Hobsbawm, OBE, a notable person with her own Wikipedia bio article. While keeping the entry on SA accusations brief makes some sense, this appears to be a significant enough detail that it ought to be included. CapnPhantasm (talk) 04:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, as long as it’s in the article. It should also be at her article. Dronebogus (talk) 12:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I added this in on both articles. CapnPhantasm (talk) 00:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Gotta say, @CapnPhantasm, while I assume good faith, this comment and approach is a mistake. Why would you raise here the need to mention something about someone at a different article? This is a risk, at the very least, that it looks like you want to give some kind of comeuppance to a woman whose jib you don't like the cut of. The overwhelming majority of wiki editors are men, and white men at that. I'd counsel caution before editing here and at related pages in a way which could be taken as trolling a woman you don't like. Meant kindly and in good faith. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

What on Earth are you talking about? This is now an extremely notable event in both person’s lives; why is including it on both objectionable, let alone some indication of pervasive institutional misogyny? Dronebogus (talk) 10:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I would have thought that this should have been brought up at the talk page of Julia Hobsbawm, as it relates to her own article, not at the article of the man she accused. Knitsey (talk) 11:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Does everything relating to an article need to be discussed at that article’s talk page, especially when it’s a much lower-traffic article? This strikes me as a WP:NOTBURO situation. Dronebogus (talk) 11:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

It's appropriate to mention it on the subjects article talk page. At the very least, this conversation should be mentioned there. Knitsey (talk) 11:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Then go ahead, I see nothing wrong with that Dronebogus (talk) 11:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

As you made the edit, I will leave it to you to add the link or add a note about this discussion. Knitsey (talk) 11:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Why is this something that needs to be argued about? Why can’t you do it? Dronebogus (talk) 11:34, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

If you don't want to make a note about your edit to her article then don't do it. It's a suggestion, it does leave you open to suggestions as above. It's up to you really. Knitsey (talk) 11:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn’t make the main edit; I changed a heading. Dronebogus (talk) 11:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

My initial comment was to those involved in the decision and editing of the subjects article. Like I said, I don't read it this way but I can understand why it looks odd that a discussion about another person's article is discussed here but not there as well. Knitsey (talk) 11:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Update request ,New York Times article

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/26/business/neil-gaiman-allegations.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Nk4.WaI-._J2-QffLD5A5&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=c-cb

I understand that the source was an issue before. Can you reconsider fuller details on the allegations now it's in the New York Times? Dougalmagic260322 (talk) 11:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

The issue was that there wasn't a reliable source that independently reported this, not that there wasn't a reliable source of what the podcast said. And this source explicitly contains the paragraph:

Two women who spoke to the podcast were identified as Scarlett and K., and could not be reached for comment for this article. Two other women who spoke on the podcast, Caroline Wallner and Julia Hobsbawm, declined to be interviewed. The claims that these four women made on the podcast could not be independently verified by The New York Times.

Which if anything validates my concerns over everyone just relying on the same problematic source. Loki (talk) 21:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, upon reading again, there actually is independent reporting about one of the five accusers in this article, which is very notable and probably deserves a mention. That makes that accusation a lot better sourced than the other four. Loki (talk) 00:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Potential vandalism?

it looks like someone has find and replaced every instance of "Gaiman" with "gayman" PatShutUp (talk) 07:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

It has been fixed. Commander Keane (talk) 08:19, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Scientology

As well as expanding on the allegations of sexual assaults the recent Vulture piece has more about Gaiman's early work for the Church of Scientology, and his treatment under that organisation's rues, by his father. Should we add something? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree, especially with the mention that his parents were close friends of the Founder and forced out in a coup. There is a lot of reporting in the new Vulture article that could be integrated into the article. Some of the allegations in particular, as outlined, are extraordinarily evil if true and worth inclusion. The allegations include paying women >$400,000 for therapy, nonconsensual BDSM (slave/master dynamic), assaulting women in front of his son (grim).

General consensus from the perennial source board is that Rolling Stone's opinion pieces and reviews, as well as any contentious statements regarding living persons, should only be used with attribution.Rolling Stone's opinion pieces and reviews, as well as any contentious statements regarding living persons, should only be used with attribution". Rolling Stone article Rolling Stone's opinion pieces and reviews, as well as any contentious statements regarding living persons, should only be used with attribution".] piece in question. The allegations are largely made by people who identify themselves. I don't want to make these contentious changes. Gaiman says the article is an attack by Palmer as a negotiation tact in their divorce and custody battle.

Additionally, I think there is something odd about having "Other personal relationships" include both his wife and child, and devoting more words in the same section to Tori Amos. These do not feel equivalent to me and the stuff about his wife, child and he living NZ for years) belongs at the top of the Personal life details. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 23:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

The article's discussion of Neil Gaiman's father's involvement with Scientology should also be incorporated into the relevant article. There is also a brief comparison between Gaiman and Richard Madoc that should probably be incorporated into the article on The Sandman. With regards to the sexual assault allegations themselves, their sheer severity makes not including them a form of whitewashing. Considering the amount of coverage that the allegations are receiving, they are likely central to his notability going forward. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 08:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I think there is strong justification to include the Scientology material on Gaiman's own page. It says The Ocean at the End of the Lane began as a therapeutic exercise, making it very relevant to his life and work. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 13:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I do not disagree with you, hence my usage of the word "also". ―Susmuffin ^Talk 00:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 01:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2025

Change "As of 2013, Gaiman also resides in Cambridge, Massachusetts.[148] Since 2014 Gaiman has been a professor in the arts at Bard College, teaching courses in theatre and performance, written arts and experimental humanities.[149] At Bard he also serves on the advisory board for at the Fisher Center for the Performing Arts,[150] where he hosts public lectures and conversations with notable figures in the arts.[151]" to "From 2014-2017, Gaiman was a professor in the arts at Bard College, where he also served on the advisory board for at the Fisher Center for the Performing Arts." Jwlhuang (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Ultraodan (talk) 05:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Here is a source regarding the fact that Neil Gaiman no longer serves on the advisory board for the Fisher Center for the Performing Arts: https://fishercenter.bard.edu/about/leadership/ Jwlhuang (talk) 13:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Why is Neil Gaiman’s child’s involvement not included in the sexual assault allegations?

This is included in both of the sources used for that section. I feel that if we’re gonna include the allegations made by multiple women, we should include how they said he exposed his child to such acts as well. JungleEntity (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

There is an ongoing conversation about this in the Scientology section above, where consensus seems to be developing that it should be added.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ImaginesTigers (talk • contribs) 16:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Response from Neil Gaiman

He has broken his silence about the allegations:

https://journal.neilgaiman.com/2025/01/breaking-silence.html

--2A04:4A43:909F:F990:B9B2:30E7:8464:2B28 (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I've edited the sexual assault section to include his denial of the allegations, I might've messed it up with saying it was the day after the article though, as it was just a quick look at the date of article and post, so I suggest someone double check that V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I've added more detail on his response. I do not like that it is a primary source but, given how much traffic this article will get, I think it is important to include this detail right now. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 18:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy on citing self-published blogs makes it clear that this case should be ok as it's written by the person in question (Gaiman). Currently, it's not going to get any better than using the blog post, until he makes comments to secondary outlets regarding the scandal. It's also important to keep going forward, as it's the first public response he made to the allegations of sexual assault. V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@V. L. Mastikosa: What you have linked is not a policy; it is a deprecated essay. The correct policy to cite is WP:ABOUTSELF. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 19:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Oops, thanks for correcting me, I'm still a novice when it comes to editing, still I stand by my other points for keeping it. V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

--This section should probably be re-written to use the NPR article, e.g., which references his blog, although citing the blog is also acceptable in this circumstance so long as there's no editorializing. Main concern here is providing interpretation, which I think, the phrase "categorically denied" does. N.B.: I would edit here, but don't want to clobber someone since this is a current event and no doubt active. Andwats (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed on NPR, and I'm sure other stuff will surface. I wrote "categorically" in the first place & happy to take it out. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 23:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Hearsay

Amanda Palmer is an articulate and outspoken individual, and can make her own statement on the recent reports. The article should not include "quotes" from her which are not verifiably directly attributable to her. The Vulture is clearly happy using material from anonymous sources but such does not belong in an article here, particular one on a living person. See WP:BLPGOSSIP. --2A04:4A43:909F:F990:B9B2:30E7:8464:2B28 (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)