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:

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)

[1] "There is consensus that The Daily Telegraph (also known as The Telegraph) is generally reliable. "

[2] "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'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'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 | 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 | 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, LokiTheLiar. 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 In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. 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 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 If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too. 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: 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., 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 multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

The point is, that the link target for third-party sources is Wikipedia: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 Hipal, Jaguarnik, XOR'easter, Erik, Firefangledfeathers and me. Those opposed include GimmeChoco44, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, LokiTheLiar, and Mathglot. And Notwally 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 [3], 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."

References

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 [4]. Also, I don't see the consensus to include that's required of BLP. --Hipal (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

You're referring to WP:UNDEL? Fair enough, given your comments about the sources I thought you were in favour of inclusion, with caveats. So that would then be a ratio of 5:3:3 in favour:opposed:neutral. Referring to Mathglot's comment above, in my opinion, 2:1 in favour of inclusion would definitely suggest consensus to me. 5:3 does not, as the numbers are small (I might be convinced if it was more like 20:12). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

It's still a single source, with no further reports, evidence, or independent sources emerging since the initial story. It's just not enough for inclusion. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Neil Gaiman himself has confirmed parts of the allegations Nincruel (talk) 23:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

In terms of other cases where allegations came from a single source, I made a (rather shallow) search and found Chris Hardwick. The allegations against Harwick were published from the alleged victim Chloe Dykstra's Medium blog in June 2018, upon which secondary reporting citing the Medium article popped up in People, IndieWire, CNN, and others. Browsing through the history of the Chris Hardwick WP page, it looks like an "Abuse Allegations" section was added within a few weeks of the allegations being published, and that WP section remained intact with expansions and contractions over the following months and years. The only mentions of the allegations in the talk page are a discussion over displaying the allegations in the lead, and a discussion over whether some additional information should be in the allegations section. None of the talk page content I found discusses whether the reporting on the allegations satisfies WP requirements.

It seems to me that we're in a similar situation here, with the exception that the publishing source is not the alleged victims themselves, as in Dykstra's case, but Tortoise Media reporting on it and including testimony from the alleged victims. If we take this precedent as a good and relevant example, I think it would resolve the notability question, since the two situations seem to be similar in that regard, but not resolve the question about the primary source, since the situations differ in how they were published.

Of course, there is also the possibility that the Chris Hardwick page was not up to snuff by WP policy when the allegations were first edited into his page, in which case, one could argue that it's not relevant to determining whether or not the allegations against Gaiman are notable enough to be included in our case here. Lonniganseaweed (talk) 23:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Having read the arguments so far, I'm in favor of restoring the single sentence "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." I feel that the independence discussion has to do with independence from the parties involved (Gaiman and the women, Scarlett and K), and not with how many sources speak directly to the those making the allegations. Tortoise Media seems to be a reputable source, and there are many reliable sources citing Tortoise Media. Lonniganseaweed (talk) 00:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, considering its been three weeks, Neil has responded to allegations, and there is still nothing about this despite the seriousness of the accusation. Nincruel (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Does this single media source accusation pass tests of notability? Have these accusations affected the overall history of the subject of the biographical article? Ref: WP:NOTEVERYTHING , listing something like this as part of the article seems to be unfounded at this time. If the story develops, we should reconsider. But at this time, it doesn't have merit.GimmeChoco44 (talk) 05:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:GNG, "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.", with definitions for each italicized term. The reliable sources definition explicitly mentions secondary sources (something I think we have plenty of) as "[providing] the most objective evidence of notability". WP:GNG also require that material does not fit into WP:NOT. I don't think there's anything in there that would bar talking about the allegation, the closest I found is WP:NOTNEWS, but I argue that sexual misconduct allegations covered by a reliable primary source with certainly reliable secondary sources are serious enough to be considered beyond celebrity gossip. Lonniganseaweed (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:GNG/WP:N has nothing to do with it, that applies if you're intending to make a separate article on this story. What applies here is WP:BLP and parts of WP:NPOV. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the clarification. I noticed the mentions of articles and erroneously figured that also applied to new content within already existing articles. I'm relatively new to editing. In that case, after reading WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, I still hold to the source in question being reliable and the event being notable enough to be included as part of Gaiman's WP biography. In particular, I'd like to say that allegations of these kind on public figures are often seen by people as impacting the figure's integrity, and in this case, their creative work. There's no shortage of people sharing their thoughts in opinion pieces on major news publications and on social media about how sexual assault allegations affect their interpretation of the creative works of the alleged perpetrator. I think this strengthens the reasoning for including mention of the allegations in this WP article. I myself have looked up creators on WP in the past to see if they've (allegedly or no) acted scummy because it will impact my decision on whether or not to consumer their content, and if I do consume it, how I will interpret their work. Lonniganseaweed (talk) 17:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Lonniganseaweed, you are actually making an argument for one of the reasons why we do not include these types of allegations without high quality sourcing. – notwally (talk) 21:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Could you explain what you mean? Lonniganseaweed (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is seen as a reliable source of information for many people. It has that reputation, I believe, because of the lengths we go to as editors ensuring that information is taken from high quality sources, especially contentious information about living people (which is not how much of the internet operates). That influence, especially when it comes to reputations of living people, is exactly why our policies require such high quality sourcing for contentious allegations. – notwally (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your explanation, and that's exactly what I think is happening here, that we have a high quality source with which to justify including mention of the allegations on the page. It's definitely a good thing there's a higher standard for living people. I intended my response to @GimmeChoco44 to focus on the notability of both the source and the event, and the event's relevance to being put on the page. Lonniganseaweed (talk) 22:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

A third accuser has now stepped forward on a different podcast, as reported at File 770: https://file770.com/third-woman-accuses-neil-gaiman-of-sexual-assault/ DorVS (talk) 07:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

A fanzine/blog is not really the best support for accusations like this Jaguarnik (talk) 07:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, a few mainstream sites have covered the (initial) accusations:

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/neil-gaiman-denies-sexual-assault-allegations-two-women-1235053131/ 2A00:1F:8702:B501:9C0C:7670:A507:908F (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

An example of today's development being covered: https://www.thebookseller.com/news/neil-gaiman-denies-new-sexual-assault-and-abuse-allegations-by-two-women Residentgrigo (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

There appear to be two more allegations published in the past few days, again by Tortoise Media. Lonniganseaweed (talk) 01:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

5 women apparently have accused him and the article has 4 covered. No 5 comes from another podcast. "Am I Broken: Survivor Stories". A list breaking his down: https://decider.com/2024/08/04/the-sandman-creator-neil-gaiman-accused-of-sexual-abuse-by-5-women/ Residentgrigo (talk) 01:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

TRS also did a follow up article and it too covers women No 5 from the other podcast who tried to get her story reported in 2019 but was allegedly shut down if a better source is needed: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/neil-gaiman-two-more-women-allege-sexual-assault-1235073080/.

TRS is as mainstream as US outlets get and somehow the only site/paper of it´s size willing to cover the story. Residentgrigo (talk) 01:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

In this context, it would probably fail WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS, that's my reading anyway. But here's some WP:PINKNEWS:[5]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:29, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

How are allegations and denials of sexual assault "societal"? News, yes; crime, yes. But hardly "societal"? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

"of or relating to society". I think it fits, but that's me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

There is also an article from The Straits Times, which is listed with no consensus, but described as being generally reliable regarding matters not related to Singaporean politics, according to WP:RSP. The linked Strait Times article cites Tortoise Media. Lonniganseaweed (talk) 13:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Thx for the list. I saw Der Spiegel listed as a trustworthy and am German. They reported on this: https://www.spiegel.de/kultur/literatur/sandman-autor-neil-gaiman-immer-mehr-frauen-erheben-vorwuerfe-a-9653c1a8-d272-45ec-8ac4-620d0ca1c6a8

"Der Erfolgsautor Neil Gaiman gerät zunehmend unter Druck: Zwei Frauen waren bereits mit Vorwürfen der sexuellen Übergriffigkeit und Nötigung an die Öffentlichkeit gegangen. Jetzt meldeten sich noch drei weitere Frauen zu Wort."

And that´s all our known 5 women in one quality source. If secondary. Residentgrigo (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

It’s not true that it hasn’t been reported in any “mainstream media”. That is a conspiracy by people who want to protect Gaiman.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/best-selling-author-neil-gaiman-denies-sexual-assault-of-two-women-one-in-new-zealand/CH3G7V3MA5FV3GBKSLWZSCGE4U/#:~:text=Best%2Dselling%20author%20Neil%20Gaiman%20has%20been%20accused%20of%20sexual,to%20call%20him%20%E2%80%9Cmaster%E2%80%9D. 107.179.131.20 (talk) 14:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

It's what we do. But since the internet is bigger than WP, we keep failing. Who on this talkpage claimed there is no mainstream media coverage on this? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Can we point out the obvious bias that Grabergs has?

Please click on their profile to see the top quote on their talk page. Nincruel (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I've also started 2 Gaiman related WP-articles and read several of his comics. Fwiw, the "accused Gaiman of sexual assault and abuse" text has now been in the article since August 7. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

It's been added to the article. If anyone removes it or strongly disputes its inclusion, I think an RfC or an BLPN discussion would be a good next step. --Hipal (talk) 03:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

IMO the text is acceptable per sources in this thread, which sources to actually cite in the article (Tortoise only atm) can probably be improved. But is this actually a "legal issue" atm? How about just adding the text at the end of "Other personal relationships"? If it becomes a legal issue, we can always move it back. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Writers don’t include writers, instead writers ARE writers.

Please fix it! 86.31.178.164 (talk) 00:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Huh? ~~ Jessintime (talk) 00:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Anonymous poster was likely commenting on grammatical errors connected to the use of "influence" in the "Journalism, early writings, and literary influences" section. Edits have been made to correct the phrasing where needed. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 05:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks GimmeChoco44 for fixing one instance! It's a logical problem more than a grammatical problem. The article still says "Artists include Sam Kieth" and "Featured stars include James McAvoy". Kieth isn't included in other artists, he IS an artist. Same with McAvoy. 86.31.178.164 (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Gaiman's teenage band

Just so I can close the browser window: here is a 1978 article on the band that Gaiman was part of, which performed punk under the name Chaos and later power pop as the Ex Execs. I am not asserting that this requires addition, and I will not be adding it myself as I have a conflict of interest in relation to Gaiman. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2024

The sexual misconduct allegations are not yet a legal issue and definitely aren't part of his career. They should be moved into the "Personal life" section, perhaps below advocacy as that would be chronological.--2A04:4A43:90FF:FB2D:951:AD9F:89C5:B93D (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC) 2A04:4A43:90FF:FB2D:951:AD9F:89C5:B93D (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. MadGuy7023 (talk) 21:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done I'm not sure why consensus would be needed, and this same edit was suggested by another editor as well. Went ahead and moved to "Other personal relationships" as suggested by Gråbergs Gråa Sång in prior section. – notwally (talk) 21:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

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)