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)

 Done 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)

 Done 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)

[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)