Talk:Neil Gaiman

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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)[reply]

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

 Done BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:03, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2023

change misspelled "Anasi Boys" to "Anansi Boys" Jarlapple (talk) 05:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Cannolis (talk) 08:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
+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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
[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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Ok, we'll agree to disagree on that. Now please explain how WP:BLPCRIME applies, as Gaiman is very much a public figure? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Neil_Gaiman"