Talk:Neil Gaiman

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)

(three months later) addition to Gaiman the elder's article (way back on 21 January 2025).

I did not find any mention of Richard Madoc in The Sandman (comic) article, so earlier today, I made the addition to List of The Sandman characters#Richard Madoc instead. All other appearances of "Richard Madoc" in mainspace that I would find are just passing mentions, so those articles are not good candidates for adding info from the Vulture piece.

Of course, I welcome further improvements to my edits. Cheers, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:46, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Frankly, given that Gaiman likely had many friends and acquaintances, I do not see what him knowing Tori Amos and being her child’s godfather has any real relevance to the piece. Why is she singled out? Should we add the post-accusation statements she has made about claiming not to know that “side” of Gaiman and that if the accusations are true she would be very upset with him? I imagine everyone who is or was a friend of his would be totally shocked at these allegations. Decowen (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Dismissed lawsuit

At least one of the lawsuits against Gaiman was dismissed. It seems the appropriate edit would be to take out "In his response to the lawsuit, Gaiman claimed that the American court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case because the alleged assaults happened in New Zealand, and asked for the case to be dismissed." and replace it with "The lawsuit against Gaiman was dismissed by a Wisconsin federal judge without ruling on facts as the alleged events took place in New Zealand." But this is a contentious topic, so I thought I'd mention this on the talk page and I am hesitant to edit it. Vulture: https://www.vulture.com/article/neil-gaiman-sexual-assault-lawsuit-dismissed.html ruling linked in Vulture https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69605847/51/pavlovich-scarlett-v-gaiman-neil/ Andwats (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Yup, the article should be updated to reflect the dismissal of the lawsuit. It's been over a month. The suggested sentence seems fine to me. ~2025-35323-44 (talk) 06:34, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

(one month later) Partly done (with some other edits; the edit summary should read "as requested by Andwats). I thought the original sentence could remain without confusing the reader, so I just appended the update after.

I sectioned this discussion off from § Federal lawsuit to more clearly mark the passage of time between the two discussions. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:51, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Shouldn't we put more context to the miscomnduct allegations?

it doesn't seem to provide enough context 2601:242:4100:22C0:A451:BB3F:3851:64BE (talk) 2601:242:4100:22C0:A451:BB3F:3851:64BE (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC) like it took me three months tho find out what happened 2601:242:4100:22C0:A451:BB3F:3851:64BE (talk) 20:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

This stuff is already allotted too much space here. Scandals are all nice and juicy, but this is an article about an author with a long career that mentions the allegations, not the other way round. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

"comeback"

There has been some news these last few days about where the author is claiming he was a victim of a smear campaign (not just the regular social media raging mobs, but politically motivated). Eg https://www.vulture.com/article/neil-gaiman-denies-sexual-assault-allegations.html which refers to https://technopathology.substack.com/p/neil-gaiman-is-innocent-contents This should go in the allegations section somehow ~2026-75090-2 (talk) 08:18, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Assuming we're not dealing with a case of WP:MANDY, what exactly is the Vulture article actually saying? We can't use an anonymous substack as a source. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:24, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS so far. If whatever he's working on is released and gets significant media coverage, then that will need to be included. --Hipal (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

A “call to arms” from folks who believe Neil is innocent

I found this post on a subreddit dedicated to Neil being innocent calling on redditors to make edits on this page. So, if changes suddenly start appearing, that may be why. Reportersteven (talk) 00:52, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Or, y'know, since all cases have been dropped, maybe some edits are required to the very weighted language in the piece? It sounds as if it's admitting his innocence very grudgingly. Note I mean "innocence" in the strict sense of "broke the law"; his morality or lack thereof is for others to argue.

There are no active lawsuits against him in either the US or NZ.

I note that this article is "locked" for people who are not WP members. I really hope that's not to dissuade legitimate edits = whether they come from Reddit or anywhere else. ~2026-49256-51 (talk) 12:00, 11 September 2026 (UTC)