Wikipedia talk:Mandy Rice-Davies does not apply

Suggestions

Howdy! I put this at the end of Mandy, but it was deleted. Maybe it should go at the end of unMandy:

“This essay is not meant to contradict relevant Wikipedia policies. To learn about those policies as they relate to denials, a good place to start would be the policy about biographies of living persons which says this about allegations against public figures: “If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported, while adhering to appropriate due weight of all sources covering the subject and avoiding false balance.”

Also, I put this into Mandy but it was deleted: “A mere three words (‘she denies it’) does not take up much article space, omitting those words could suggest to some readers that she hasn’t denied it, and other readers who know about the denial could infer that it is being omitted here because Wikipedia judges her to be dishonest.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I've incorporate an edited version of the last statement. The first statement is implied by the current text.--agr (talk) 19:53, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Let's not forget that some people say, "silence implies consent". Equally "X said that Y did Z" can imply to the ordinary reader that Y did do Z. There are many cases where initial reports prove wrong. The best way to incorporate this is to say "X said that Y did Z, but Y denied it". For example, the opinion that Yoko broke up the Beatles should be qualified by the fact that several people in the know have denied that...--Jack Upland (talk) 04:53, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Took a crack at this

Threw a few paragraphs of prose up. Feel free to revert if this isn't the direction you had in mind, Crossroads. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 14:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! I still need to add what I wanted and organize it, which will take at least several days, but this is a great start. Crossroads ^-talk- 14:42, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Specific examples re dispute on MANDY and usages

Perhaps a section on specific reported issues with MANDY ? The lead here mentions there are objections in the MANDY talk, and I have seen mentions that MANDY was abused. But specifics would seem better - perhaps billeted list talk items in a subsection separate from usage items.

Personally, I dislike the tone this encourages for BLP to sensationalise with vague insults, and that it may cause TALK to be sarcastic.

I also doubt the logic - just because several RS report an accusation of white nationalism or that they have published some white nationalist talking points does not seem to me proof the person “is a white nationalist”. I can see the possibility that the talking point in question is simply one they accept while still rejecting white nationalism, or that they simply publish whatever makes money.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Points to add (in no particular order)

[I've taken the liberty to move this section from the article draft to here. --agr (talk) 19:52, 12 August 2022 (UTC)]

Wikipedia articles are not court trials, not to pass a definite judgment

RS include rebuttals, therefore we should

Excluding denial may give false impression the person agrees with the accusation [added]

Other points from MANDY talk page discussion.

In the US justice system, for example, more than 94% plead guilty.[1]. It is not necessarily normal for people to deny what they have been accused of.

I would remove this argument as I don't think it stands up to scrutiny. It is pretty much universal in the US for accused criminals to plead "not guilty" initially. Their attorney then negotiates with the prosecution for a plea deal. Only after an acceptable deal is reached and approved by the judge does the defendant go to court and change his plea to guilty. So they are denying the charge at first.--agr (talk) 19:52, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Rice-Davies likely knew Astor was dishonest before trial

Astor was married at the time to Bronwen Astor, and decades later she too denied that there had been an affair between Rice-Davies and her husband, leading Rice-Davies to say that he had started it, not her.

See “Profumo affair’s Mandy Rice-Davies dies aged 70”, The Irish Times (19 Dec 2014).

This strongly suggests Rice-Davies was aware from the start that Astor wanted to hide the affair from his wife, and that he was lying to his wife. Perhaps his track record of lying about this exact same matter explains why Rice-Davies was so unsurprised to learn that he was again denying it under oath.

This is just a long way of saying that Mandy Rice-Davies actually only applies if the new denial merely rehashes a previous false denial of the same matter. I’m not sure whether this history is worth discussing in the essay, but it’s interesting. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

FYI: Redirect to denial policy is up for deletion

The redirect WP:DENIALS is up for deletion at this link. This redirect is used multiple times in this draft essay and talk page. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

This redirect discussion has been closed as "keep". Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Let's get this published

Crossroads What more is needed to publish the draft as an essay?--agr (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

From the looks of things, there's some cleanup needed; the User:Crossroads/Mandy Rice-Davies does not apply#Points to add (in no particular order) and User:Crossroads/Mandy Rice-Davies does not apply#Original text of MANDY essay (for easy comparison/rebuttal) should probably be removed.

As a meta-comment, I didn't expect editors to take my suggestion of a rebuttal essay to MANDY quite so literally. I was expecting/hoping for something more like how WP:SKYBLUE, WP:NOTBLUE, and WP:POPE address the same issue of citing sources, but from a different perspective and without directly stating that the other was wrong. At the time of writing this message, the draft reads more like a polemical statement on why MANDY is wrong, and why the supporters of MANDY are wrong, rather than why editors should consider denials from BLP subjects and organisations due for inclusion. Tamzin's draft from 12 August reads and feels much more closer to that practice of multiple essays on a concept from a different POV than the current one. As such I have concerns that as this essay currently stands, it has more value to attack editors who support MANDY, than actual commentary on why denials from article subjects can/are due per policy. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

This essay is still at a draft stage, which is why it's still in userspace. I oppose deleting User:Crossroads/Mandy Rice-Davies does not apply#Points to add (in no particular order) before the essay is finalized. It also seems to me that people who oppose this essay and favor a different approach should feel free to try to edit this essay to the extent that this essay is believed to contradict Wikipedia policy, but otherwise should generally stick to editing essays that they do not oppose. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

The question was "What more is needed to publish the draft as an essay?" It's pretty clear that deletion of those two sections, whose sole purpose is to help editors during the drafting process by providing prompts for content and comparison with the MANDY text, is a necessary step prior to the publishing of the essay.

It also seems to me that people who oppose this essay and favor a different approach I think you misunderstand me. I don't oppose this essay per-say, I was I believe the first editor who first proposed creation of a rebuttal essay in the most recent set of discussions on this. I am quite supportive of the idea behind this essay, however I am somewhat concerned to its current form.

To reiterate my concern more clearly, I am concerned that this in this essay's current form, it is an essay on why MANDY is wrong, and why the supporters of MANDY are wrong. MANDY is an essay on why denials from article subjects may not always be due for inclusion. The only content in it where it comments on editors is Editors are often tempted to close these sections with self-sourced denials, and it states this without judgement of those editors. The rest of the content is either framing of the argument, by drawing upon the trial of Stephen Ward and what lead to Rice-Davies saying her famous/infamous words, and using that framing to explain why we do not always need to include a denial from an article subject. A good rebuttal to MANDY should focus on why denials from articles subjects are due for inclusion, it does not need to comment on or cast aspersions about the editors who authored or support the MANDY essay. All this essay needs to do is make a convincing argument for why a denial of allegations from the article subject is due. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I think this essay should be on why MANDY is wrong.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree. It is not necessary or advisable to comment on or cast aspersions about editors who authored or support MANDY, in order to explain why MANDY arguably violates WP:BLP. In fact, I believe most editors who have worked on this draft believe that’s this essay’s most important job. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Regarding all the above: This is not ready for the Wikipedia namespace yet. I didn't expect this much editing to occur, and I haven't fully examined all the various changes, but the tone I am going for is basically rebutting MANDY's main points while also making arguments for why denials should be in included. No need to speculate in it on why editors want to not include denials. I'll try to add in what I wanted before too long, but at the same time, there is WP:NODEADLINE and the RfC at MANDY is still going on, so it's not like we're all going to forget about it. It won't be too long of a time. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I’ve made a bunch of edits during the past 24 hours. Thanks for the opportunity. Feel free to modify as needed. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Just dropping in to say I didn't forget about this and likely this week I can properly dedicate time to this and say it's ready. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

More links to policy needed

In order to fully combat MANDY's misuse, I think this essay could be integrated a lot more forcefully to the WP:5P, especially WP:5P2. The main problem I have with MANDY is that it is often misused as justification for removing even reliably sourced denials. The counter-essay should state this a lot more explicitly, in order to temper further misuse: that citing to verifiable, reliable sources is integral to the Wikipedia editing experience, and that if you're not editing using an "impartial tone that document[s] and explain[s] major points of view, giving due weight" to reliably sourced content, and that, above all, "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong on Wikipedia", that they could be banned for WP:NOTHERE. I didn't want to step on anyone's toes while they were editing, but these are points I feel the essay should make. I'll be happy to add them if users think these are good ideas. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree that following RS is important, and I'll be working on this soon. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:21, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Ready for move

I believe this is now ready to be moved into the Wikipedia namespace and then to have its header repaired, shortcuts created, and be linked in the see also section of the MANDY essay as a counter-essay, as agreed at that talk page. Hopefully nobody tries to revert that linking, so be ready for that. Do we agree this is ready for a move? Crossroads ^-talk- 17:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Sure, looks good. This essay quotes Mandy as saying that denials aren’t worth mentioning unless an RS “discussed its credibility”, so I thought it would be good to mention that an RS might have investigated credibility before publication of a bare denial, and there’s no way for us to know whether they did or not. But if you’d prefer to leave this out, that’s fine. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh okay, I might have missed that. I would suggest adding it back in but without replacing anything. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:41, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay, here’s my edit. I also removed a parenthetical that was difficult for me to understand, plus some minor copy-editing. Feel free to tweak as necessary, and thanks again for getting this ball rolling. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

There's only three bits that stick out to me as out of step with the rest of the essay.

• MANDY has proven highly controversial, as evidenced by extensive discussions on the essay's talk page as well as discussions at the talk page for the Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). I can't think of another essay that has a sentence like this, even for those that take opposing perspectives on a specific policy or application of that policy. Is this really necessary? The phrase "highly controversial" is also subjective, even if the sentence is necessary, it could do without the word "highly".
• Many editors in those discussions expressed concern that denials were being improperly removed based on a reference to MANDY. Several remedies were proposed, including deleting MANDY, moving it to user space or adding a hat note disavowing its applicability, however the only proposal that seemed to enjoy consensus was writing a counter-essay, hence this effort. Same question as above. Is this sentence really necessary? In the grand scheme, does the reasons that lead to the creation of this essay really matter to how it will be used in future discussions? If the end goal of this essay is to provide a shortcut argument for why inclusion of denials is due, then what benefit does drawing attention to the alternatives to this essay that failed to gain consensus bring?
• Even if MANDY did not contradict Wikipedia policy (which it does), it is still unwise for Wikipedia editors to easily or selectively dismiss the denials of living people who have been convicted of nothing. Objection in bold. I would put forward that there is no consensus, positive or negative, as to whether MANDY contradicts the policies it is commenting on. This sentence seems stronger to me without the text in brackets, as it reduces repetition of meaning that is already inherently implied by the prior text of the sentence.

Otherwise the essay is certainly in a better state than it was a month ago, and even as a MANDY proponent I don't have any other objections to the text and I would not oppose linking it in the see also section. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Will comment more soon. Asserting MANDY contradicts policy is okay for an essay, as asserting things like that is the sort of things essays are for. Some essays advocate to change policy, and this essay argues MANDY contradicts policy. Some of that historical stuff will likely be trimmed though, and I may reword the contradiction issue too. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I have no problems with Sideswipe’s first two points, but (like Crossroads) disagree with the third. The first two items could be replaced with a brief statement that there was neither consensus for or against Mandy prior to the creation of this present essay, which is what they already basically say, and what Sideswipe would apparently like the third item replaced with. The third item should remain for the reasons Crossroads explained. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:29, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Not clear this is ready to publish. Just up top, before discussing the counterargument or concern, there should be a statement or definition of MANDY. Then... the counterargument concerns or flaws. SPECIFICO talk 22:57, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the edits you've made to this just recently, I need to examine them in detail tomorrow. I could add a statement to that effect, but it would be brief and general. While we don't want to fight strawmen, at the same time, some supporters of MANDY are not aware of the ways in which it at times has been used, indicating that interpretations vary and the essay needs to address all of them. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Looking forward to your review. Thanks. Anything we can do to distinguish MANDY from WEIGHT would strengthen the essay, I think. I'm not sure it's done that yet. SPECIFICO talk 11:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I went over it. I did keep a lot of the changes and even removals, and thanks for that, but some of it watered down important points or even removed them entirely. Some things I brought back and explained why in each edit summary. While the essay is meant to get the tone right, at the same time it also won't be agreed with by proponents of MANDY, just as those of us who spoke against MANDY in the discussions that led to this don't agree with that essay. It does look to me like Sideswipe9th's points above were addressed, as well.

So, I think this is a version we can go ahead with; any more tweaks if needed can be done, but we should be most of the way there. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I made a few minor edits here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

The draft is Crossroads' to publish as they see fit, and we can hope it is further developed and perfected after birthing. SPECIFICO talk 01:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

That’s undeniable. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Edit to first paragraph

I strongly object to this edit. Here’s the edit by User:SPECIFICO:

Like all WP:Essays (including this one) MANDY presents the views of its authors, it is not a Wikipedia policy, and when essays are used to justify article edits it is important to make sure they do not “contradict widespread consensus”.

The edit summary is, “Nah. We have plenty of policies and procedures if anything is edit-warred against demonstrated consensus. Leave this to Crossroads to address your point. It is just going to turn off our readers because it's a whiny claim about something that doesn't happen.” This is flat wrong. It doesn’t matter whether there’s edit-warring, and it doesn’t matter what local consensus exists at an article. The main point of this essay is that widespread consensus is embodied in policy, essays aren’t policies, so essays must be used cautiously when making article edits. Just deleting a denial and citing MANDY is bad editing. “Whining” about bad editing is not a very constructive thing to do, but identifying and discussing bad editing is fine. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Your wording reads as if you fear being victimized by an essay, but the essay is not policy and it is just a shorthand way that editors use sometimes without giving good ratinales for their view. The point is not that content is going to be killed by MANDY but rather that editors need to give good source-backed reasons to take the exceptioinal step of not including a denial. This is Crossroads' initiative, so they will figure out how to deal with this without sounding whiny. SPECIFICO talk 19:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

If the only statement in a reliable source is that “X” denies the accusations, then that absolutely is not enough of a reason to erase a denial. How do I know that? Because I interpret MANDY in view of the policy that controls it. That is why we should briefly say MANDY needs to be interpreted in line with the policy that controls it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

You need to word your addition better. "In line" is unclear. SPECIFICO talk 19:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I wrote "conform" instead. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:MANDYNOT

Re. this edit summary, why not, User:SPECIFICO? Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO? Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

It will look like you're trying to mislead folks who are looking for a link to MANDY. SPECIFICO talk 22:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

That’s not the intent. The intent is so that when people type WP:MANDY in the search box, they’ll get more than one result below the search box, including WP:MANDYNOT. Everyone knows that XNOT is different from X. For example, WP:TRUMPNOT is different from WP:TRUMP. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

This is up to Crossroads. I didn't mean you intend it. I mean it will appear that way to the community at large. SPECIFICO talk 01:43, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Edit-warring

Please note that there is a 3RR exemption for one’s own user pages, but not for the user pages belonging to other people. User:SPECIFICO has chosen to violate 3RR to make this strange edit. I don’t see why we should lie about what the BLP policy says. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Agree. SPECIFICO this is a user space essay. There is no need to edit war over simply pointing out what our policies say. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

SPECIFICO has again chosen to revert this text without participating in talk. Please gain consensus for the change. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:52, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

It is extremely puzzling to me why User:SPECIFICO would like this essay to quote policy without mentioning that it has slightly changed. See this edit. I made the slight change myself, but it doesn’t matter who made the change or what the change was, so long as this essay honestly says what the policy says. The essay currently does that, so let’s please leave it that way. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Instead of getting all upset about my ongoing efforts to get this horribly written and diffuse essay into proper shape, why not join in the copyediting, clarification, message-sharpening, and removal of rambling obscure and irrelevant text that will undermine the important purpose of this essay. As @Sideswipe9th: has pointed out, that is my advice. SPECIFICO talk 19:41, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Schedule

Hi Crossroads, I'd be glad to launch this essay if you think it's ready. Cheers, Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:46, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

The text is still pretty long-winded and repetitive. Would be much more effective with Axios-style editing. SPECIFICO talk 11:22, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Looks good, let's take it live. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:52, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

When it is brought to community attention, it needs to be in good shape. There's so much more editing to be done. Just look at all I accomplished after Anything's first call to publish it. An ounce of prevention is prudent. The flaws should be addressed, unless the present editors really are prepared to walk away after community attention makes many changes without the background and purpose of this essay firmly in mind. SPECIFICO talk 19:47, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

As someone who supports and has often cited MANDY, your views about the present draft essay are unduly negative. I suggest you work on trying to improve MANDY, or else this essay will be highly preferred over that one. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Ad hominem is no more constructive or appropriate here than anywhere else on this site. SPECIFICO talk 22:51, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, I finally decided to just look at all the changes at once and adjust from there. I am caught up now and happy to publish. I don't expect that all supporters of MANDY will agree with this essay or what it says about how MANDY is used at times, but that's how it is and if those parts don't resonate with the reader, so be it. I don't think it is too long, and being longer than MANDY is expected because refuting something usually takes longer. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:01, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay, whenever you decide to publish it is fine with me (sooner the better IMHO). Cheers, Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Will do so sometime in the next few days. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

"incorrectly argues"

Surely that's only true from a certain point of view? After all, the counter argument that could be put into MANDY, if we really wanted to go down this somewhat childish route of having essays directly snipe at each other, is that "NOTMANDY incorrectly argues... the BLP policy requires that a denial should be included in the article". Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I have no problem with MANDY saying that if its authors sincerely believe it. It’s important to be frank and direct and blunt, *IMHO*. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:58, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this is a case of being frank. There's no consensus that MANDY is wrong, and by extension NOTMANDY is right. There's disagreement on it sure, just like how there's disagreement on how to interpret any of the rest of the policies and guidelines.

"Incorrectly in our view" in parenthesis is an improvement. However I still think that this is probably something that is better demonstrated through the rest of the essay, than something stated declaratively in the first sentence. But I guess that stems from my belief that this essay would be better for everyone if it only made an affirmative argument as to why denials should be included, instead of a negative argument that the other essay is wrong. Sideswipe9th (talk) 06:06, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I’m glad you like that better. I think we need to be clear that there’s a conflict here (unarmed and civil but still a conflict). Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps, but from a writing perspective I find that show, don't tell generally results in more persuasive than the opposite approach. I.e., instead of telling everyone that the other essay is wrong, show them that it is wrong via the alternative interpretation of policy and guidance. By telling everyone that it's wrong, you immediately put a reader sympathetic to MANDY but open to being convinced otherwise, into the defensive, which closes them off to any arguments you make. Sideswipe9th (talk) 06:25, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Maybe, but the title of this essay clearly indicates we’re at odds with MANDY, and that’s unfortunately just the way it is. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

You are undermining this essay by framing it in resentment of MANDY. Readers will dismiss it as whining. SPECIFICO talk 12:53, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. If the title was "MANDY does not apply" I would agree, however the title is "Mandy Rice-Davies does not apply". That could apply to the WP:MANDY essay, and could just as easily apply to the originating British English phrase "Mandy Rice-Davies applies" like the original essay. It's only editorial choice that is keeping this focused on a tell, don't show approach with regards to the other essay. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

MANDY's entire premise is based on applying "well he would, wouldn't he?" to numerous editing disputes, which is as curt and snide as it gets. Yes, this essay should not pull punches and should be direct and forthright about its position just as MANDY and its proponents are. If MANDY can forthrightly make claims that other editors disagree with, then so can this essay. Every essay speaks this way; not in a meek 'well as for us we happen to think' sort of tone. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

MANDY's entire premise is based on the British English phrase "Mandy Rice-Davies applies", and how applying that to denials is compliant with both WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. It makes no commentary at all on editors who agree or disagree with it.

Why can't this essay be framed the same way? The title is "Mandy Rice-Davies does not apply", so it can easily be a commentary on how applying the phrase is not compliant with BLP and NPOV, without making meta commentary on the editors who take the opposing position. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:06, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

There's been some editing today and I just partial-reverted some of it, but I see no problem with "Multiple editors have expressed concern that MANDY is being misused to remove or omit denials of accusations, claiming such content is insignificant or creates "false balance", even when those denials have been reported in many reliable sources." A big part of our concern with MANDY is that it is indeed being used in this way contrary to policy. MANDY implicitly claims editors who wish to include denials commit false balance. I'm not sure if this is what you mean by 'meta commentary', but this is fine with me. Ultimately the essay is going to make claims proponents of MANDY disagree with just as MANDY makes claims we disagree with (such as that including a denial is somehow fringe or false balance). Crossroads ^-talk- 21:14, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

"Multiple editors have expressed" is a form of meta commentary that I believe does a disservice to this essay. It says why the authors of this essay believe the other one to be wrong, without saying anything about why they believe this essay to be right. That immediately puts any editor sympathetic to the other essay, but open to being convinced about this essay, on the defensive, which closes them off to the other arguments that this essay makes.

You don't need to do that. You don't need to say the other essay is wrong, you just need to say this essay is right. You just need to show how the principle of Ms Rice-Davies infamous "well they would, wouldn't they" is incompatible with Wikipedia policy, in the same way that the the other essay shows how the principle of those words is compatible with Wikipedia policy.

As I've said previously, this is the same as WP:SKYBLUE, WP:NOTBLUE, and WP:POPE. Those three essays don't take potshots at each other, they don't say the other essay is wrong, or that the supporters of the other essay is wrong, they just state how each of their respective view points are policy compliant. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I tweaked it slightly [2]; however part of the issue is that MANDY on its face is different from MANDY in practice, since the latter is often applied to well-sourced material, whereas the former could be read as merely 'we don't always need denials'. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:31, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

That's an improvement, but I still think that the remaining content like that does a disservice to this essay. You don't need to rebut MANDY the essay, or how you perceive it is used by others. You just need to demonstrate that the principle behind Ms Rice Davies words are incompatible with enwiki policy. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Her words have been spun. She never discouraged anyone from mentioning Astor’s denial. Nor did she suggest that her pithy statement was based entirely upon some general principle rather than upon her personal knowledge of Astor’s character. It’s easy to make use of people once they’re dead. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:21, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Personal knowledge about Astor

I restored and expanded some longstanding material that was removed without consensus by User:SPECIFICO. I provided a long edit summary that explains the relevance. Incidentally, Mrs. Astor continued to deny many years later that her husband had had an affair with Rice-Davies. See “Profumo affair’s Mandy Rice-Davies dies aged 70”, The Irish Times (19 Dec 2014). In context, the material in this draft essay is currently as follows:

“ The MANDY essay quotes a figure in the Profumo affair named Mandy Rice-Davies who said in 1963 that Lord Astor would obviously deny having had an affair with her. In the context of Lord Astor, and in a court case, this may have been obvious to Ms. Rice-Davies based partly upon their prior interactions rather than being a general observation or principle. Either way, it is not the case that all people will deny all accusations. ”

Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:57, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

"Removed without consensus???" What is it, the crown jewels? Call the police!

We're getting an essay in shape, and the extraneous detail is irrelevant to the case against inappropriate exclusion of denials. SPECIFICO talk 00:09, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Rice-Davies was not surprised about Astor’s denial. Doesn’t it matter why? Don’t her reasons affect the conclusions we draw from her story? The authors of MANDY assume she was not surprised because people generally deny wrongdoing. But maybe she knew Astor to be dishonest based on things that happened between them, and not just because of her thoughts on human nature. You don’t address or discuss or acknowledge any of these things. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

You can pursue your speculations about her thoughts and motivations at the article talk page of her bio. With RS to back up whatever you find. SPECIFICO talk 01:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

So we should all just concede that the MANDY essay is correct to infer Rice-Davies believed people generally deny wrongdoing? We should just comply with MANDY’s inference that “the subject of an accusation has essentially no credibility”? Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

No. This essay does make a good point, amidst the bad.

If we do not accompany an accusation with its denial, then our readers, by and large will not assume the existence of one. This is especially true of readers who also are accustomed to the journalistic standard of including denials. This is somewhat anathema to British readers, because right of reply is not universal here. The BBC and Channel 4 News are the only two organisations I know of that actually have it in their editorial policies, because they are regulated by Ofcom. Print media, who are voluntarily regulated by IPSO, do not have to do it and accordingly most (if not all) do not do it. This is one of the reasons why there is a call from some for a second Leveson Inquiry, to strengthen IPSO and make their code of conduct mandatory. It would be interesting to do a straw poll of MANDY supporters and opposers, to see if the split is drawn along the lines where an editor is from a country that does or does not have right of reply as standard. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

In this context, it doesn't overly matter what Rice-Davies reasons were, because the slang term "MRDA" or "Mandy Rice-Davies Applies" has a slightly different meaning. This is laid out in the third paragraph of the MANDY essay, which reads It's used to point out that the subject of an accusation has essentially no credibility ... when denying the accusation, because it's obviously in their own interests to deny it regardless of whether that denial is true. This is supported by both of the obituaries in The Times ([3]. [4]), which state In Ward’s trial, Rice-Davies claimed that she had an affair with Astor, but when told that the peer had denied it replied: “He would, wouldn’t he?” Her remark was met with laughter in the court room and the phrase soon slipped into common slang as “MRDA” (Mandy Rice-Davies applies) whenever unbelievable denials were made by those in a position of power.

Since the time that Rice-Davies said the words in the court room, at least in British English vernacular, it has evolved further as class barriers and deference to the upper classes has broken down, and the nature of power has shifted. In the current day, MRDA applies to any unbelievable or routinely self-serving denial from a influential or otherwise famous person. The original context of why Rice-Davies said what she did on the stand, and whether or not she knew Astor to be dishonest, doesn't matter, because in the sixty odd years since the Profumo scandal, the term MRDA has taken on its own broader meaning. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:41, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Here’s an excerpt from the MANDY essay:

“ [S]he retorted "Well, he would, wouldn't he?" (often misquoted as "Well he would say that, wouldn't he?") This became immortalized as "Mandy Rice-Davies applies" or MRDA. It's used to point out that the subject of an accusation has essentially no credibility…. ”

You suggest it’s irrelevant what Rice-Davies actually meant. Maybe so, but the MANDY essay puts a lot of emphasis upon her and her episode, so it’s only fair for us to point out that we don’t know that reliance is correct, and whether MANDY’s interpretation of that episode is right. My preference would be for both this essay and that one to stop using her name and referring to her incident, but we have to deal with the situation as it is. The present draft essay also says, “Nor does the famous remark of Ms. Rice-Davies (‘well he would, wouldn’t he?’) suggest that she felt it improper for Astor’s denial to be described in court, in newspapers, or anywhere else, only that she held his untruth to be self-evident.” Wanna get rid of that too? Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:53, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

The MANDY essay states the history of the saying, how it came into existence (ie, the Profumo scandal), and it also states the modern definition which I quoted previously. When applying the term MRDA to policy, it only uses the modern definition and not Rice-Davies original intent.

My preference would be for both this essay and that one to stop using her name and referring to her incident Unfortunately the MRDA acronym is still "Mandy Rice-Davies Applies" when fully expanded. There is no way to separate Rice-Davies from the saying, because that's part of the etymology of it. While it is divorced somewhat from the modern meaning, it is nonetheless still the only name for the term.

The present draft essay also says [snip]. Wanna get rid of that too? I dunno, maybe? It seems kinda like speculation that isn't founded on any sources that I know of. Did Rice-Davies make any such comments at the trial or in the media, either at the time or since? If not, then it does seem like you're assuming intent, which the other essay doesn't do. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I will boldly move the material in this draft essay regarding the 1963 history to a separate subsection. That way people can easily skip over it, and people interested in the historical dimension can easily find it in one place. I'll be interested in whether you view that as an improvement. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

The BLP policy is changing

This edit to the BLP policy indicates that the policy may be changing. As much as I’d like to get this essay launched, I suppose we should first see whether the edit I just linked sticks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I doubt my edit changes either the scope of, or the need for this essay; WP:MANDY is controversial, so a counter-essay is perfectly appropriate. DFlhb (talk) 06:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree. It's needed.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay, but this draft essay quotes the policy as it existed a few days ago, not as it exists today. So, we could (1) publish this essay as-is misquoting policy, or (2) change this essay so it’s a little bit ambiguous about what exactly the policy says and then publish it, or (3) change this essay so it accurately quotes current policy. There are other options too. It’s all very confusing! 😵‍💫 Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:18, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I added a footnote explaining it as neutrally as possible. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:19, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Published

Given that it's been many more months than originally thought, and that the vast majority of the essay has been stable, I went ahead and published it. Discussion/edits can obviously still occur, but I would like to ask that supporters of MANDY give supporters of NOTMANDY leeway to write it as we see fit. Suggestions are perfectly fine, but at the same time this essay does have a definite POV (as does MANDY) and should be forthright about that like all essays. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:22, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support the essay's right to explicate its point of view without being washed out by editors with opposing viewpoints. Particularly liked the "held his untruth to be self-evident", and immediately starting riffing in my mind how we could extend the allusion, perhaps in an explanatory note, continuing: "That all men..." — but I only got as far as "endowed", and then gave up. Given the 1963 historical context, I thought better of it, and dropped the idea. It's fine the way it is. Mathglot (talk) 02:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

RfC on self-published rebuttals/denials

There is an RfC on self-published rebuttals/denials taking place at WT:BLP, which may be of interest to those watching this essay page. In any case, additional input would be helpful. Newimpartial (talk) 03:04, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Piccies

She doesn't, does she?

@Anythingyouwant: I am a fan of the essay and wanted to lighten it up with a great post. I think it's beautiful. What do you think? jp×g🗯️ 05:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I don’t think most readers will understand it. They will wonder what the heck the document on the left is. They will wonder which of the two images is doctored, or whether they are both doctored. They will wonder what applying suntan lotion has to do with the subject of the essay. IMHO. Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Better to continue improvements to the narrative in the text. SPECIFICO talk 12:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)