Misplaced Pages

:Mandy Rice-Davies applies: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:37, 13 August 2022 editSPECIFICO (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users35,511 edits No consensus for these changes that alter the meaning and appear intentded to pave the way for denial of NPOV arguments that cite this essay.Tags: Undo Reverted← Previous edit Latest revision as of 21:08, 22 December 2024 edit undoThe Midnite Wolf (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,374 edits +hatTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit 
(20 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Hatnote|There is a dissent response to this essay: ]}}
{{essay|WP:MANDY|WP:MRDA|interprets=the ] policy}} {{essay|WP:MANDY|WP:MRDA|interprets=the ] policy}}
{{nutshell|The mere fact that someone has denied unsavory allegations does not automatically merit inclusion in an article, especially if that allegation is very well sourced. The subject of an article is not exempt from the ordinary rules of reliability as a source on themselves.}} {{nutshell|The mere fact that someone has denied unsavory allegations does not automatically merit inclusion in an article, especially if that allegation is very well sourced. The subject of an article is not exempt from the ordinary rules of reliability as a source on themselves.}}
] ]
] was a key figure in the ], a notorious British political scandal of the 1960s. ] was a key figure in the ], a notorious British political scandal of the 1960s.


While giving evidence at the trial of Stephen Ward, charged with living off the ] of ] and Mandy Rice-Davies, Rice-Davies (18 years old at that time) made the quip for which she is now best remembered: when the defence counsel, ], pointed out that ] denied an affair or having even met her, she retorted "'''Well, he would, wouldn't he?'''" (often misquoted as "Well he would say that, wouldn't he?") While giving evidence at the trial of Stephen Ward, charged with living off the ] of ] and Mandy Rice-Davies, Rice-Davies (18 years old at that time) made the remark for which she is now best remembered: when the defence counsel, ], pointed out that ] denied an affair or having even met her, she retorted "''']'''"


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 (what we here on Misplaced Pages would call ]) when denying the accusation, because it's obviously in their own interests to deny it regardless of whether that denial is true.
This became immortalised as "]" or MRDA.


On Misplaced Pages, many articles cover criticism of a subject. Editors are often tempted to close these sections with self-sourced denials - "X denies the allegations" based either on the subject's own self-published source or on a press release repeated in a newspaper story. Newspapers typically give the subject the last word. This may be ], for example when people are credibly identified as espousing a position that is known to be unpopular. Very few ]ists, ]s or ]s are prepared to go on record and own their positions, and very few ], ] or ] will own up to what they do. On Misplaced Pages, many articles cover criticism of a subject. Editors are often tempted to close these sections with denials in the form of "X denies the allegations", based either on the subject's own self-published source or on a press release repeated in a newspaper story. Newspapers typically give the subject the last word. This may be ], for example when people are credibly identified as espousing a position that is known to be unpopular. Very few ]ists, ]s or ]s are prepared to go on record and own their positions, and very few ], ] or ] will own up to what they do.


Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper. We do not need to give the subject the last word. We include credible allegations from credible sources, we ] when they are the work or opinion of small numbers of individuals and we state them in Wiki-voice when the consensus is overwhelming. Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper. We do not need to give the subject the last word. We include credible allegations from credible sources, we ] when they are the work or opinion of small numbers of individuals and we state them in Wiki-voice when the consensus is overwhelming.
Line 14: Line 15:
;"X is a white nationalist" does not need the qualifier "X denies being a white nationalist" because, well, he would, wouldn't he? ;"X is a white nationalist" does not need the qualifier "X denies being a white nationalist" because, well, he would, wouldn't he?


If X is ''accused'' of being a white nationalist, and investigation has shown that X publishes white nationalist talking points but has not self-identified as a white nationalist, then the fix is not to add a self-sourced denial, it's to frame the statement as an accusation and establish the basis for it and the ]s around it: "X is described by multiple sources as a white nationalist". Most importantly, if the denial exists only in X's own words and no reliable source has any independent fact-finding showing contradictory evidence, then the denial is not compelling or ] per ]. ] matters but so does ]. We don't legitimise fringe views just because they are asserted by an article subject. And the same would apply to content about any other controversial subject. Company Y has been successfully prosecuted for fraud. We don't need to say that the company denies wrongdoing. If X is ''accused'' of being a white nationalist, and investigation has shown that X publishes white nationalist talking points but has not self-identified as a white nationalist, then the fix is not to add a self-sourced denial, it's to frame the statement as an accusation and establish the basis for it and the ]s around it: "X is described by multiple sources as a white nationalist". Most importantly, if the allegation is widely supported by reliable sources but the denial exists only in X's own words, then the denial is not compelling or ] per ].


When a living person is involved, ] matters but so does ]. We don't legitimize fringe views just because they are asserted by an article subject. And the same would apply to content about any other controversial subject. Company Y has been successfully prosecuted for fraud. We don't need to say that the company denies wrongdoing.
⚫ If a reliable source has checked the denial and confirmed its basis in fact or discussed its credibility, we can certainly say so, but if the only statement is that "X denies the accusations" then we don't need to include it because, well, he would, wouldn't he?

⚫ If reliable sources have checked the denial and confirmed its basis in fact or discussed its credibility, we can certainly say so, but if the only statement is that "X denies the accusations" then we don't need to include it because, well, he would, wouldn't he?


==See also== ==See also==
⚫ * ] (the general principle of not including obvious information)
* ]
⚫ * {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons#Public figures}} (how to cover allegations about public figures)
⚫ * ]
* ], a counter-essay
⚫ * {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons#Public figures}}

Latest revision as of 21:08, 22 December 2024

There is a dissent response to this essay: Mandy Rice-Davies does not apply. Essay on editing Misplaced Pages
This is an essay on the neutral point of view policy.
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Misplaced Pages contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.		Shortcuts
This page in a nutshell: The mere fact that someone has denied unsavory allegations does not automatically merit inclusion in an article, especially if that allegation is very well sourced. The subject of an article is not exempt from the ordinary rules of reliability as a source on themselves.
Well, he would, wouldn't he?

Mandy Rice-Davies was a key figure in the Profumo affair, a notorious British political scandal of the 1960s.

While giving evidence at the trial of Stephen Ward, charged with living off the immoral earnings of Christine Keeler and Mandy Rice-Davies, Rice-Davies (18 years old at that time) made the remark for which she is now best remembered: when the defence counsel, James Burge, pointed out that Lord Astor denied an affair or having even met her, she retorted "Well, he would, 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 (what we here on Misplaced Pages would call "is not a reliable source") when denying the accusation, because it's obviously in their own interests to deny it regardless of whether that denial is true.

On Misplaced Pages, many articles cover criticism of a subject. Editors are often tempted to close these sections with denials in the form of "X denies the allegations", based either on the subject's own self-published source or on a press release repeated in a newspaper story. Newspapers typically give the subject the last word. This may be false balance, for example when people are credibly identified as espousing a position that is known to be unpopular. Very few anti-vaccinationists, white nationalists or anti-semites are prepared to go on record and own their positions, and very few pyramid schemes, fake universities or predatory journals will own up to what they do.

Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper. We do not need to give the subject the last word. We include credible allegations from credible sources, we attribute them when they are the work or opinion of small numbers of individuals and we state them in Wiki-voice when the consensus is overwhelming.

"X is a white nationalist" does not need the qualifier "X denies being a white nationalist" because, well, he would, wouldn't he?

If X is accused of being a white nationalist, and investigation has shown that X publishes white nationalist talking points but has not self-identified as a white nationalist, then the fix is not to add a self-sourced denial, it's to frame the statement as an accusation and establish the basis for it and the error bars around it: "X is described by multiple sources as a white nationalist". Most importantly, if the allegation is widely supported by reliable sources but the denial exists only in X's own words, then the denial is not compelling or significant per Hitchens' razor.

When a living person is involved, WP:BLP matters but so does WP:NPOV. We don't legitimize fringe views just because they are asserted by an article subject. And the same would apply to content about any other controversial subject. Company Y has been successfully prosecuted for fraud. We don't need to say that the company denies wrongdoing.

If reliable sources have checked the denial and confirmed its basis in fact or discussed its credibility, we can certainly say so, but if the only statement is that "X denies the accusations" then we don't need to include it because, well, he would, wouldn't he?

See also

Category: