Wikipedia talk:Mandy Rice-Davies applies/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

WP:BLP - Presumption in favor of privacy

In BLPs of public figures, the WP:BLP policy says about any accusations made, "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported." Unless it already does, the current essay should reflect that.     ←   ZScarpia   20:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Why exclude the views of the subject?

I realise this is just an essay, but I just wanted to add a response here disagreeing with it. I don't see the justification for excluding the views of the subject of an article on the matter of a controversy about them. Plainly, 95% of the time, people are likely to deny allegations of being sexist/racist/corrupt/whatever; but that such a denial is predictable doesn't mean it's not worth mentioning. It's just basic fairness to allow the subject a right of reply (see also: audi alteram partem). Not including a denial by the subject could lead a reader to wrongly assume that they do not dispute the allegations, and accept them to be true - a potentially serious BLP issue. Robofish (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

that such a denial is predictable doesn't mean it's not worth mentioning – It does mean that, actually. We don’t waste our readers’ telling them things they will know without being told. If someone pleads guilty to murder or admits to being a pedophile, THAT’s worth mentioning. The essay elucidates this quite well, I think.

The foregoing applies best to simple unelaborated denials. If there is substantive detail in the denial, that’s different. EEng 14:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Robofish. Firstly, it doesn't hurt to have a sentence saying that the subject denies it. What's the big deal? Secondly, it's not a simple as all that. Sometimes people remain silent about allegations. Sometimes they delay before pleading guilty or making a confession. Sometimes they confirm allegations partly. Sometimes they offer a different interpretation or try to justify their conduct. Sometimes people fully admit the allegations are true. The assumption that people usually deny accusations is wrong and naive. To say that we "know" that the subject is denying the accusation is simply false. We don't.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Mandy had reason to reject the denial. We don't. We just have sources, and sources can be wrong. Sources said Kim Jong Un was dead etc. We should include the denial. If we followed this policy, a reader would be left in the dark. Did the person deny it, say nothing, or say something else that isn't recorded in the article? Including the denial clears this up. Furthermore, we don't necessarily know if a denial is a "simple unelaborated denial". In any case, we might not want to include all the details. It could be seen as undue weight. And I don't agree with Robofish's comment: "Plainly, 95% of the time, people are likely to deny allegations of being sexist/racist/corrupt/whatever". In the US justice system, for example, more than 94% plead guilty.[1] It is wrong to assume denial is the norm.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

This is an essay which "contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors". It's not desirable to make an essay cover all possible situations—obviously exactly what should go in an article would depend on the situation. In the opinion of the one or more contributors who support the essay, articles should stick to encyclopedic information and should not necessarily follow media habits of "equal time". Johnuniq (talk) 05:16, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

The first sentence of this thread said that this was an essay. What's your point?--Jack Upland (talk) 05:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, the essay presumes the normal situation to be one where the subject denies everything. This is not normal at all.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Hitchens's razor abuse

Hitchens's razor says that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim. This essay invokes the razor to argue that when a person is accused of something, they have the burden of proving their denial. That seems to turn the razor on its head. I think this essay needs a section with balancing opinions or should be withdraws.--agr (talk) 16:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with ArnoldReinhold, this is a very questionable essay. Yes, in some cases a clearly guilty person will say, "didn't do it" but we shouldn't make that the default assumption and thus refuse to cover things like denials of allegations. That seems to be the sort of thing we would do if our objective was to use rhetorical methods to convince readers a thing or person is bad. It's not something we should do if neutrality is our primary objective. Springee (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

This is a misreading of the essay. The point is that of course most people accused of wrongdoing are going to say "I didn't do it, nobody saw me do it, you can't prove anything."

The Hitchen's Razor aspect is not saying that the accused has a burden of evidence; merely that denial carries no actual weight as an argument, it's just denial. It can be dismissed as not relevant with regard to the Wikipedia article, as it's just a statement of no substance. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

That's nonsense. A lot of people plead guilty. Of course a denial has substance.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Maybe if your argument had more substance than "of course it does," I'd have a response for you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

A lot of people plead guilty. Look at the statistics.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

You're off on an unrelated tangent. A guilty plea is just bowing down to the state rather than going through trial. And we're not even talking about trials here, so it's especially unhelpful in this discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Not just guilty pleas in a legal sense, a lot of people publicly apologize for wrongdoing; a lot of people publicly admit to stuff but insist it is not bad or otherwise try to justify it (e.g. "it was a different time" defense); a lot of people may shut down all social media and say nothing publicly when they face public accusations. The biggest unfounded assumption here is that a denial is pretty much the only obvious response to public accusations.JMM12345 (talk) 02:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)JMM12345

Exactly. It's just that statistics are kept of guilty pleas, which show the majority do not deny the offence. No one has provided any evidence that denial is the standard response. No one has provided any evidence that including one line about someone denying something is going to unbalance the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Jack Upland, that's irrelevant because we're not talking about crimes. If we were, the only relevant subset would be those who deny the crime - of whom a significant proportion are then convicted anyway, and many continue to assert their innocence. And that's the relevant subset in criminal law.

But this isn't about criminal law. This is about people who hundreds of reliable sources describe as X, and who deny being X in interviews in other primary, affiliated sources. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Who said we're not talking about crimes? Every time I see this cited it seems to be in the context of crimes having been alleged to have been committed.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Jack Upland, consider for example Stefan Molyneux. His fans want us to "balance" every source that calls him a neo-fascist, with his self-published denial. Don't do that.

The original case is on point. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I think descriptions of people are a special case. This is well recognised. One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. There are many people who split hairs and say, "I'm not a Communist; I'm a revolutionary socialist" etc, etc. And they have every right to make that distinction. I think this is easily solved by noting how the person describes themselves and how others describe themselves. I really don't see the problem with that. As an encyclopedia with a policy of neutrality, we certainly should report what the person says about themselves. Anyway, I'm not sure "neo-fascist" has any real meaning, and I don't think we should get hung up about what labels we hang on people. A description of the positions a person has taken is far more important.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Except that individuals have used personal descriptions as a way of shutting down criticism or obfuscating their actions (eg. "I'm not a racist, I'm a race-realist!"). There's no point in reporting a self-applied descriptor like that, it's just Wikipedia regurgitating their own personal marketing. This is why we rely on what reliable sources state. Neutrality does not mean we have to republish propaganda. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

You really haven't explain why it is such a problem to include one sentence on this in a bio. It is akin to things like "X considers himself principally to be a banjo-player", "Y has said that while he supports Scottish independence, he doesn't consider himself a Scottish nationalist", "Z says that while he is the leading editor of Wikipedia, he doesn't describe himself as a Wikipedian or subscribe to the notion that there is a Wikipedia 'community'". Sure, you can argue that the opinion of reliable sources is more important than the subject blethering on about him or herself. But how does one sentence really hurt? How does it unbalance the article, set the cat among the pigeons, and leave the cake out in the rain???--Jack Upland (talk) 07:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Jack Upland,How does it unbalance the article, set the cat among the pigeons, and leave the cake out in the rain Put simply: We are in the business of reporting the conclusions of reliable sources. When we report that, for example, Z is a Wikipedian, the reader should be able to trust that if they click on the sources, they will find expert analysis of all the available evidence which shows that Z is, in fact, a Wikipedian.

When we report that Z denies the existence of any WIkipedian 'community', we are then implicitly telling the reader that, behind that cite is an expert analysis of all the available evidence which shows that Z is not, in fact, a WIkipedian, because there is no such thing as a Wikipedian.

And as we all know, the vast majority of readers will not check those references, click the links and borrow the books and verify the truth. So by including such a hollow denial, we are implicitly deceiving the reader into the false belief that the conclusions of the reliable sources are contentious and highly uncertain, when in fact, they are quite well established. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I mean, if a person says something, it's a fact. It might be trivial, such as of she said "oops!" after dropping something. That'd be a good reason for not including the fact. But I can't imagine anything much less trivial than a person in the dock of public attention (of which we are one of the world's top providers) address dire charges. So triviality is not the issue. So, "by including such a hollow denial, we are implicitly deceiving the reader into the false belief..." sounds too much for my taste like "Here's an important, ref'd fact. But let's not allow the readers to see it, because they lack the acumen to interpret it properly. We'll make that decision for them." I'm not super on board with that line of thinking.

I dunno. Sure looks like punching down to me. The argument for not giving the person at least one sentence to squeak out an objection before we pile-drive her into the ground feels too much like "Who cares what some hapless mook has to say? We're a huge institution and we can do as we please and say what we please, and what is some peon going to do about it? Demand for us to quote her protestation of innocence? Phht."

We should keep in mind that we can casually destroy lives and have. Maybe that's OK, maybe not, it depends on the circumstances for each case, I guess. But whether or no, I mean the right to at least make denial of culpability is one of the most basic human rights and the barest minimum for any fair system, and to censor that seems quite harsh and mean-spirited, and the arguments for allowing or encouraging us to be harsh and mean-spirited seem quite weak. Not a good look. Herostratus (talk) 02:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

And I still have heard an explanation of how a single sentence can unbalance the article. In all the examples I've seen, it's a single sentence. It's not a lengthy self-justifying essay. It's a single sentence. Why is that such a problem?--Jack Upland (talk) 06:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

An essay (WP:ESSAY) just contains advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This essay is not a policy or even a guideline—it's just a simple way for someone to post their opinion in a discussion somewhere with a link to this page. The essay explains what they think. It is not evidence that their view is correct. When a group of editors disagree with what an essay says, the fix is to write another essay with a counter view. The place to argue about balance and whether this essay applies is in a discussion regarding a proposed edit in a particular article. Johnuniq (talk) 07:35, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

MRDA (slang)

Merge here, obviously. EEng 14:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Obviously not! Because to do so would link article space into this Wikipedia space. The link sould remain redirected to the paragraph in the Mandy Rice-Davies biography. — PBS (talk) 22:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Some concerns

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As this is being linked in from BLP now, I have some strong concerns about the stance of this essay.

First, we should not be called a person's denial or similar stance to widely-made claims (eg that they are considered a white nationalist as per the example) as a "fringe" view. It is the minority view per UNDUE, but keep in mind that the language of "fringe" is coming from WP:Fringe Theories, and this is not what the denial really is; it is simply a denial. Per UNDUE, I do agree that simple denials without any further explanation should be omitted because it would be obvious most people would deny such and we don't need to spend time to say this.

Second, the part about the denial aspect if not checked by an RS is a bit iffy. 100% we do not want to include self-statements by a BLP that have not been triggered by any specific event - that's self-serving. But say a BLP is stated to be a white nationalist by mulitple sources in a short period, and in their blog but not picked up by any other RS the BLP explains in depth why they aren't (the reasoning may be bogus, but that's not the question right now). If we know that blog exists, and was written specifically in response to the direct criticism, a brief summary - a sentence or two at most - is pretty much fair and expected here. Obviously it would be better if an RS actually published it (as was the recent case with Stephen Molyneux and the Guardian article that was at BLP/N in August/September 2020), but absent that, and the statement is more that simple denial directly accessing what they are being accused of, rather than a random rant, then we should be able to find a way to summarize at a level to go beyond "X denies the accusation". We don't need to spend extensive prose or create any false balance to match what's presented from RSes from the blog. This is basically why WP:SPSBLP is carved out, to allow BLP to be able to speak for themselves, when their contributions are meaningful to the encyclopedic purpose. But obviously any case of the SPS's own words that are not triggered from external criticism should be read as self-serving material and avoided unless repeated by an RS.

Basically, without this considerations, we are greenlighting the ability to let media sources plow over BLP, freely ignoring anything the BLP may comment in response in their own defense. If they are actually saying something meaningful we need to be including some small sliver of that. --Masem (t) 01:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

It is false to say that "it would be obvious most people would deny such". We don't know that. See my arguments above. The "white nationalist" example is not a very good one, because it is not clear what a "white nationalist" is, and it is not a term that is usually used for a self-description. But this essay has been used across the board. I have seen the author Guy use it about North Korea and Julian Assange. With regard to North Korea, it is obviously relevant that the government denies Kim Jong Un is dead. It is not true that North Korea doesn't admit things: it admitted the kidnapping of Japanese, it admitted the execution of Jang Song-thaek, it admits the existence of a TB problem. With Assange, it is reasonable to know what his response is to various allegations against him. His life has been anything but predictable.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

The essay is not ruling that out. If someone is linking to this as justification, they should be reminded that an essay is just an opinion that might apply in some circumstances but not in others. A link to an essay is a convenient way of summarizing a position. However, whether or not Mandy Rice-Davies really does apply in a particular article will be settled with discussion relating to policies and editorial judgment, not essays. Johnuniq (talk) 03:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Essays, when they are linked to policies, tend to be treated has having significant weight (It has since been removed, last I saw). Particularly when the essay is oft cited by experienced editors/admins, it becomes treated as canon policy. And because this has BLP implications we should be careful these represent accurate positions on WP. Not that this essay is so off policy to be wrong, just that I think there's a few points that could be refined. --Masem (t) 04:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Masem, news sources tend to give the subject the last word. If denial of a statement is not carried by any of the third party sources that carry the statement itself, that is a glaring red flag. Imagine: "X was accused of Y", in three sources, and none of them consider X's denial sufficiently credible to repeat. Why would we do so? Molyneux is an excellent example. The only person who seems to think it's inaccurate to call him a white nationalist, is Molyneux himself.

Now consider: "X is accused of Y by <list of extremely credible sources and court findings of fact>. X denies <insert very specific subset of Y here>", which is the case with Assange. That's wrong on several levels (but then, the Assange article gives every appearance of being owned by a small cabal of massive fans).

I am emphatically not saying that we should not include denials. I am saying that we should not include denials that are not considered plausible by independent sources, or which are obvious and trivial. Because, well, they would say that wouldn't they? Guy (help! - typo?) 16:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

If is the case of the RS giving the BLP the last word and that last word being as simple as "X denies the accusations", I would agree not to include due to being obvious. To be specific, we have this article from the Guardian [2] where we have, in response to an article where S. Molyneux stated to be a white nationalist, that he replies to the Guardian Molyneux said in a statement to the Guardian: “I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority.” and where the Guardian pulls some words from his blog, this is more complex than just "X denies the accusation" and thus reasonable to include per my logic. We should strive to look and include these when RSes offer that more complex denial, or when we know that the person has specifically responded to something directed at him in a more complex manner - but again, we are not required to include more than a sentence or two at most. There are people that believe they are mischaracterized by the media and if we're giving the media's stance, it is very much fair to give just the briefest statement of the BLP of their stance in response.

Now, all this has been what I'd consider attacks of character (characterizing someone as a white nationalist), and this is where I'd clearly say we'd don't need to include denials if they are "obvious", since as long as these people are public figures, its rather hard for any of that type of information to be handled as slander/libel/defamation. But now you bring up someone like Assange and crimes, and that I think is very different. Charges on crimes, and accusations of possible criminal or civil faults (eg sexual misconduct) are something that we should be giving more sway to the BLP to include what they say if they deny they did anything, though I agree we have to be careful of the whitewashing I agree can happen on a page like Assange's. If a BLP is accused of sexual misconduct for example, and we determine that the accusation is significant enough to be included, and the BLP has denied that the misconduct happened, we should be included that statement, as it otherwise implies complicity with the charge. A person may be arrested on, say, federal money laundering charges, and they plead not guilty at their first hearing and get bail. That happens often, and may seem trivial to report, but it also a reasonable fair point to include , and WP does also presume a person is not guilty until a conviction is actually made, so we also have to follow suit, even if the evidence is overwhelming towards conviction.

Assange is a problem but I think that's more a result of COI-type editing problems (since some see him as a hero figure) than from BLP. I haven't followed the editing patterns on that and its difficult to jump in to see where the hot zones are , but I do think knowing his case that we can at least say to some extent "Assange has denied some of these charges (list)." which to me is important that says what he does not say - he is admitting passively to the other ones. How to word that write, absent the COI issue, I don't know without seeing exactly where, but I am certain it can be done. --Masem (t) 19:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

In the US justice system, 94% plead guilty, so clearly the fact that someone pleads not guilty is noteworthy.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I think this argument about Assange is confused. The editors of his page are mixed bag. I am probably the most prolific at the moment, and I am certainly not a fan. Guy raised Mandy in relation to the Mueller Report. As far as I can tell, no charges were made against Assange as part of the Mueller Report, and no "court findings" against him. I don't believe that it is obvious that he would deny involvement with Russia. In general, his denials have been less than obvious: for example, claiming that he went into the Ecuadorian embassy because the Swedish allegations were a pretext to extradite him to the USA. To remove this from the article because it is implausible would be sanitising the article. This claim is unexplained, as is his account of his dealings with the Swedish women (even though we have a separate article on this). I suspect his fans have kept explanations to a minimum because they are embarrassing. Therefore I would be favour of more coverage of his denials, not less.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

The article should be removed in its entirety. Fundamentally, there's no consensus for it. Some people admit things, some deny them. More often, people admit their actions and then attempt to justify them. Someone's denial is certainly part of understanding the truth or falsity of an accusation - leading to further inquiry. An accusation, unanswered by the accused, leaves the reader thinking the lack of denial is an admission of guilt John2510 (talk) 00:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I have started a discussion on this subject at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Including_denials. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

The people using WP:MANDY as an argument seem to not realize that it is an opinion essay and not an official guideline or rule. That being said, It could still be used to infer that certain writing on Wikipedia is of poor quality. X-Editor (talk) 03:25, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I agree this essay should be withdrawn

I am adding my voice to the chorus of people saying this essay should be withdrawn.

I recently have been made aware of last week’s gaming community hot gossip, Chris Avellone’s denials of the accusations being made against him, and seeing an editor invoke WP:MANDY to say we shouldn’t include his denial (the issue was resolved when a press article linked to his Medium essay on the matter),

Every story has two sides, and we have a moral obligation to at least link to someone’s denial, so that the reader can read both sides of the story and come to their own conclusions, especially in today’s climate of cancel culture, outrage addiction, and trial by social media.

To Wikipedia’s credit, they usually do the right thing and place accusations in context. Samboy (talk) 11:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

We really don't have a "moral obligation" to post someone's denial, no. As for posting "both sides," see false balance.

Second, Chris' denial is... pretty terrible. As Ken White (aka Popehat) appropriately put it:

Yeah, DON'T WRITE A FUCKIN BLOG POST ABOUT YOUR LAWSUIT arrrrggghghghghg

Thirdly, your final line makes of the third paragraph it clear you're here pushing a certain political slant, so please see WP:RGW. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Since when has being neutral “pushing a certain political slant”? This isn’t about taking sides, this is about having basic human compassion and decency, or, failing that, about not advocating a given point of view. Wikipedia’s job is to be neutral; this essay advocates not being neutral. I’m opposed to lives being ruined by unsubstantiated accusations; I think it’s unfortunate that’s considered a “political” opinion (Terms like “cancel culture” are being abused by people with political agendas, but that’s another discussion). My opinion about Chris’s behavior, FWIW, is that, even if everything happened exactly as described in his Medium article, his behavior was abhorrent. Again, this article should be withdrawn, since it advocates non-neutrality and advocates violating the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. Samboy (talk) 19:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Railing against today’s climate of cancel culture, outrage addiction, and trial by social media is not neutral, it's loaded language.

Your assertion that this essay "advocates non-neutratlity" is a non-starter. Again, if we have to include every denial of accusations, we're just adding false balance to all those articles, not maintaining neutrality. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that acknowledging the existence of Cancel Culture is “not neutral” and “loaded language”. Multiple reliable sources, including The Atlantic, acknowledge the reality of cancel culture. We will just have to agree to disagree here. As it turns out, I do appreciate your edits -- but I do not think it’s healthy to deny cancel culture or insinuate that acknowledging cancel culture is somehow a “loaded” opinion, instead of a neutral fact. Samboy (talk)

The article describes cancel culture like this: “Partisans, especially on the right, now toss around the phrase cancel culture when they want to defend themselves from criticism, however legitimate. But dig into the story of anyone who has been a genuine victim of modern mob justice [...]” (I’m including the next sentence fragment to give this some context). That in mind, I will concede the phrase “cancel culture” can be politically loaded, and has been abused by people who have bona fide abhorrent opinions. But, I also think focusing on the wording in one sentence without giving nuance to everything I have written does not lead to productive conversations here on the Wikipedia, and indicates the possibility of bad faith assumptions being made. For the record: I believe in classical liberal values, such as presumption of innocence, avoiding mob justice, and people having legitimate disagreements of opinion. Samboy (talk) 01:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, I was the one that originally removed the posting of just his rebuttal as it was only sourced by his Medium post and a Forbes contributor piece, both which also fail RS policy aspects. Since then, his rebuttal (and more importantly, that he has filed lawsuits) has been picked up by multiple RSes for the video game industry, and thus is now appropriately included; it goes far beyond MANDY with that. --Masem (t) 14:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with what you posted above that this essay is being given more weight in some Wikipedia discussions than it deserves. Better to get rid of it. Samboy (talk) 19:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

This isn't an article, but an essay, so no need to delete this. Many of the normal rules, including NPOV, do not apply here (except for BLP). If you don't agree with it, write your own essay. -- Valjean (talk) 01:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I also agree that this essay should be deleted from Wikipedia. From my interpretation of the essay's content and how it's currently being used in talk page discussions, this essay is in opposition to key parts of 3 of the WP:5PILLARS—actual policies that all Wikipedians tacitly agree to upon continued editing of this site, as well as longstanding and well-respected policies such as WP:BLP and WP:BALANCE. For instance, the essay misinterprets WP:FALSEBALANCE, a policy that relates solely to conspiracy theories and how they "should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship." That policy bares no relation to what this essay is trying to infer. The paragraph beginning "If X is accused of being a white nationalist," is where the bones of the article's content lies, and is where I find the most problems. What constitutes an "investigation"? What are "talking points"? The paragraph goes on to hypothesize that the alleged white nationalist has only provided a denial on a self-published source, but earlier in the essay, the writer uses their misinterpretion of WP:FALSEBALANCE to counter that any published source – even reliable ones – do not merit inclusion on Wikipedia at all.

This is A→B→Z thinking, and could have a chilling effect on the 5PILLARS. It is incredibly worrying that this essay is currently being linked to during edit wars and talk page discussions of celebrities accused of whatever on social media as a means of excluding that celebrity's denial, regardless of whether the source used to publish that denial is a reputable news site like NBC or The Guardian. Until a person is convicted of X, we cannot deliberately and misleadingly propagate that a person is X while disregarding WP:NPOV. In my opinion, this essay merits immediate listing at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, but would appreciate other opinions and possible fixes to these issues beforehand. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:28, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I think the concern is that this is being linked to in a wide range of discussions to justify the deletion of the response of an individual, government etc to a particular accusation, even when the response is reported in reliable sources and is important for understanding the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

And in such cases one should point out that this is an essay, not a policy or guideline. -- Valjean (talk) 20:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

How many times has that already been said?--Jack Upland (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

This would be a perfect solution, but that isn't how things are playing out on-site, unfortunately. My personal experience – and the only reason I'm aware of the existence of this essay – is that a user who should have known better (i.e., 50,000+ edits) cited this essay as justification for their continued edit warring at an article; demanding allegations be included in the lead while saying denials of said allegations be excluded per this essay. And despite the fact that it was pointed out to this user by several editors during an RfC that this was just an essay and not policy, they continued edit warring, even after the RfC was closed. In the age we live in, none of us should underestimate the potentially catastrophic effect an essay like this could have on the entire project. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

People find ways to abuse everything. It is unfortunate when an essay like this is incorrectly used to support a particular outcome, but people will find an excuse for what they want. If someone edit wars (with less edit warring on the other side, e.g. one person doing an edit and three others reverting it), the perpetrator should be sanctioned for WP:EW. If someone edits against an RfC and continues after a warning, they should be blocked (assuming some very unusual circumstance does not apply). If the article involves a living person, opinions should be sought at WP:BLPN. If it happens again, ping me and I'll have a look. Johnuniq (talk) 05:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Context about the "perpetrator": User_talk:Sdkb#EDIT_WARRING_NOTICE ––FormalDude talk 06:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Bizarre when Johnuniq is himself a abusive edior.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Have we met? I don't remember abusing you. Johnuniq (talk) 11:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I have confused you with another editor.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

First of all, this essay is good and useful, and your complaints about it appear to be based on it being cited (correctly!) against you in the dispute about Marilyn Manson.

But second of all, WP:FALSEBALANCE doesn't just apply to conspiracy theories. It says directly that it applies to, among other things, plausible but currently unaccepted theories. Loki (talk) 21:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

As pointed out by Valjean above, this is an essay, not a policy or guideline, so therefore cannot be "correctly" cited anywhere. The full sentence containing the fragment you quoted from WP:FALSEBALANCE is: "Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship." The following and closing sentence: "We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world." The whole thing is clearly about conspiracy theories—i.e., saying the moon landings were a hoax right next to a sentence in the section of Neil Armstrong's article about him being the first person to walk on the moon, et al. None of this is in any way applicable to what this essay says, or in the areas where this essay is currently being misused. The entire essay is malformed – in that it misinterprets a key policy on which it is based – and adds absolutely no value to the project. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 22:54, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Homeostasis, your misconception that it is impossible for an essay to be correctly cited anywhere is tiring. Any experienced editor knows the difference between essays and P&G. Essays are still widely cited across the project all the time, because they are interpretations of P&G that provide additional clarity or detail on a specific issue. There are many ways to correctly cite essays and there are many ways that they are applicable in policy related discussions. ––FormalDude talk 23:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

As FormalDude states, essays may not have authoritative weight, but they are definitely a good shorthand for explaining why certain practices are common on Wikipedia. Many essays are treated as de facto policy due to how overwhelmingly they describe the community's stance. As an example, WP:BLUDGEON is an essay that conveys the community has a low tolerance for individuals constantly beating down a discussion with frequent commentary. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with the OP that the MANDY essay needs to go. Its provisions may sometimes be correct, in that occasionally something is so well attested that a rebuttal of any kind is FALSEBALANCE. However, it seems that it is being cited in far too many discussions as some sort of carte blanche to remove rebuttals from all sorts of less straightforward cases, like that of Marilyn Manson. In particular, it flies in the face of the BLPBALANCE policy clause "Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times". I'm not saying that clause is an automatic indicator that we have to post rebuttals, but we certainly should not have any essays on our books which give the suggestion that we prefer not to include them. In short, WP:FALSEBALANCE is already sufficient to explain our policy in this area, without the unhelpful implications of the MANDY essay.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I think this essay should stay. The expression is very widely known and used in British politics. No British politician since the middle 1960s would ever say "I did not have sexual relations with that woman", because just abouut everyone would immediately think "well he would [say that], wouldn't he?".

I don't think the example given is very good, because it is usually used in Britain to highlight a self interested comment, not infrequently by the person making the comment as a retort, so the person can go on to explain reasons they think it is a good idea that are not the obvious self interest one.

I came to this page because I want to link it into a thread on the talk page of AUKUS because of a the problomatic sentence in the AUKUS article:

Nuclear proliferation concerns

... In the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, scholar Sébastien Philippe criticised AUKUS and wrote "we can now expect the proliferation of very sensitive military nuclear technology in the coming years, with literally tons of new nuclear materials under loose or no international safeguards." ...

References

A comment by an expert in the field in a reliable source. What flagged this for me was the name of the expert, because it looked like a French name to me. An internet search turned up this source "a brief autobiography of Sébastien Philippe | Princeton Science & Global Security" It is stated in it that "From 2011-2012, he worked in the French Ministry of Defense, where he was a nuclear weapon system safety expert for the strategic submarine forces."

The problem is that "scholar Sébastien Philippe" implies that he is a disinterested academic, however the comment could be seen as one from an inerested party in which case MRDA. The point is that if the statement by Sébastien Philippe is to remain in the article, then his interest in the issue should be made clear in the text. This is a much more subtle and useful example, than the simplistic "X is a white nationalist" does not need the qualifier "X denies being a white nationalist"

— PBS (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@PBS: If what you say is true, then Sébastien Philippe should not be described as a "scholar" unless reliable sources describe him as one. MANDY need not be brought in to the equation in that circumstance, when actual policies and guidelines exist to deter such disinformation. Despite what a user has said immediately above, The difference between policies, guidelines and essays is crystal clear: essays have not been subject to the WP:PROPOSAL process, and thus are not appropriate for use in a content dispute... and should definitely not be cited when closing RfCs. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I am going to address your last point first. Your reading of Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays differs from mine (and I disagree with some of the positions that paper expounds) however I am quite supprised that you state "and thus are not appropriate for use in a content dispute" when an extrapolation of the first section "Misconception #1: Breaking policies will always get you blocked" notes "... but so can violating (some) guidelines, and even (some) essays. For example, the essay Wikipedia:Single-purpose account is often cited in discussions about blocking and permanently banning editors" contradicts your assertion.

Whether or not "[essays] should definitely not be cited when closing RfCs" is I think a matter of opinion and whether the essay helps to illuminate an issue. For example I can see that the essay WP:MORALIZE can help newish editors get a firmer grasp the NPOV policy, and that depending on the contents of an RfC be mentioned in the closing statement. However whatever our opinions on using essays in closing statements of RfC, just because an essay has been used in a closing summary of an RfC that is not a valid reason to delete it.

Sébastien Philippe is a scholar (the precise word used does not have to be used in a reliable source it just has to be an accurate summary). 1. What do you think is the "disinformation" in that sentence? 2. Which guideline do you think covers that sentence regarding this type of possible bias? 3. Why should this essay not cover this type of issue if it can help editors under stand why MRDA may be relevant, particularly if the editor is not from Britain where the principle is deeply engrained? -- PBS (talk) 11:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi @PBS: Sorry about the delay in responding. Personally, I think it would be a mistake to remove that particular source based on this essay. At its heart, this essay says that WP:SELFPUBLISHED sources should never be used, which is true, but the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists appears to be a widely-cited peer-reviewed academic journal, which is a "high quality reliable source" as determined by the featured article criteria—the highest standard on Wikipedia. See the WP:PRIMARYSOURCES policy for additional information on WP:SELFPUBLISHED.

That being said, Philippe's quote isn't exactly glowing of nuclear weapons in general. I have no idea about his life circumstances or why he's saying the things he's saying now, but it's not uncommon for people who used to work within a particular industry/company to be critical of their former employers. Consider the likes of Edward Snowden, Frances Haugen and Sophie Zhang, et al. I think, in this instance, you'd be better off creating a discussion at Talk:AUKUS about this source and its content, where other users more familiar with the subject matter can weigh in. That's your choice to make though. I hope this response was helpful to you in some way. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

What is the crime of robbing a bank compared to the crime of owning one?

.. as Brecht almost wrote.

In the England and Wales there is not, and never has been, a crime of "living off immoral earnings" for the obvious reason that quite a few legal activities could also be said to be immoral.

There was, during the Profumo scandal era and until the Sexual Offences Act 2003 came into force, one of "living on the earnings of prostitution" of a woman (s30, Sexual Offences Act 1956). So it was this that Ward was prosecuted for and convicted of. He was also charged with at least one other prostitution offence, procuring women to become prostitutes (s22, SOA 1956).

I am aware that there are plenty of people who believe otherwise, however the article here on prostitution in the UK is correct. Why revert this one to be wrong again? Lovingboth (talk) 07:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/4-5/69/enacted/data.xht?view=snippet&wrap=true - note:

a) the homophobia involved in the use of 'immoral' in the Act - men were criminalised for soliciting or importuning "in a public place for immoral purposes" (s32), i.e. just looking for same sex partners, never mind actually being sexual with them;

b) that 'immoral' doesn't imply prostitution when it comes to women either - see s28 where it's explicitly "any prostitute or person of known immoral character" and s44.

c) As someone "habitually in the company of" the two women, Ward had to prove that he wasn't living on their earnings from prostitution.

The penultimate sentence above was correct, but I see that the same editor has removed 'erroneously' there. As I say, lots of people think that 'living off immoral earnings' was an offence (nope) and is an offence (nope), and and some are in print as being wrong about that.

Just as many people also think that prostitution per se is illegal in England and Wales, but WP does not reflect that view, because the reliable sources, like the wording of the actual Act of Parliament, do not agree. Lovingboth (talk) 08:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

If this was in article space, I might support this change. However for this essay I think "immoral earnings" is better so please do not assume here that silence equals consent. — PBS (talk) 10:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Template proposal

In June, I left a note at this page referring to a related discussion at the BLP talk page. That discussion has pretty much wrapped up, and that BLP talk page discussion is summarized here. Based on that discussion, instead of trying to get this essay deleted or moved to user space or something like that, a less onerous solution that would probably solve the problem would be to simply put this template at the top.

{{:Template:Polarized proposal}}

That way the essay remains an essay, but readers are put on notice per the template. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I oppose this. It's an improper use of the {{Polarized proposal}} template. MANDY has always been an essay, which like other essays is made clear by the {{essay}} template at the top of it, it has never been a proposed policy or guideline. At least one other editor, @SPECIFICO: has also objected to this at the counterpart BLP talk page linked above. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Sideswipe9th. The template is only used on two proposals, and both were attempts to change Wikipedia policy or procedure (see search results). This essay does not fit the mold at all. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Sideswipe9th and User:Firefangledfeathers, the template has only been used twice before so the way they were used doesn’t seem like a firm limiting precedent to me. If you had a choice between using the template here, versus moving the essay to user space or deleting it, which would you prefer? Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

None of the above? If I had a gun to my head, I guess I'd have to go with "Oh god why is this happening to me? Who are you?" Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

As to “Why is this happening to me”, the reason is that a lot of editors at this talk page and at the BLP talk page are concerned that this essay is being used a lot to justify opposing proper application of the BLP policy. I will try to figure out if there could be a better template. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there is one. I'd recommend writing an opposing essay or taking it to MfD for deletion or userfication. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I think a template would be preferable, either this one or a new one, so I will look into it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Just so you have a heads up: I'd oppose, and would likely bring to TfD, a template used to mark essays as disputed or polarizing. Essays are for the "advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors". If the content is egregiously misaligned with policy/guideline or disruptive in some other way, it should be deleted or userfied. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I personally have no problems with essays that are opposed to policy. The very template I suggested above endorses keeping essays that are opposed to policy. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The template you've included above is not one for use on essays that purportedly oppose policy. It's for proposed policy or policy changes that have failed at the discussion stage.

This essay is not opposed to policy in any way. NPOV already addresses this concept under both WP:UNDUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. MANDY gives a shorthand way of stating this in fewer words. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Failed policy proposals obviously can be turned into essays that oppose current policy, so there’s no reason why an essay opposed to policy cannot remain. Therefore me bringing this to MfD would probably be inappropriate. You say this Mandy essay doesn’t oppose policy, so a template saying that would be improper, but lots of editors have disagreed with you, both here and at talk:BLP. Even if you’re correct that Mandy doesn’t oppose policy, that view is consistent with putting a template at the top saying that editors should be careful not to use or cite this essay in a manner that opposes proper application of Wikipedia policy or guidelines because no site-wide consensus exists to do so. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Failed policy proposals obviously can be turned into essays that oppose current policy, so there’s no reason why an essay opposed to policy cannot remain. Aside from my disagreement that this essay opposes policy, I agree.

You say this Mandy essay doesn’t oppose policy, so a template saying that would be improper. I did not say the proposed template is inappropriate because this essay supposedly opposes policy. I said that template is inappropriate because this was never a failed policy proposal, it has always been an essay. It is an absolute misuse of the {{polarized proposal}} to apply it to an essay that was never a proposed policy.

that view is consistent with putting a template at the top saying that editors should be careful not to use or cite this essay in a manner that opposes proper application of Wikipedia policy or guidelines because no site-wide consensus exists to do so. We do not need to add another template because every essay, including MANDY, already has a template in place that states this, it is {{essay}}, which reads:

As I said below, if an editor is persistently misusing an essay as though it were policy, especially after having been directed to the text in {{essay}}, then that is a conduct issue and is better handled at one of the appropriate noticeboards. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Writing an opposing essay is the correct solution. Consider that Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth is an essay, which has two directly opposing counterparts Wikipedia:Truth, not verifiability and Wikipedia:Prefer truth. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Firefangledfeathers, as I don't see any of those choices as a good option. The thing with most of Wikipedia's essays are that they're used or meant to be used as shorthand for editorial opinion. If I were to cite MANDY in a BLP dispute over a subject's denial of some controversy, it would be as a shorthand to say that based on reliable sources surrounding the controversy I do not believe are anything more than self serving and are not worthy of note. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

This proposed template would provide an easy, ready-made, one-click way to promote false equivalencies and to thwart or circumvent detailed discussion of policy, sourcing and article text. This is entirely alien to the way we work. SPECIFICO talk 18:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

To the template nominator. Doesn't content disputes more often then not, become polarising? If there was 'no polarising'? there'd be no content disputes. GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Presumably I’m the template nominator. Sure, tons of things become polarizing and tons don’t, it’s worth alerting readers that this is the former. But even more important is the later language: “ it has so far failed to achieve consensus. This page should not be cited as if a policy or guideline; it has the status of an essay.” A lot of people have objected that this essay is being used to stop the normal and proper application of BLP policy, and that’s all I’m trying to address here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

If editors are misapplying MANDY to, as you say, prevent the normal application of BLP policy, that is an editorial conduct issue and should be raised at one of the appropriate venues like WP:BLPN, WP:AN, WP:ANI or WP:AE. The proposal to add this template is akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Same for putting a template at the top saying that editors should be careful not to use or cite this essay in a manner that opposes proper application of Wikipedia policy or guidelines because no site-wide consensus exists to do so? Then if they do so, there would be valid basis to complain at WP:BLPN, WP:AN, WP:ANI or WP:AE. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I've answered in my reply above at 19:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC). Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The standard essay template says this:

“ This is an essay.

It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

”

I don't think this was designed for instances like the present one, where many editors believe that (1) this essay is contrary to policy (which is fine) and/or (2) this essay is often being used to oppose proper implementation of policy. The standard template could be amended to cover this circumstance:

“ This is an essay.

It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints; and others oppose policies or guidelines or are construed that way. Do not use this essay at article talk pages to oppose normal implementation of Wikipedia policies or guidelines.

”

That added material is generally unnecessary, but not in this instance where the point requires greater emphasis according to many editors who have objected. So, instead of adding that new material, we could put it in a brief new template:

“ Caution.

Essays sometimes oppose policies or guidelines, or are construed that way. Do not use this essay at article talk pages to oppose normal implementation of Wikipedia policies or guidelines.

”

Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the template's documentation there does not appear to be a way to change it as you've proposed, without directly editing the template which would require a template edit request. This discussion has already spilled over at least two venues and I see no reason why it needs to involve a third.

The proposed caution template is redundant and not necessary. The text This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. already conveys the same meaning, albeit with different wording.

If you and other editors do not like the MANDY article, that's fine. Don't use it. If you think it needs a shorthand rebuttal, then create an opposing essay. For example, editors who often cite WP:SKYBLUE will likely see WP:NOTBLUE cited in return. Or there's the examples of Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth, Wikipedia:Truth, not verifiability and Wikipedia:Prefer truth which I linked previously. Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies does not apply seems like a solid starting point for a rebuttal to this essay, or alternatively an essay on right of reply also seems to cover many of the arguments against this essay. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The WP:SKYBLUE/WP:NOTBLUE situation actually has direct parallels to this discussion. There is polarisation between editors who do not believe you need to cite for the sky being blue, and editors who believe that you do. Many, if not all of those who oppose SKYBLUE do so because they believe it contravenes WP:V, however neither essay is tagged with any sort of redundant or extraordinary content note saying that the contents of the essay is controversial. The only link, beyond the title, is a brief mention of the counterpart essay in each essay's see also section, where it is stated that the other essay is the opposing essay. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Essays at Wikipedia can be divided into two kinds: (1) those that advocate against policy/guidelines or are often construed that way, and (2) those that don’t. I don’t see the harm in having a new template that addresses this distinction, making readers aware of which kind of essay it is, along with the consequences. So I strongly support creating a template that says, “Essays sometimes oppose policies or guidelines, or are often construed that way, and such is the case here. Do not use this essay at article talk pages to oppose normal implementation of Wikipedia policies or guidelines.” This discussion has been very helpful in formulating that draft template. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Please drop this stick. I cannot see that template getting anywhere near the level of support required for its creation, because {{essay}} already states this information, much less at an individual essay level for its inclusion. Whether or not an essay opposes or contradicts a policy or guideline is in the eye of each editor, and adding such a template would require dozens, if not more, of repeated discussions across all of the essays. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

There was strong consensus at talk:BLP that some action of this sort should be taken, so I am not going to shut up about it. Moreover, you are clearly wrong to say that the standard “essay” template already states this information. The standard essay template absolutely does not say that this essay (or any essay) opposes policies or guidelines, or is often construed that way. On the contrary, many editors incorrectly believe that opposing policies/guidelines is grounds for deletion, when in fact many essays are failed proposals to change policies/guidelines. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

There was no consensus, let alone strong consensus, for this at talk:BLP. SPECIFICO talk 22:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Not for this exact solution, correct. I just developed it here in this thread, and may modify it some more to attract more support. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

There was extensive discussion about this matter at BLP talk, and the general sentiment at BLP talk is summarized here:

1) Anythingyouwant: A denial in RS of wrongdoing in a BLP should normally go into the BLP, so Mandy is wrong.
2) Blueboar: Other options for people who don't like Mandy include editing that essay and/or writing an opposing essay.
3) Crossroads: Supports userfication, deprecation, etc. because Mandy shouldn't exclude denials in reliable secondary sources.
4) Endwise: Supports userification or whatever other downgrade of Mandy.
5) Homeostasis07: Supports moving Mandy to userspace, or WP:TNT to align Mandy with policy, it can't stay as-is.
6) Huggums537: Supports downgrading Mandy because there's a conflict with BLP.
7) Jack Upland: Agrees there's a problem with Mandy.
8) KoA: BLP says denials "should" not "must" be included, but "not really up to speed" on the issue with Mandy.
9) Masem: Mandy is right to bar self-serving rebuttals that aren't in RSes, but wrong to bar properly-sourced denials.
10) Peter Gulutzan: Supports moving Mandy to user space.
11) Seraphimblade: Opposes using Mandy as it often is used, i.e. to overule policy, but also opposes moving Mandy.
12) Slywriter: Supports removal of Mandy because it tries to fix by local consensus what needs to be addressed in BLP policy.
13) Specifico: Mandy is not the big bad wolf, consensus among the editors at a discussion can override Mandy.
14) Springee: Supports downgrading Mandy; even denials of allegations in self-published sources are OK if not too self-serving.
15) Trystan: Agrees there's a problem with Mandy.
Similar concerns have been expressed at this page and its archive. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Here is an alternative suggestion:

Johnuniq (talk) 23:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I think Johnuniq has summarized all this well, as well as had a little foresight on the section below too with this. WP:STICK applies at this point it seems after reading up after being pinged. KoA (talk) 00:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Counter-essay draft

I have started a draft of a counter-essay at User:Crossroads/Mandy Rice-Davies does not apply. Anyone who supports the existence of a counter-essay is welcome to come and work on it. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I and others have contributed to this draft and more eyes are welcome. I believe this is the best way forward on this issue.--agr (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

FYI: Redirect to denial policy is up for deletion

The redirect WP:DENIALS is up for deletion at this link. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2022 (UTC)