WikiProject iconEssays Low‑impact
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.EssaysWikipedia:WikiProject EssaysTemplate:WikiProject EssaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
LowThis page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
Note icon
The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Poor examples?[edit]

Aside from the issue of whether this article is necessary or helpful, it strikes me that the examples of white nationalists and "anti-vaxxers"—and perhaps even antisemites—are poor choices for two reasons:

1. Most importantly, what's the evidence that "very few" of either group "are prepared to go on record and own their positions"? Based on the definitions of at least the first two in their respective Wikipedia articles, it would seem the opposite is true. For example: "White nationalists say they seek to ensure the survival of the white race, and the cultures of historically white states." And it certainly appears to me that there are no small number of anti-vaccination types who are outspoken about their beliefs. I'm also unclear on what exactly it means for one to have a "position" that one denies.
2. The terms are politically charged and somewhat nebulous—and given that there is disagreement about the meaning and application of them, whether a given person should be so-characterized is often a subjective question. It would seem more prudent (and perhaps even more NPOV, too) for us to use more obvious, objective examples.

My suggestion would be to use examples similar to that of Lord Astor, who denied an affair—something clearly either true or false, which most people who engage in will deny. And I don't see any reason to extrapolate from an action (having an affair), to a characterization (a bigot)—again, to do so seems unnecessarily subjective. I think the examples of fraud and infidelity are terrific, and if more are needed, I'm sure we can come up with some that are suitably neutral and clear-cut.

Look forward to everyone's input—thanks in advance! ElleTheBelle 21:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of people admit to infidelity. Plenty of people admit to fraud.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@User talk:Jack Upland I agree with User:Ekpyros because most politicians won't (as both are a vote looser in the Anglosphere), and no one working in the financial industry would admit to fraud as they would loose their credibility and probably licence to trade. — PBS (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment on putting a template at the top of this essay[edit]

QUESTION: Shall we put a template at the top of this essay saying, "This essay has sometimes been used or cited in a way that is not supported by Wikipedia guidelines and policies, or in a way that conflicts with them. Please do not do that at Wikipedia articles or their talk pages"? Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

I left a notice about this RFC at BLP talk and at BLPN. The latter says: “Regarding inclusion of denials in BLPs, the essay WP:MANDY argues against inclusion if it would have been obvious that the person would deny. WP:BLP says denials generally should be included. This tension is the subject of an RFC now at the Mandy talk page. The proposal is to put a template atop the essay, making users aware of the tension between Mandy and policy.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also left a note at Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines#FYI about an RFC. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily believe the issue at heart here is that this essay is being misused/misapplied, but that the problem instead lies in the fact that the essay itself is malformed and directly contradicts the BLP policy. It says that even WP:RS denials of accusations be excluded because "well, [they] would say that, wouldn't [they]?" And that's exactly how the essay is being used in mainspace, in my experience. That seems to be its entire purpose. Of all the essays I've read in my 15 years here, I've never come across one as potentially disruptive as this. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen editors give just a passionate rationale for why WP:SKYBLUE is malformed and directly contradicts the WP:V policy. However no-one has suggested tagging SKYBLUE in this manner, as someone else created WP:NOTBLUE about a month after SKYBLUE. And as I've linked above, similar arguments could be made for Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth, Wikipedia:Truth, not verifiability, and Wikipedia:Prefer truth. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, I've always felt like WP:POPE is a better rebuttal to WP:SKYBLUE than WP:NOTBLUE. Loki (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It’s no more a badge of shame than Template:Polarized proposal is. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Reason for support: The general subject of misusing this essay has been controversial and unsettled for a long time, but I think this is the first RFC at this talk page. See this talk page and its archive for non-RFC discussion about it. There's also been considerable discussion about it at the BLP talk page, summarized here. It seems worthwhile to settle it with an RFC, so we don't keep coming back to it. I don't think it would be appropriate to delete this essay or move it into user space. There's already a related template for failed policy proposals that have been downgraded to essays, see Template:Polarized proposal. That's a good template, and it puts users on notice that the essay may be contrary to policy, and if we put a similar template at the top of this essay then readers will be aware of the issue. Now I'm going to ping editors who commented during the BLP talk discussion, and also the 24 most recent editors who have commented at this talk page about anything. They can ignore the ping if they want, but I'd appreciate the ping if I were in their place. User:Blueboar User:Crossroads User:Endwise User:Homeostasis07User:Huggums537User:Jack Upland User:KoA User:Masem User:Peter GulutzanUser:Seraphimblade User:Slywriter User:SPECIFICO User:Springee User:TrystanUser:Aidan9382 User:Amakuru User:ArnoldReinhold User talk:EkpyrosUser:Firefangledfeathers User:FormalDude User:GoodDay User:HandThatFeedsUser:Herostratus User:JMM12345 User:John2510 User:Johnuniq User:JzGUser:LokiTheLiar User talk:Lovingboth User:MalnadachBot User:MjolnirPants User talk:Naleksuh User:PBS User:RenatUK User:Samboy User:Sideswipe9thUser:Valjean User:X-Editor. Hopefully this will bring some closure, at least. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My advice? Let sleeping lions sleep. But, thanks for notifying me of this discussion. GoodDay (talk) 00:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Making Mandy more meaningful[edit]

I boldly made some consecutive edits to this essay, I hope they’ll be acceptable. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with these changes. They entirely change the meaning of the essay, especially the sentence On the other hand, 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. This content is better held in the draft rebuttal essay that Crossroads has started. Would you please self-revert?
I'm also not entirely sure why Wikipedia:Principle of Some Astonishment has been linked as a related essay. MRDA isn't about a clutter issue, it's about an undue content and weight issue. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also not entirely sure why Wikipedia:Principle of Some Astonishment has been linked as a related essay. MRDA isn't about a clutter issue, it's about an undue content and weight issue.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I believe the idea is that "but she denies it" would be utterly un-astonishing, per the nature of this essay, because of course she denies it. Happy (Slap me) 14:41, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like AYW already self-reverted the added line about the "mere three words", which I also oppose. The added quote from BLP and surrounding text looks good to me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I think this essay would be more useful if we could have an “on the other hand” so readers can see both opinions, not just one. But more importantly, the sentence before the green one contradicts WP:BLP because the front page of every newspaper in the world could say “Biden denies it” and still that sentence says we might not need to include it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If your example happened, I'm 100% sure the argument "This denial of wrongdoing is due. Every newspaper in the world is publishing it" would win the day. MANDY saying we should "perhaps" exclude it is clearly a suggestion for consideration and not a mandate to be absurd. If your concern is about whether a denial is due, the green sentence is not conveying that concern at all, as it's focused on brevity and implication. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The insertion of perhaps occurred today as part of the sequence of edits that also included the sentence that Anythingyouwant has removed while we discuss. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Perhaps or no perhaps, the sentence conveys a suggestion (i.e. "don't need to"). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that this essay needs to hold both opinions. There is a long standing practice of writing multiple essays from different perspectives on interpretations of WP:PAG. As I've been saying all along, if you want a different perspective on this, write another essay in response to this.
I also disagree that the pre-existing sentence contradicts BLP, as BLP already tells us that we can exclude denials of allegations if they are undue, in order to prevent false balance issues. The essay is pretty clear that it's talking about undue denials only, those that are typically sourced only to a subject's social media presence or blog, or sourced to a single or absolute minority of RS. If, as in your example, every or nearly every secondary source about the allegation has the statement "[subject] denies the allegations", then inclusion of the denial is due. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even if none of those front page stories have checked the denial and confirmed its basis in fact or discussed its credibility? They just say “Biden denies it” from sea to shining sea. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:24, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd say philosophically speaking, if an RS wants to include a denial without checking its basis in fact or credibility, that's on the RS and their reputation. I think the principle behind WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH applies to such mentions, i.e. if a source includes a denial in most cases they will have done it in good faith. There are limits of course, if a source persistently includes any and all denials indiscriminately, especially those that other sources report on as being in some way dishonest, non-credible, or otherwise non-notable, then that speaks more to the reliability of that source than the denial.
For example, I'm primarily active in the GENSEX discretionary sanctions area. There are BLP subjects who fall within that area, for which allegations of homophobia, biphobia, and/or transphobia are commonplace because of the subject's words and actions. In some cases, those denials are entirely non-credible, and while the majority of sources will describe that subject in terms the subject likely finds unflattering, there are still a minority of sources, typically those which share a similar POV to the subject, who will include the denials.
One prominent example I'm familiar with would be Graham Linehan, whose actions, particularly on social media and at protests, against trans people are extremely well documented and are noted in both media and scholarly sources. Of course Graham himself has at times denied any anti-trans sentiment, and trans antagonistic media sources like The Times and Daily Mail have included those denials. However the majority of sources typically do not include them, because the denials are completely non-credible. Though Graham is also a weird case, because at other times he has said he has expressed anti-trans sentiment and has considered himself an anti-trans activist. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When an RS publishes a bare denial after evaluating its credibility

A reliable source will often check the denial and confirm its basis in fact or evaluate its credibility, and then simply publish “she denies it”. As Wikipedia editors, we have no way of knowing whether the RS did check the denial and confirm its basis in fact or evaluate its credibility. If every RS in the country just publishes “she denies it” and does not reveal whether they confirmed it and evaluated its credibility, are we supposed to assume that they did, or that they didn’t? I think BLP implies we’re supposed to assume that they did (or at least BLP requires us not to assume that they didn’t). Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If every RS in the country just publishes “she denies it” and does not reveal whether they confirmed it and evaluated its credibility, are we supposed to assume that they did, or that they didn’t. in almost all circumstances, yes we assume the RS verified and evaluated the credibility of the statement. There's a few exceptions, for example state controlled media in Russia or North Korea would be manifestly unreliable for such denials, especially for prominent individuals from those countries, but we also generally don't consider those sources reliable anyway.
MANDY is pretty clear that it applies to a much smaller set of denials. Those for which either; the only source of the denial is the subject's social media or blog and which have not been covered at all by reliable secondary sources, or those for which an absolute minority of secondary sources cover it. In those circumstances, MANDY is a shorthand way of saying "this denial is undue, it is sourced to only the subject, or a minority of secondary sources".
If the denial is sourced only to the subject's social media or blog, then it is covered by WP:BLPSPS and is typically unduly self-serving, and depending on the nature of the allegation could also involve claims about third parties.
If on the other hand, the source we're citing for the denial is a reliable secondary source, then it doesn't matter where they source it from because we're no longer citing the subject directly. We're citing independent reporting of the subject, even if that reporting is just parroting the subject's words. In that circumstance, it becomes a question of weight and balance, with the pertinent question being "how well sourced is this denial?" Is it covered by only one or two secondary sources? Or by half or more? Accordingly MANDY applies only when the coverage of the denial is such that including it would be undue and give rise to false balance. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In a hypothetical situation, if a BLP is accused of something, the BLP adamantly denies it as explains their side in a blog post, but no RS covers that post in a reasonable time frame (eg a week) then we should be per BLPSPS use the blog post to include a terse, non self-selving summary if the denial, like one sentence or two. That would not the place to go off on one's fringe theories for example, but simply to say thus person believes this instead. Eg if a BLP is asserted to be a climate change denier, but they say on their blog they believe there is climate change but have a theory why it can't be fully attributed to human activities, we can briefly include that denial and reason why in a single sentence. It would not be appropriate to go into a full paragraph to describe their theory just based on the blog source. Masem (t) 17:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree entirely. WP:BLPSELFPUB tells us explicitly not to include self published material if it is unduly self-serving (point 1). Such denials are typically manifestly self-serving. They can often also include claims about other individuals, e.g. "I did not harass that individual, I thought our interactions have always been cordial" (point 2).
if a BLP is asserted to be a climate change denier, but they say on their blog they believe there is climate change but have a theory why it can't be fully attributed to human activities, we can briefly include that denial and reason why in a single sentence. Can you link a BLP where we do this? Because not only does this seem to go against BLPSELFPUB via points 1 and 3, it also seems to fly in the face of WP:FRINGE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is all hypothetical but it points to the core of what is wrong with MANDY. A simple brief denial statement is not unduly self-serving; it is actually essential to include as an objective summary of a conflict. Unduly self-serving would be going into depth about their counter stance or the like, using blogs to write paragraphs or more. To stress that policy language is "unduly self-serving", meaning some minimal self-serving material about oneself taken from a blog is not harmful. And presenting counter arguments to when a BLP is accused of something us not FRINGE or a false balance. It would be a problem if we were using too much material from a blog to support paragraphs of information. Masem (t) 18:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which is the problem. No one can point to an issue with MANDY except by coming up with theoretical edge-cases which may or may not exist. It's an argument based on "But what if?" rather than actual problems. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:14, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree completely, simple brief denial statements can be unduly self-serving. When a negative label about a person or organisation is well documented and demonstrated, then that person or organisation saying "I am not X" is unduly self-serving. You see this frequently with short declarative statements like "I am not a conspiracy theorist, I am a critical thinker", or "I am not transphobic, I have many transgender friends".
The example I linked earlier, Graham Linehan, shows this in practice. Linehan has claimed that he's "not transphobic" (note this was the only reliable source that had any coverage of the denial), yet his actions, particularly his sockpuppets on Twitter, commentary on his substack, and at protests in the UK and Ireland show otherwise, and why sources overwhelmingly describe him as an anti-trans activist. With the exception of sources Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Unduly self-serving" is relative. For an ordinary person, "I am not a racist" would not be unduly self-serving. But if, say, Richard Spencer said it, then yes it would be, because of the overwhelming sourcing for the fact that he's a racist. Loki (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is general reply to The Hand that Feeds You, Sideswipe9th and Loki: A lot of this comes down to what "unduly self-serving" means balancing that in context of objectivity. We are supposed to cover controversial issues from all sides, though the weight of coverage we give each side will be based on UNDUE. We at minimum should absolutely touch each side, in the cases where MANDY might apply, that means that even if you have a Richard Spencer or a Graham Lineham while they are BLPs, we should absolutely touch on what they say about themselves, briefly. It obviously would be best if that came from an RS, but if we have to use an SPS blog, there's no way, in how I see this balance related to objectivity and viewpoint weight, that a single sentence is unduly self serving. Otherwise, it makes us look like we have picked a side in the conflict and thus no longer are objective. Mind you, this applies to accusations and claims that cannot be proven otherwise, like if someone's a racist or right-wing extremist. Criminality would be different since there is an objective manner of proof there (how the court rules). We can make it fully clear that in cases like Spencer or Lineham that the weight of views are clearly against their assertions, but we should not be ignoring their assertions as that is a bare minimum needed to properly describe conflicts objectively (hence the problems with MANDY) I know this view isn't taken across the board, though, hence why MANDY needs to be clear that it is a controversial essay as written. Masem (t) 01:21, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, in cases where the balance of sources is less clear, I agree we should include denials. However, in clear cases, WP:NPOV doesn't say what you think it says, and in fact more-or-less says the opposite.
It does not say we should include every point of view, it says [n]eutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. It then goes on to say very specifically that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects and even says that [g]enerally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views.
In the context of whether or not Richard Spencer is a white supremacist, "no, he's not" is a tiny minority view whether it comes from Spencer himself or a third party, because the sourcing that he is a white supremacist is absolutely overwhelming. Nearly every source on that page says he is and there are over 100 of them. Therefore, WP:NPOV says very specifically that his denial should not be included at all. Not even that we can choose whether or not to include it; positively should not. Loki (talk) 04:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sideswipe9th: MANDY is pretty clear that it applies to a much smaller set of denials. Those for which either; the only source of the denial is the subject's social media or blog and which have not been covered at all by reliable secondary sources, or those for which an absolute minority of secondary sources cover it. In those circumstances, MANDY is a shorthand way of saying "this denial is undue, it is sourced to only the subject, or a minority of secondary sources". -- I have never, ever seen MANDY used in this way. Every single time I have seen it quoted it was in reference to removing a denial of an accusation sourced to a secondary source. Clearly it is not "pretty clear" if you have a novel interpretation of the essay which is never subscribed to when invoked. Endwise (talk) 04:23, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for removing the sentence for discussion. I know you're clearly passionate about this issue, and I just wanted to thank you for listening to feedback on this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Evidently we can’t even edit this essay to briefly describe or quote policy.[1]. That is very problematic. Additionally, you say, “yes we assume the RS verified and evaluated the credibility of the statement.” I agree, but that flatly contradicts this essay: “if the only statement is that ‘X denies the accusations’ then perhaps we don't need to include it because, well, he would, wouldn't he?” That’s a general statement not limited to self-publication; we absolutely do need to include the denial if there’s no reason to think RS’s that published did so without verifying it or confirming it’s credibility. Why can’t we say in the essay that we should normally assume the RS verified the statement was made and evaluated its credibility? Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't want to speak for @SPECIFICO:, I do agree that the passage removed in this edit substantially alters the meaning and scope of the essay. As discussed in this section, and #How this essay is actually used, there are valid reasons where a denial could have been verified by a reliable source and still be WP:UNDUE for inclusion. Typically if the denial is only published in a single reliable source, or a minority of them, then on balance the denial likely should be excluded due to WP:WEIGHT and WP:FALSEBALANCE issues. I suspect this sort of content is best held in the other draft essay. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. This essay currently says that if all reliable sources in the entire world say on their front pages that person X says “I deny it” then we should not include that material at Wikipedia; i.e. we should assume that all reliable sources on Earth have failed to consider (prior to publication) the credibility of the statement and of person X. That’s a really bad position for this essay to take, contrary to WP:DENIALS, because we have no way of knowing whether the reliable sources have done that before publication. And you have agreed with me here on this talk page that we should not make that assumption. So if you don’t like the way I tried to fix this problem, please suggest an alternative way. Moreover, your recent revert also reverted material that had nothing to do with that, why? Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:49, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This essay currently says that if all reliable sources in the entire world say on their front pages that person X says “I deny it” then we should not include that material at Wikipedia Could you point out where in the essay it says that? Because I just don't see it.
So if you don’t like the way I tried to fix this problem, please suggest an alternative way. I don't see any problem that needs fixing.
your recent revert also reverted material that had nothing to do with that, why? If you mean this revert, then it's per WP:ONUS and WP:BRD. I'm not sure what value expanded the wikilink to WP:DENIALS has, except that it is to an anchor with extraneous text that doesn't accurately convey the meaning of that text. When looking at the text at that link; 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. this essay, as it was prior to the current activity, was fully complaint with. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You said above at this talk page, “yes we assume the RS verified and evaluated the credibility of the statement”. I agree. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Aquillion says in an edit summary that this point of agreement is being “broadly rejected”. But he provides no reasons, no quotes, no evidence. Does Aquillion mean that we should assume reliable sources have failed to evaluate credibility whenever they publish a bare denial? Let’s be explicit about this, one way or the other. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the premise of your question is accurate. More generally, I think you should probably stop trying to make edits to an essay with which you strongly disagree; your interpretations of it are sufficiently hostile and sufficiently unrelated to the text that I don't think your edits or suggestions have any real hope of going anywhere constructive. It is not necessary for an essay with which you disagree have disclaimers on every single clause intended to WP:SATISFY objections based on your personal misreadings. Also, I strenuously object to creating a redirect to a single sentence in WP:PUBLICFIGURE, out of context, and then slapping it everywhere as if it were its own policy - if you believe it has that sort of consensus, start an RFC for it first. We don't have a dedicated policy on denials at the moment, just a one-sentence aside making suggestions as part of our larger handling of public figures. --Aquillion (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not wish to argue with you in this section about the seealso section, I would prefer if we could stick to the subject. I think you know very well that I am not supporting “disclaimers on every single clause” and that instead I am supporting an edit to only one single clause. I’ll ask again: is it your belief that we should assume reliable sources have failed to evaluate credibility whenever they publish a bare denial? That’s a simple question. And it’s the simple sole solitary thing that I would like this essay to address properly instead of improperly. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the longstanding text adequately explains how we should approach the issue, and that your addition (which amounted to making the essay argue with itself over your hand-waving theoretical counterfactuals) was therefore unhelpful and unconstructive. --Aquillion (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Asking again User:Aquillion, is it your belief that we should assume reliable sources have failed to evaluate credibility whenever they publish a bare denial? Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:58, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained above, nobody has an obligation to WP:SATISFY you on any personal misunderstandings about the essay you might have; kindly stop badgering me with your unhelpful questions. You need to stay on the topic of what the essay actually says, and I have given you my opinion on that, even if you dislike it or disagree with it; based on that opinion (ie. your question has no relation to the essay's current text and cannot reasonably be interpreted as clarifying any points of confusion anyone could possibly has), I feel your insistence on focusing on it is an unhelpful derailment with no hope of producing any constructive discussion. --Aquillion (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop beating around the bush, User:Aquillion. This essay says, “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?” This plainly means that if an RS quotes a bare denial without elaborating, then we don’t need to include it, regardless of whether the RS may have evaluated its credibility before publishing it, and regardless of what percentage of RS’s published the bare denial without elaboration. This would be a vast arrogation of power by Wikipedia editors to slant BLPs as they wish. So I’ll ask you again: is it your belief that we should assume reliable sources have failed to evaluate credibility whenever they publish a bare denial? You reverted an edit to this essay that would have straightened out this matter, and I’m merely asking you to explain. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're taking a single sentence of the essay out of context. You will get a better picture of the essay from the 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.
Or in other words, no, that line you are quoting does not mean if an RS quotes a bare denial without elaborating, then we don’t need to include it, regardless of whether the RS may have evaluated its credibility before publishing it. In fact, the essay specifically says right before the line you quoted If a reliable source has checked the denial and confirmed its basis in fact or discussed its credibility, we can certainly say so.
And the paragraph before that is an extended explanation of why which is grounded in policy that applies to anything. WP:MANDY is just an interpretation of WP:V and WP:NPOV applied to statements made by living persons about themselves, and is not meant to say anything that those two policies don't say. We in general don't publish information that only appears in a single self-published source. We in general should avoid including an aside in a reliable source that is contradicted by the rest of that source and other reliable sources. None of this changes when the dubious information in question is a denial of wrongdoing, and that's all WP:MANDY means. Loki (talk) 05:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Loki, you point to this in MANDY: “If a reliable source has checked the denial and confirmed its basis in fact or discussed its credibility, we can certainly say so.” I am discussing a different situation, where we have no evidence that the RS has done this, they may have done it before publication and maybe not. In the actual publication, they merely print a bare denial without elaboration. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:12, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That uh, didn't answer the question I asked. You say the essay says we should not include a denial if (paraphrase) "all reliable sources in the entire world state it". I've read the essay multiple times, and cannot see this. Could you please point out where in the essay it says this, so I can understand your perspective? Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, this essay says “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?” So if all RS’s in the world state “X denies it” without elaborating, then we don’t need to include it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Despite your comments here @Sideswipe9th: this is in actuality how this essay is currently being misused. I can link you to a multitude of comments on the Wiki Discord [which I've screenshot] from editors with 50k+ edits – i.e., they should know better – writing "WP:MANDY" in response to a celebrity being accused of sexual abuse. Let's drop the pretense here once and for all: the essay is being misused in hundreds of articles to exclude even WP:RS-sourced denials of accusations. In the current climate we occupy, this essay gives users an excuse to exclude even RS denials. The essay not only goes against BLP, but is inherently detrimental to the project as a whole, where Verifiable Reliable Sourcing must be held sacrosanct. While I appreciate @LokiTheLiar: for their recent edits attempting to bring this essay in line with policy, it still falls far short of acceptable use. Honestly, at this point, if this is the kind of essay receiving widespread support, then users need to reconsider the entirety of the essay project. Either essays are judged beforehand on their potential to become guideline or policy, or they can stay on userpages indefinitely. Would save a hell of a lot of headaches. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:19, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Homeostasis07: I'm also on the Discord, and according to the search function MANDY has been linked there ten times. Of those ten occasions, only two are related to BLPs, where they seem to have been made in jest. As far as I can tell, neither of the editors who said that MANDY applies, or other editors who were active in the same channel at the time, later made contributions to those articles citing the essay.
That aside, does it really matter how it's being used in an unofficial Discord? What we should care about is how it's being used or misused on Wikipedia itself, and so far there does not seem to be this presumed widespread misuse of the essay. So far, a grand total of four talk pages have been linked and discussed in the section immediately below this, and discussion there doesn't seem to have revealed any issues, just a dislike of this essay. There are editors who don't like it, there are editors who like it, and both are fine. If you don't like MANDY, great, User:Crossroads/Mandy_Rice-Davies_does_not_apply is still being drafted. Go make that the counter argument to this one. But don't try and trash the entire essay project, because one essay interprets policy in a way you disagree with.
Because of how Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are written, there are a multitude of ways to interpret them, even without getting into Wikilawyering. The various essays and counter essays reflect that ambiguity well. In the case of MANDY, it is addresses the balancing act between the last sentence of WP:BLPPUBLIC against WP:DUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE, in a way that is acceptable to some and unacceptable to others. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sideswipe9th: I don't really want to bog this particular discussion down in peculiar semantics, but let's just say there are links to this essay's usage on-site and at Discord – where certain users must've felt like their comments would be unseen – that leave much to be desired. It's a topic probably more suited to ANI. All I want to say at this stage is to check the dates of those "in jest" comments against the on-site editing activity of those users. Considering the fact that one of their pals is currently following my contributions page to undo my edits and disagree with me at various talk page discussions speaks volumes. Here we are 18 months later, and it's still happening. That's the kind of dementia this essay is fostering. Yes, I'm probably biased towards this essay's content for very peculiar reasons, but they are nevertheless genuine reasons. If this essay provokes this kind of editing activity 18 months later, it is inherently harmful. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:12, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we should completely not take into consideration what happens on the Discord, for one. It's simply not the same site; we might as well take into account deletion discussions on TV Tropes.
For two, the way you object to it being used is not really mutually exclusive with how it should be used. Yes, if an accusation is very well documented in reliable sources, we don't have to mention that the subject denied it unless that's separately notable somehow. This is no different than any other WP:V check: the subject is no more reliable as a source on the accusation than any third party would be in their situation, and usually less.
And for three, this essay is very much necessary as a counterweight to attempts to make WP:BLP outweigh WP:NPOV and WP:V. Yes, we go above and beyond to ensure the privacy interests of living people are respected and that all information in their articles is verifiable. But that doesn't mean that public figures have a right to dicate coverage on Wikipedia. That would violate two pillars of Wikipedia, NPOV and verifiability, which both say we have to follow reliable sources wherever they go, even if what they say about a living person is quite negative. Loki (talk) 02:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Examples[edit]

I think part of the problem is while MRDA is a really common concept in Britain, it is less so in America. No British politician since the early 1960s would ever give a press confrence and say "I did not have sexual relations with that woman," because everyone would immediately say to themselves "Well he ..."

I think it would help if the example was changed to one of a crime such as a ponzy scheme where it can be emphasised that after a court finds the ringleader guilty there is no need to publish the ringleader's continued denial because it is a more delineated example. I think that would help deflate the concerns that some people have with the current wording. There will then be one example covering sexual conduct denial (from the original use) and another example which is slightly different to show its use in other areas such as crime and fanancial irregularities.

-- PBS (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You make good points. There is also the line of thought that if the government denies something it must be true. Etc. One of the first times I came across MANDY was at the North Korea article. The argument was that the regime's denial of human rights issues was superfluous. In fact, what the regime said and didn't say was revealing. It actually said there were human rights problems. It also asserts that it believes in human rights and didn't argue for a Asian values position. Furthermore it put out a video attacking the credibility of one of the key witnesses in the UN enquiry, Shin Dong-hyuk. These are points that are worthwhile to make, albeit briefly.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I might suggest also adding "negative" examples where MANDY should not be used. For example, the UN just put out a report that claims China made human rights violations in the Ugyhun people. Nearly every source is reporting on the UN with broad support of thise claims,and while i have seen China say they did not, this is not appearing as many sources. however, as we are talking world politics, trying to bury China's response by saying MANDY applies would be nonsensical. Masem (t) 23:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The whole thrust of the essay is nonsensical in that it implies simply noting that the accused entity denies the accusation is a major blight on the article in question. Nowhere does it explain what the problem actually is. It implies that denial is equal to confirmation which is absolutely ridiculous. If I deny being a super model that does not imply that I am one. And I do deny that imputation.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's... a complete misreading of the essay. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:51, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea where you got that interpretation from. This essay has a very informative nutshell, which reads:

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.

Or in other words, in a situation where someone issues a bare denial in a vacuum, that wouldn't be covered as a confirmation or denial of anything. It's simply not a reliable source and shouldn't appear in the article at all. But that's not how these things happen: almost always, there's a lot of coverage in RS of the accusation or incident, versus (often) just a bare denial by the subject. In these situations, the denial by itself is still not a reliable source and still shouldn't appear in the article. Loki (talk) 17:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What you've written makes no sense at all—and it perfectly highlights the problem with MANDY, which tries to claim that a person is not a "reliable source" when denying accusations. Except that's not how WP:RS works at all. If the NYT reports that Kim Jong-Un made a direct threat of nuclear war, we don't question how reliable a source Kim is, but rather how reliable the NYT is. It would be idiotic to exclude Kim's public threat by claiming that Kim is himself not a "reliable source" for threats—or by saying "Well, of course Kim would say that, wouldn't he?" Unless there's compelling evidence that the NYT misquoted him, it's fair game (although obviously issues other than reliability, such as WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE, come into play). And therein lies the problem with MANDY: we report what's reported on by WP:RS—we don't decide whether the people they choose to quote are themselves reliable, biased, etc. But the essay and its guidance confuses (and even conflates) the two. ElleTheBelle 19:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
we don't decide whether the people they choose to quote are themselves reliable, biased, etc.
Er, yes we do. All the time! That's part of what WP:DUE is all about, we don't quote statements that would give undue balance to a minority/fringe opinion.
To put this in another perspective, using your example: if tomorrow, Kim Jong-Un made another threat to fire a missile at Japan, that'd be a "dog bites man" story. It's so common we wouldn't add it to the article, because it's already known he does that all the time. Now, if Japan threatened to fire a missile North Korea, that'd be a "man bites dog" story: absolutely unusual and worth noting.
Hence, this article: we don't need to quote & cite every denial of wrongdoing because the vast majority of people deny they've done something wrong when accused. It's more notable if they admit to wrongdoing. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're misrepresenting my argument, which specifically acknowledged the separate issue of WP:DUE. And—precisely as I pointed out—you're conflating reliability with what's due. My issue with MANDY has nothing to do with what's due. It's that, contra MANDY, we do not base decisions of whether to include reliably sourced quotations in articles based on the reliability of the quoted individual—if we did, no quote of Trump's would ever be tolerated in a Wikipedia article.
And your last argument is pure straw-man: no one suggests that we should include every denial, any more than we should every accusation—but, when widely quoted by RS, we shouldn't exclude denials simply because people who issue them are supposedly "unreliable" as "a source on themselves". It would be preposterous to suggest that Justice Kavanaugh is inherently less of a "reliable source" than Christine Blasey-Ford on the subject of her accusation — after all, both individuals are acting as "sources on themselves"—yet MANDY demands we include the latter and exclude the former. That would be absurd—and, ironically, a perfect example of WP:FALSEBALANCE, to boot. ElleTheBelle 21:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not misrepresenting anything. I believe you have a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:DUE, which is leading to this disagreement. Also, going straight to accusing me of a strawman argument is laughable.
Your Kavanaugh example demonstrates the problem: we are not "demanding" that anyone be included or excluded with this essay. That is the fundamental flaw in your reading of this essay. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but for slightly different reasons, as per above. Wouldn't we be better served by something more empirically provable than whether someone who denies being a "white nationalist" or a "anti-vaxxer" actually qualifies as one? Both terms are inherently nebulous, hot-button labels—and whether they apply to any number of people is the subject of numerous current debates. I find it baffling that an article which attempts to give clear advice uses such unnecessarily controversial and hard-to-define terms. One might as well throw in "socialist", "fascist", or "racist". Is there any good reason not to stick with provable, clear examples of the sort Lord Astor employed: adultery, crime, etc.? Thanks! ElleTheBelle 18:51, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That topic has had numerous debates to get to our current consensus: terms like "white nationalist," "anti-vaxxer," etc. must be impeccably sourced to reliable sources in order to be stated in wikivoice. To be frank, if we've found enough reliable sources willing to flat out label someone such a strong term, their denial of such a label would be a great example of why this essay exists: of course they deny it, because it looks bad for them. But the evidence shows the label applies, so their denial rings hollow. Frankly it'd be more surprising if they accept the label, and that would be more noteworthy within the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense: it's obviously a subjective claim and "impeccably" reliable sources wildly disagree about the application of white nationalists. Our encyclopedia states: "White nationalists say they seek to ensure the survival of the white race, and the cultures of historically white states." So is someone who doesn't say that not a "white nationalist"? Is anyone who wants to "ensure the survival" of France's "culture" a "white nationalist"? Merriam-Webster limits it to those "who espouse white supremacy and advocate enforced racial segregation"—seemingly making it impossible to be a "closet" white supremacist. Why would you be "surprised" if someone who "advocated for forced racial segregation" agreed they were a "white nationalist"—can you think of a singe example? One is certainly hard-pressed to think of other "nationalists" who deny their nationalism. Not to mention that a Federal court found the NYT's use of "white nationalist" to describe a journalist wasn't in any way a factual claim, but simply an opinion. To pretend that, just because some reliable sources have used the term, it's as clear-cut as, say, those who have committed adultery is the height of silliness. But putting aside your impassioned defense: what is the advantage of using an obviously subjective and hot-button term? ElleTheBelle 20:21, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My statement was simply to explain current consensus to you. If you disagree with current consensus, try to get it changed. I suggest the Village Pump.
As an aside, if you think my statement was an impassioned defense, I would suggest you're projecting. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This essay is not "current consensus". WP:DENIALS is, as it is part of the BLP policy. And comparing accusations of wrongdoing to other newsworthy events is itself a false equivalency. The fact that stuff about a living person is different is entirely why BLP exists. Crossroads -talk- 03:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the consensus that HandThatFeeds was referring to is your favourite MOS:LABEL, and not this essay. The DENIALS part of WP:PUBLICFIGURE is still subservient to WP:NPOV. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One of our current broad problems is that we editors as a whole love to pile on negative commentary particularly on those that "deserve" it, and which is usually backed by a RS or more. What this has led to is we have a lot of cherry-picked negative commentary that may be backed by two or three sources but not widely in RSes about that topic. There's an UNDUE problem with this type of inclusion, but until we can figure out how to remedy that, essays like MANDY can be used with this type of cherry picking to prevent trying to fix make a topic more neutral about the subject. (When a negative commentary is used routinely across a wide swath of sources, it is bound that some of those sources will provide the counter argument to overcome the MANDY issue). It's why MANDY needs to be carefully worded and used. Masem (t) 03:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I disagree. If anything we have become much more careful about accurately reflecting weight and coverage in high-quality reliable sourcing in recent years. I think the more serious problem is that large parts of the US-going audience are increasingly distrustful of the mainstream media, academia, and most other places we would consider to be high-quality unbiased sources. This leads to them distrusting that coverage and frantically digging for anything they can find to counterbalance and discredit it, putting WP:UNDUE weight on marginal or even entirely unreliable things in an effort to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS simply because doing so reflects their worldview. The most important thing is that we accurately reflect the weight and focus of the sources; we should be extremely skeptical of emotion-driven arguments to "correct" what the sources say. Those arguments (which are most of what I've seen people make when trying to dismiss negative coverage that goes against their personal beliefs) are a more serious threat to WP:NPOV than simply reflecting coverage neutrally and accurately. Some people will always feel a writhing emotional sense of distaste in their gut whenever any sources call anyone a "white nationalist" or the like, and will therefore desperately seek any rationale to avoid accurately reflecting that coverage, no matter how comprehensive and unanimous the sourcing is. And from their perspective this even makes sense - after all, they fundamentally reject the reliability and neutrality of what we would consider WP:RSes as a whole, and particularly will automatically consider a source biased whenever it uses those terms in the article voice. But that position is at its heart a circular argument that would make every source they disagree with unusable; by that logic, no source is ever good enough to call someone a white nationalist because they believe no reliable sources would ever do so. It is extremely important that we reject that argument, since it is fundamentally, at its core, WP:TENDENTIOUS in that would ultimately, intentionally or not, force Wikipedia coverage to reflect their personal beliefs, feelings, and opinions at the expense of accurately reflecting reliable sources. --Aquillion (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You missed my point even though you reiterate it: we need to reflect weight of sources, yes, but that absolutely means we must watch out for cherry picking of 1, 2 or 3 sources to try to back a point that may not be sufficiently broad across all sources covering it. And if we're only going to rely on a couple of sources to bring up certain claims and accusations against a person, then by no means is one source defending themselves a problem in that scenario (but my point is that we shouldn't include that type of situation in the first place). I've seen enough BLP where editors want to force "right-wing" on an article when only 3 or 4 sources call that up among hundreds, in which case that should at best should be a sidenote in the body with attribution.
When a majority of high quality sources all make the same type of claim or accusation against a person or group then we are clearly in MANDY territory, but it is rarely demonstrated by editors that such a majority exists, instead just linking lots of sources. We have a responsibility to reflect majority opinions of the RSes but we have to make sure those are majority opinions. Masem (t) 14:55, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sad to say, most editors in contentious topics either have not read or do not care about a wide cross section of RS narratives. In current events and recent history, look at the sorts of references that are provided. Rarely a book or published academic scrutiny. Even among periodicals, why would anyone cite USA Today, CNBC, and similar low-grade dailies for significant facts about social or political issues? SPECIFICO talk 16:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on self-published rebuttals/denials[edit]

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) 03:09, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Categories