Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies does not apply



The Wikipedia essay WP:Mandy Rice-Davies applies, abbreviated as MANDY, argues that when Wikipedia articles about living public figures mention an accusation of bad behavior, Wikipedia does not necessarily need to include their denial. Like all essays, MANDY presents the views of its authors and it is not a Wikipedia policy; it should be interpreted in conformity with policy.

MANDY has been used on many occasions to explain the removal or omission of denials, based on the assertion that such content is insignificant or creates "false balance", despite those denials having been widely reported in reliable sources. However, proper balance and weight can almost always be achieved by expanding our description of an allegation or conversely by shrinking our description of its denial, without omitting the denial entirely; comments showing how secondary sources report the denial can also be included, per WP:NPOV. Moreover, the WP:Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) policy does not require denials be mentioned if a person has been "convicted by a court of law", in which case they can be presumed guilty.

The validity or invalidity of MANDY has been debated extensively by Wikipedia editors. Among their concerns is that MANDY contradicts part of our BLP policy which currently states that when allegations are sourced well enough to be included in a BLP article, then "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too."

The most common inference from the absence of a denial is that the accusation is true, so omitting a denial is a very serious matter. People who oppose a right of reply should at least acknowledge that WP:BLP takes a different position than they do, when it comes to denials.

Counterargument to MANDY
The MANDY essay says that a person denying an accusation will often have "no credibility", supposedly because it's in their interest to deny it. However, many people who hold certain positions will readily admit that they are white nationalists, anti-vaccination activists, and so forth. Others will deny accusations with qualifications or with equivocation. Still others may simply decline to comment on an accusation.

If we do not accompany an accusation with its denial, then our readers by and large will not assume the existence of one. This is especially true of readers who also are accustomed to the journalistic standard of including denials. Failing to include a denial in an encyclopedia hence could mislead readers who might conclude that the subject did not deny the accusation. Nor does the famous remark of Ms. Rice-Davies ("well he would, wouldn't he?") suggest that she felt it improper for Astor's denial to be described in court, in newspapers, or anywhere else, only that she held his untruth to be self-evident.

Wikipedia's role, as an encyclopedia, is to summarize the significant perspectives on a topic in proportion to their weight in reliable sources, not to be arbiter of what is "the truth". Wikipedia articles are not court trials. As the second pillar states, "We strive for articles in an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight for their prominence. We avoid advocacy, and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as 'the truth' or 'the best view'." Due weight says that we omit fringe views except in articles devoted to those views, but a denial will typically be covered widely enough to merit at least a brief mention to reflect mainstream due weight, even in a Wikipedia article that is not entirely devoted to the subject who is being accused. Immediately after a paragraph describing how someone was caught on camera committing a crime, due weight may call for saying simply that "X denies that he is the person in the footage", or merely "she denies it". That requires less space than standard information such as death date, death location, or middle name of a person long dead, none of which has ever been considered undue weight even if sourced to only a single reliable source; the fact that an accusation has been denied is just as indisputable as any other standard information. The denial should be mentioned, lest readers think that the person does not dispute the allegations (like 94% of criminal defendants in the United States ) or that they have said nothing on the matter. Even a denial that is patently absurd can still be of encyclopedic relevance or may be even more noteworthy because of its absurdity.

As with all unlikely perspectives, Wikipedia describing a view does not mean that Wikipedia endorses it. We describe the view of people who think that the Earth is flat, but we present that alongside the overwhelming well-sourced evidence against that view. Likewise, if we spend several sentences explaining all of the reliable sources that say X is a white nationalist, a subsequent "X rejects the label of a white nationalist" will not prevent readers from reaching a reasonable conclusion. A short denial takes up a tiny amount of article space (usually just a few words) and omitting those words could suggest to some readers that the subject hasn't denied it, while other readers who know about the denial could infer that it is being omitted here because Wikipedia judges X to be dishonest about the denial. In no way does including a short denial "legitimize" a fringe view as MANDY claims.

If our article text excludes a verified denial, our readers might conclude that the allegation is true. BLP policy says that, "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law", and one of the purposes of WP:DENIALS is to affirm this principle which also applies to other allegations or characterizations of a living person.

The most problematic sentence
The last sentence of WP:MANDY presents the greatest difficulties: "If a reliable source has checked the denial and confirmed its basis in fact or discussed its credibility, we can certainly say so, but if the only statement is that 'X denies the accusations' then we don't need to include it because, well, he would, wouldn't he?"

Our requirement that material in an article be reliably sourced does not mean we need to establish the validity of a denial, only that the subject made it. Any characterization of its credibility found in reliable sources would of course also normally be included, but in any case this is not a reason to exclude the denial. The BLP policy section at DENIALS states that such denials should be included, and that should be done while (not "if there is a way of") always giving due weight and balance.

As noted earlier, denials are typically published in reliable secondary sources (RS). Even if every RS in the world reports a bare denial without elaborating upon it, then this part of MANDY might be cited to contend that we don't need to include it in a BLP. This point of view overlooks the fact that it is up to reliable sources, not Wikipedia editors, what is noteworthy to include in articles on the subject. To exclude denials found in published reliable sources amounts to a form of original research where editors presume they know better than the reliable sources what should be mentioned, and often constitutes undue weight in favor of the accusations. Wikipedia's policy on neutrality also says that we should not be "excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view".

The last sentence of WP:MANDY says that denials are not worth mentioning unless an RS "discussed its credibility". However, an RS might well have investigated credibility before publication of a bare denial and found it unnecessary to discuss further, even while considering the denial worth publishing.

The historical episode from 1963
The MANDY essay makes use of a historical episode from 1963, quoting a figure in the Profumo affair named Mandy Rice-Davies. She said in 1963 that Lord Astor would obviously deny having had an affair with her. In the context of Lord Astor, and in a court case, this may have been obvious to Ms. Rice-Davies based partly upon her firsthand observations of Astor's character, not just because of her general views on human nature. Either way, as already described here, it is not the case that all people will deny all accusations.

It is unfortunate that the MANDY essay is built around a historical episode from 1963 having limited relevance, as there is no evidence Rice-Davies disapproved of Astor's denial being published anywhere. On the contrary, her famous response suggests that she expected to hear a denial from him and would have been surprised not to. The present question at Wikipedia would be better framed and debated without reference to the history from 1963.

In this present debate, it is often argued that a denial from an accused person may be so self-serving as to be useless. Even if that is sometimes the case, the omission of such denial would be worse than useless, because the omission may create the perception that no denial has been issued and that the person is therefore guilty.