 | This is an essay on the neutral point of view and biographies of living persons policies. 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. |
 | This page in a nutshell: If someone has denied unsavory allegations — though such a denial may not merit being given equal weight in an article — the denial should still be included. Wikipedia is not a courtroom, and editors should follow reliable sources in mentioning a denial, whereas omitting a denial can mislead readers who expect one to be included if it exists as is done by mainstream media. |
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.[a] 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."[b]
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.[1] 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.
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).
- ^ Bilmes, Jack (1988). "The concept of preference in conversation analysis". Language in Society. 17 (2). Cambridge University Press (CUP): 167. doi:10.1017/s0047404500012744. ISSN 0047-4045.
If one fails to deny an accusation, a denial is noticeably absent and is a cause for inference, the most common inference being that the accusation is true.