Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-12-04/Humour

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost‎ | 2023-12-04

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by JPxG (talk | contribs) at 09:57, 24 December 2023 (Add next edition (via script)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
The Signpost
← Back to Contents
View Latest Issue


File:Mandy Rice-Davies Applies.jpg
Joop van Bilsen
PD
Humour

Mandy Rice-Davies Applies

Contribute   —  
Share this
By JPxG
Some people say that Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies applies.

Some say that Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies does not apply.

But at the end of the day, there's one thing we know for certain:


She would, wouldn't she?
← Previous "Humour"
Next "Humour" →
+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.
What? jp×g🗯️ 22:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, what? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"a voyeuristic attack on a woman, ridiculing her and denying her even the right to defend herself" Hey, bro, I hope she sees this. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mandy Rice-Davies died in 2014, Chris troutman. I agree with agr that the "humour" leaves a bad taste. Bishonen | tålk 04:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]
What? Cremastra (talk) 13:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to have caused a gratuitous amount of offense, including being blanked for a speedy deletion request not once but twice. I can understand not thinking it's funny — I would put it in the bottom decile of jokes I've made — but I have asked numerous times and failed to get any sort of explanation of the offense going on here. I asked some of my friends in real life, ranging across various ages and genders and political inclinations etc, to read this and see what the problem was (perhaps "Rice-Davies" is some kind of ethnic slur I've never heard about) and none of them could figure it out either. Nobody has been able, hitherto, to explain how "applying to a job" or "applying sunscreen" constitute any sort of attack on anybody's character.

It's really not that complicated of a joke.

I don't know, maybe this is my cow tools moment, but I am somewhat disturbed by the idea that if a joke isn't funny, it must actually be some kind of secret other joke, which is extremely offensive but also for some reason nobody can be bothered to explain how or why. What are you people talking about? jp×g🗯️ 04:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there has been "a speedy deletion request not once but twice", maybe that should raise a question mark in the thought process. If there is something that is upsetting people, it doesn't matter whether you see it as a problem or not: others do and it may be the easier and more peaceful path to delete this and move on. (For me, despite re-reading this three times, there's zero humour in this, which is probably as good a reason as any for deleting it). I'd be happy to add a speedy deletion request to give it a third strike if you'd like? - SchroCat (talk) 09:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so, to be clear, you are suggesting that an article must be retracted, out of process, if any random person says it should -- and not only that, but also that they do not even need to say a reason?
It has already been tagged (by the same person) twice and declined. Please feel free to take this to MfD, with the rationale of "I refuse to disclose a reason for why this needs to be deleted". jp×g🗯️ 10:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I’ve rather obviously not said that at all. Out of process? It’s a dead end page. It’s doesn’t need a process or court hearing to remove it: deleting and removing the pointless link on the front can be easily done. You obviously don’t want to - that’s fine, life’s too short to argue over pointless rubbish, but there’s no need for you to be so uber defensive about it. If you’re ok with it annoying or upsetting people, there’s nowt I can say that will change your mind. SchroCat (talk) 12:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a mild, and to me, totally inoffensive, pun on the word "applies". Perhaps too subtle for some. Definitely not worthy of the offense apparently taken. Lighten up folks, it is not sexist, racist or any of the other "isms" it is fashionable to take offense to these days. The worst you can reasonably claim is that it missed its target audience (zing), but this is Wikipedia, everything misses part of the audience. Cheers · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 10:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS, Trouts are in a bin at the door. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 10:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The real failure here was not giving her a beard, a robe, and a white Russian and captioning it "Mandy abides." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • This showed up on my watchlist just now. So far as I can tell, the point seems to be to riff on the existing page WP:MANDY. As there seem to be lots of editors who think they can do better, I suggest that the Signpost makes this into a caption contest. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Mandy's application to the 2023 Arbcom elections caught some editors off guard, but others said 'well, she would apply, wouldn't she?'" Peter Southwood sums up my views quite well; I found it funny, I accept others might not, but I can't see how on earth anyone could be offended by this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ms. Rice-Davis at the time of the photographs was an attractive young woman notorious for her sexual activities with famous persons, activities within her rights. She and her estate have some right to privacy. I do not see any justification for using her image on this page. On Wikipedia, her name has become a catch phrase for an important editorial debate on neutrality, but that is no justification for using her image as the target of sexist ridicule. If she were a man or an elderly woman would the joke work? --agr (talk) 16:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is the imagined application of sunscreen really sexist? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to the WP:MANDY, "Well, he would, wouldn't he?" is what Ms. Rice-Davis said about Lord Astor. Do you still consider it sexist if the genders are reversed? – bradv 17:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"If she were a man or an elderly woman would the joke work?" Yes, if you put a photoshop of Donald Trump applying suncream to himself with a witty caption, I'd probably laugh as well. I sort of get your point that if MRD was a low-profile individual subject to harassment who wanted to stay out of the limelight, then BLP and harassment concerns would be a reasonable viewpoint. But our article (backed up by reliable sources) stated she milked the attention for all that it was worth and compared herself to famous mistresses in history. You can't have it both ways. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTCENSORED. It's a joke.[citation needed][clarification needed][according to whom?][need quotation to verify][fact or opinion?][how?][buzzword] Respectfully: get over it! Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not sexist and its not ridicule. If she were a man or an elderly woman would the joke work? Absolutely. Cremastra (talk) 13:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WTF, people? It's just a really lame dad joke playing with the meaning of the word "applies" (she applies for a job, she applies sunscreen). It's not Groucho Marx, but it's certainly harmless humor and definitely not any sort of attack. If you don't think so, MFD is the right venue. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary culture seems dedicated to the proposition that outrage is a desirable emotion and should be sought at every opportunity. Smallchief (talk) 11:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You misspelled her name on the fake CV; it's Rice-Davies, not Rice-Davis. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 12:50, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BlackcurrantTea: Oh, hell. I missed that. Fixed! jp×g🗯️ 02:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What does applying for a job or applying sunscreen have to with applying some obscure Wikipedia "rules"? And what does Ms. Rice-Davies (who I, like 99% of living Americans, have never heard of) have to do with any of this? Why was she chosen for the joke? Why is the sunscreen branded "X", is this some swipe at Elon Musk's new name for Twitter? Sunscreen is a subtle hint about online reputation management? wbm1058 (talk) 14:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're overthinking this. The sunscreen is branded "X" because it's a standard placeholder, and see all the discussion for an explanation, once you've read WP:MANDY. 71.112.180.130 (talk) 15:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Well he would, wouldn't he?" is a famous quote? Really? Citation needed. Well, a girl needing a job would create a resume, wouldn't she? A girl lying on the beach in a bikini would want to wear sunscreen, wouldn't she? What's the point? wbm1058 (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wbm1058: No citation required: see The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations[1]. Nice try, though. ——Serial 16:04, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The citation I was looking for was for the alleged fact that this is a "famous" quotation. Are all quotations automatically made famous by their inclusion in a dictionary? If a quotation is truly famous, then you shouldn't need to look it up in a dictionary. wbm1058 (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You said "citation needed". Don't get haughty when provided with one. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@——Serial - And now with its own article. "Famous"[citation needed] or notable enough now? Eh? ;) Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great work @Tim O'Doherty and Voorts:, and yes, that should stymy any further splitting of hairs. Or it should, shouldn't it?  ;) ——Serial 16:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who in their right mind thinks those essays are about something that can be joked about?
Israel is accused of flooding the Gaza tunnels. Well they would, wouldn't they? Just sick. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...oookay? does anyone want to fulfil Godwin's law while we're on this type of topic? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 06:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think he's taking the piss lol. jp×g🗯️ 07:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I find this discussion far more interesting than the joke. Even after the joke was explained. -- llywrch (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, she wouldn't have an E-mail address, would she. The visual humor is fine. But the top image does not read well. I'm using an iPad; I had to go to the original image and expand that to see the page as a resume. And photo-shopped at that—no emails at the time the unaltered photo was snapped. That refers to the whole affair, a ginned-up controversy. Reading the top photo sets the viewer to read the second photo correctly. A hat trick, if you will—not puns—visual humor. B for the, what? Visual metaphors? D for the presentation—imagine how it reads on a cell phone. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 08:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC) —[reply]
  • Francisco de Goya - Dogs Chasing a Cat on a Man on a Donkey. Which one is the editor of The Signpost?
    Francisco de Goya - Dogs Chasing a Cat on a Man on a Donkey. Which one is the editor of The Signpost?

Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:35, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a man in the middle attack. But the Signpost editor is obviously the cat, above the fray. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 20:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC) —[reply]
Visual humor should be a regular feature in Signpost. Hmmm, what metaphorically pairs with an image of "dead pig in the sunshine"? — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 20:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC) —[reply]
Funny, stupid, and not offensive at all, except in how bad the pun is.Andre🚐 04:53, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Want the latest Signpost delivered to your talk page each month?
  1. ^ https://www-oxfordreference-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/display/10.1093/acref/9780199237173.001.0001/q-author-00001-00002860?rskey=sNUpqj&result=3
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-12-04/Humour&oldid=1191570330"