Talk:Amber Heard

Untitled

Non-neutral point of view vanity page? Everything is written in a promotional tone like it was posted by her agent. 140.247.251.213 (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Well, either this is taken from http://www.amber-heard.net/info/bio.php or they took it from here, or maybe it's from somewhere else. It definitely has POV and referencing problems. From the dates, I believe they took it from here (and placed an invalid copyright tag on it), but I'm not sure, since amber-heard.net doesn't have history info (although I will check the Internet Archive later). Either way, this article needs a whole lot of work -- I'll try to take a shot at it tonight. Thanks for the comment! -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 23:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing

This article is in dire need of sourcing, and it's somewhat suspicious in that regard. Articles this well-written yet lacking sources is a big red flag indicating, as has been suggested above this section, that the material has been copied and pasted from that fanpage. Even with someone's rewrite, the content is still obviously from it, so I tagged the article as a close paraphrase.

Also, in regard to the quotes I removed, they made the article sound like an autobio, and if you quote someone word for word, it definitely requires a legit source.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 03:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Gay rights

Her relationship with Tasya van Ree (girlfriend) needs to be mentioned, as well as their activism for gay rights and other acts of philanthropy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.73.138.113 (talk) 12:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Got a reliable source? Tabercil (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Life.com refers to them as girlfriends 3 times (photos from August 19th, 2010):

http://www.life.com/image/103474561

http://www.life.com/image/103474563

http://www.life.com/image/103474548 —Preceding unsigned comment added by EBLCLA (talk • contribs) 00:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Tasya van Ree also posted this article on her blog:

http://tasyavanree.com/news/isabel-lucas-matt-dallas-tasya-van-ree-art-exhibition

- The article says "Tasya was also supported by her girlfriend, Zombieland babe Amber Heard. What a staggering hot couple!". Tasya obviously does not deny this if she posted it.

From one of Tasya's interviews with AfterEllen.com (a website for lesbian and bisexual women): "One of her frequent subjects is actress Amber Heard, who she references as her "muse." She told us that Amber is to her as "Gala is to Salvador Dali, Kiki de Montparnasse is to Man Ray, Beatrice is to Dante Alighieri." All the couples she refers to were lovers.

http://www.afterellen.com/people/2010/8/tasya-van-ree?page=0,1

Amber Heard's "Charity" page on her official website:

http://amberheardofficial.com/charity-3/

Impartiality

The modification: ("She is in a relationship with Arthur Wybrands, a young French-American producer. In April 2009, rumors spread about a supposed engagement but were immediately contradicted by Amber Heard's representative at Hyler Management, to protect their privacy.")

A modification was made by the IP address 78.3.25.0 (was found near Osijek, Osjecko-Baranjska located in Croatia) and Arthur Wybrands, supposed boyfriend (only source: wikipedia) is in Croatia right now (www.twitter.com/tchit). Coincidence ? I don't think so ! If he has proof, we need it to source this allegation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.99.59.96 (talk) 10:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Sexuality

Please refrain from changing Amber Heard's sexuality to "bisexual." The host of Top Gear labeling her as such without giving her a chance to respond does not make it so.

Printed on the invitations to the GLAAD 25th:

"Jonathan Murray, Executive Producer of the Real World and Project Runway, will be presented with the Pioneer Award by Amber Heard – the openly lesbian actress starring with Johnny Depp in Rum Diary and Nicholas Cage in Drive Angry 3D."

http://www.autostraddle.com/who-is-lesbian-amber-heard-68775/

JulianneStenzel (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

As if that information was not given to the BBC in a blurb from her manager? hmmm... There are a variety of ironies having to do with your assumptions, and I wont mention them... suffice it to say that if she genuinely wanted to be mentioned as "a lesbian" as opposed to "a bisexual" it would have been made ABUNDANTLY clear LONG before the previous wednesday when this was filmed.... and AFTER the interview (since the show is NOT live, its filmed a week before hand). I am not debating your claim. At the very least we can say that she is CURRENTLY dating a women, and therefore for all intents and purposes, she is a lesbian "at the moment." but, she is also 24 years old. No matter how vocal she is at the moment, and no matter how great this sounds for lesbians and gay groups, I wouldnt bet the farm on her having a politically outspoken career as a lesbian activist. This kind of hearkens back to that irony I mentioned earlier, lol.68.6.76.31 (talk) 10:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Jeremy Clarkson labeled her as bisexual at the very beginning, and at the very end of the interview, both times she was unable to respond even if she wanted to. The fact that it is filmed in advance is irrelevant, because the way it was said it wasn't possible to edit out. Her coming out at GLAAD was something that was planned far in advance and all of the media information given at the event indicated that she identifies as a lesbian. Coming out as a lesbian could potentially have a much greater negative effect on her career vs coming out as a bisexual, and if they were mistaken in labeling her, GLAAD or Amber would have put out a correction before the news went mainstream. JulianneStenzel (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

You may very well be correct, but I'm not seeing any reliable sources to back up what you're saying, so it's all conjecture or speculation, which on Wikipedia falls under original research and can not be used. Note that I am not saying it would be appropriate for Wikipedia to label her bisexual either. The word of this one host does not carry more weight than the several other outlets who labelled her a lesbian. But the point of the WP:BLP policy regarding sexuality and religion is to allow each individial to define themselves. And since Heard has so far refrained from clearly labelling herself, Wikipedia shouldn't either. Siawase (talk) 12:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

From what I can find, there are no interviews or statements in reliable sources where Heard actually self-identifies as a lesbian (or bisexual for that matter.) GLAAD's website has a good list of media coverage of her coming out (scroll down to the bottom of that page) and most of those sources say she came out as a lesbian, but looking at AfterEllen which was the only outlet that spoke to her directly, the closest she comes to self-identifying is: "I hate the idea of a label just as much as anyone else but I’m with who I’m with, I love who I love." The article text could perhaps be more precise in describing the situation. Also per WP:BLPCAT ("Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question") she probably should not be listed in the lesbian category. Siawase (talk) 13:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Her interview with Metro from yesterday makes it clear that it's not some sort of omission or mistake that she hasn't labelled herself earlier, but rather that this is how she identifies herself: "I don’t label myself one way or another – I have had successful relationships with men and now a woman. I love who I love, it’s the person that matters."[1] I have edited the article accoridngly, removing all labels (and adding that quote.) I removed the lesbian category but left the non-specific LGBT category in place. Siawase (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Bisexual label

Merely having had affairs with men and women does not mean that it is appropriate to label a living person as "bisexual", especially in light of the fact that Heard has stated that she rejects labels. This has already been argued into the sun in the talk page archives of List of bisexual people, and on the talk page archives of the Bjork article. Consensous was already reached that it is not appropriate given wikipedias BLP rules to label someone bi if they did not label themselves bi. I'd really rather not have to go through all that again. Asarelah (talk) 03:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Lol. This is an absolutely ridiculous issue. What difference does it make that she doesn't label herself as bisexual? This quote from the page pretty much sums it up: "She has said about her sexuality: "I don't label myself one way or another – I have had successful relationships with men and now a woman. I love who I love; it's the person that matters."[11] That is the definition of bisexual. I don't label myself as a white male, yet I am one without much debate. I am white. I am male. If you have relationships with both sexes, you are bisexual. From dictionary.com: a bisexual is "a person sexually responsive to both sexes". Um, therefore, without much debate, she's very clearly bisexual. This is absurd. Donmike10 (talk) 05:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Its irrelevant whether or not you find it absurd. She has made it clear that she does not want to label herself, and it is a violation of the biographies of living people rules to label her with something that she rejects. I suggest you read the talk page archives of the two articles I linked to. Wiki consensus on this issue has already been well established. If you feel you must press the issue I will put in a request for comment. Asarelah (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you really think this is not absurd? Really? She is bisexual by the textbook definition. Who cares how one talks about themselves? Are we to go through every single category on this site and only give the labels to those who "label" themselves as such?" This is one of the funniest issues I've ever seen on this site. Did every one of these people label themselves as bisexual: Henry Ainley Lior Ashkenazi B Bai Ling Josephine Baker Tallulah Bankhead Amanda Barrie Drew Barrymore Alan Bates Julian Beck El Hedi ben Salem Brenda Benet Anita Berber Helmut Berger Sandra Bernhard Thane Bettany Bif Naked David Bowie Jeremy Brett Jean-Claude Brialy Joy Brook Erin Brown Carrie Brownstein Kathleen Bryson Horst Buchholz Saffron Burrows C Judy Carne Jack Cassidy Leslie Cheung Margaret Cho Pierre Clémenti Jackie Clune Cyril Collard Alan Cumming D Grover Dale Joe Dallesandro Blyth Daly Ruby Dandridge Bella Darvi Stringer Davis D cont. Andy Dick Marlene Dietrich Marie Dorval Eleonora Duse E Denholm Elliott Eric Emerson Raúl Esparza F Jonah Falcon Peggy Fears Megan Fox G Alison Garrigan Erica Gavin Will Geer Thea Gill Julie Goodyear Jessica Graham Gustaf Gründgens H Laurence Harvey Hurd Hatfield Louis Hayward Anne Heche Josephine Hutchinson J Duncan James Casey Johnson Van Johnson Angelina Jolie K Florina Kaja L Charles Laughton Peter Max Lawrence Sook-Yin Lee Iyari Limon Kristanna Loken M Kenneth MacKenna Mike Manning (actor) Scott Marlowe Christian Marquand Glesca Marshall Inge Meysel Yukio Mishima M cont. Frédéric Mitterrand Albert Mol Megan Mullally Ona Munson N Alla Nazimova Cynthia Nixon Cyril Nri O Blanche Oelrichs Ondine (actor) P Pierre Palmade Anna Paquin Anthony Perkins Brock Pierce Mimi Pollak Dennis Price R James Rado Dack Rambo Mlle Raucourt Gene Raymond Michael Redgrave Jerome Robbins Gabriel Romero Ada Dwyer Russell S Pam St. Clement Maria Schneider (actress) Stephanie Sellars Ramses Shaffy Kate Siegel Ione Skye Ada "Bricktop" Smith T Olivia Thirlby Margaret Tu Chuan V Patricia Velásquez Gore Vidal Jon Vincent W Dreya Weber Mike White (scriptwriter) Evan Rachel Wood

Um - short answer, no. They have sex, or had, with both sexes. Therefore, they are bisexual. Not too complicated. Who cares how people label themselves. With your apples to oranges argument, some help here. If an African American doesn't label himself as such, he still is. The fact is, whatever you are, you are. Donmike10 (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The biographies of living people rule say otherwise. By the way, plenty of porn actresses have sex with women, do you honestly think they are all genuinely bisexual? Plenty of lesbians were married to men before they came out as well. Again, please read the talk page archives that I put up, because like I said, this has been debated into the sun. Furthermore, even if this was analagous to race (which it isn't), race isn't exactly cut and dried either. Ever hear of the One-drop rule? Please also see here [2] for the BLP rules, which clearly state:

"Categories regarding sexual orientation of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question (see WP:BLPCAT)."

Anyway, since you're clearly dead set on this, I'm putting in for an RFC on the issue.

Request for comment: Donmike10 believes that Heard should be in the bisexual category due to her admission of affairs with men and women, whereas I believe she should not be since she has stated that she rejects labels. I am requesting input. Asarelah (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I am 100% behind Donmike10 on this. Everything we write about anyone is a "label", and she may not like to use "labels" in her personal life, but that doesn't mean we should kowtow to her whims. She could say "I don't exist"--would that mean that we should delete her article because there's now no such person? Of course not. What if she said she didn't identify as an actress? She has acted in movies, therefore she is an actress. She has relationships with both sexes, therefore she is bisexual. End of story. --Jtle515 (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

From Daniel Day-Lewis on Inside the Actor's Studio: "I'm an artist, not an actor." I guess we're going to have to remove the actor label from his page. Donmike10 (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• comment What do the sources state? Do any label her as bisexual? If so then yes put her in bisexual category. I agree with Jtle515 that we are not here to edit to others whims. SD (talk contribs) 00:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It isn't a whim, the biographies of living people clearly state that labels pertaining to religion and sexual orientation must be self-identified by the subject in question. Period. This isn't comperable to her stating that she isn't an actress, or that she doesn't exist, this is a matter of the Wikipedia rules. She expressly rejects labeling herself. I would also like to point out that there are people who have relationships with men and women but reject the label of bisexual in favor of pansexual because they regard the term bisexual as being too excluding of people who's gender doesn't fall neatly within the binary. Asarelah (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Looking at WP:RS I'm not seeing any articles in which she is the primary topic of the article in which she is labelled/called bisexual. There are a couple where she's in a list of other people mentioned in passing (i.e.[3]). So we shouldn't use the label. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• I alerted WikiProject LGBT studies about this discussion. Siawase (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• In general, WP:LGBT sticks pretty strictly to BLP on these issues. See Little Richard for an example.

That being said, Heard may not like the *label* "bisexual", but she freely admits to relationships with both men and women. In her case, I think the category is acceptable, though the text of the article should include the full explanation. This seems to be something akin to "I don't call myself a catholic, but I attend St. Mary's Catholic church" - one would be inclined to use the category. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Kind of a bad comparison, my brother attends Jewish relgious services to please my Mom, and he's a Satanist, lol. Asarelah (talk) 00:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: According to [4] she announced (ie self-identified) that she was a "lesbian" - not bisexual. In the absence of a specific reference where she explicitly self-identifies as bisexual, I think that we should categorise here as lesbian, not bisexual. As far as labels go, she "hate[s] the idea of a label" and "don’t label myself one way or another" but she does not reject the label that others apply, so I don't believe her dislike of labels prevents us for using the label. (If she rejected labels, it would be different, but she does not.) Mitch Ames (talk) 12:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

That source labelled her a lesbian based upon her being in a relationship with a woman. And she clarified the error by explaining herself very clearly. Asarelah (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Can we have a citation for "she clarified the error by explaining herself very clearly", preferably one quoting her verbatim. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• • I understand the argument - it's very considerate and takes into account her feelings about the label, but it simply does not work here. Look over every person actor or model, living or dead, who are classified as "bisexual". How many of them really used the label on themselves and how many simply were bisexual (definition: had sex with both sexes)? Many actors do not identify as being actors and instead choose to be called artists. Many others simply say that labels do not define them, but we can not simply adhere to everyone's wishes about how he or she would like to be identified in front of obvious descriptions about who they are? The girl is bisexual. She's had sex (and in her case, relationships, with both sexes. Pretty simple. African-American baseball players may not always identify as such, but we don't really need citations to say that they are. They may prefer biracial if they have mixed blood or say that that does not categorize them properly. We can not look to how people only identify themselves or we would need to make changes on every single page on here to every single category on here if a person never said they are something that, by definition, they are. Donmike10 (talk) 15:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
    • If you disagree with what seems to be a fairly clear BLP rule (do not categorize unless the subject self-identifies), you should probably discuss the matter on the BLP talk page, rather than here. This page is not hte place to discuss changing the rules. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the BLP rules state clearly that specific LGBT labels cannot be used on people who reject them. I have, in fact, personally expounged the bisexual label from countless articles where a living person did not accept the label. If you read the talk pages I linked to at the opening of this dicussion, you'll see the debates I've gotten because of it. Furthermore, I'd like to point out that the BLP rules apply only to religious and LGBT labels, not to race or occupation. Nobody is proposing removing those labels from articles, just religious and LGBT ones. I also reiterate my point that one can have relationships with both sexes and not actually be bi, Wanda Sykes being one such example. Asarelah (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Could you quote the relevant section (that says "specific LGBT labels cannot be used on people who reject them") of the BLP rules please, and point out exactly where it is. I can't find it. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It didn't say that expressly, but that was my interpretation of the rules. It states that the individual "must publicly self-identify with the label in question and it must be relevant to their public life". Its clear that she doesn't identify as a heterosexual, and that it is relevant to her public life, but she doesn't label herself beyond that. I propose a non-specific LGBT label instead. Bisexual actors and bisexual models could be placed in the broader category of LGBT actors and LGBT models. Asarelah (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I realize this discussion is probably done, but I just wanted to say that 'sexual responsiveness' is normally interpreted as positive sexual reaction, such as sexual attraction, not necessarily direct relationships or even sexual activity. I thought this should be pretty obvious. Someone can be sexually attracted only to the same sex but have had minimal to no sexual intercourse with them, but they would still be homosexual. Likewise, someone can be sexually attracted to both sexes but only have had sex with one gender, but they would still be bisexual.

Anyway, in identifying Amber Heard's sexuality, it is imperative that we go by what is explicitly stated, or failing that, what has been said that is relevant enough, but do not label her based on actions which do not necessarily imply anything. So if she never explicitly stated she is a lesbian, we should not write that she is. And if she has dated both males and females, that does not mean she is bisexual. She did make a claim regarding her view on sexual labels, which is relevant enough and so should be included. --Xagg (talk) 15:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Taken to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

I came across this issue several days ago, and finally decided to take it to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Listing Amber Heard in Category:Bisexual actors.[5] I am also of the opinion that we shouldn't label Heard as bisexual, when she doesn't publicly identify as such. I don't see why this article should violate policy, when others, such as Aubrey O'Day, follow it. This is not like labeling someone a "race"/ethnicity, seeing as that is more of a solid listing while sexuality and therefore applying a sexual orientation is more complicated. As Asarelah stated, plenty of gay men and lesbians have had sex and/or romantic relationships with the opposite sex (in fact, most have) and it doesn't make those gay men and lesbians bisexual. If they were to say that those relationships were successful, that doesn't mean that they are bisexual either. Flyer22 (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

All that stated, GLAAD did state that she came out as lesbian. Either they had it wrong, and she came out without specifically naming her sexual orientation, or she soon decided that she didn't want to publicly identify anymore. Flyer22 (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Do we have categories of former religons or sexuality? If so then she should be in Category:Former LGBT. People change religon as well as sexual preference. Removing category until she re-states her sexual preference. As it is now she publicly states that she is not in this category.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Canoe1967, no, we don't have sexuality categories like that (also, most people don't truly change sexual orientation; it's rather that they change sexual identity). Further, Heard is a part of the LGBT community, as she even states in her interviews. See this one, where it was first revealed that she is a part of LGBT. It's just that she doesn't specify whether she is lesbian or bisexual. So I would say that she should stay in these categories you removed her from, although I of course agree with you removing her from the bisexual category since her sexual orientation is not specified by her. Flyer22 (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." From BLP CAT. She has indentified as not being in the categories so they should not be re-added. They are also not relevant to her public life or notability. Wikipedia is not a tabloid.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Canoe1967, I know what WP:BLPCAT states. But I'm saying that Heard rejecting specific sexual orientation labels does not make her not a part of the LGBT community. She came out as part of the LGBT community in 2010, as the source I provided shows, and she has not retracted on that. The fact is...she came out as part of the LGBT community while never specifically stating whether she is bisexual or lesbian. If she did specify as lesbian at that GLAAD event, as sources say she did, she soon only referred to herself as "coming out." This is why Asarelah, Siawase (see here) and myself have stated that it is fine to put her in the LGBT category. She also considers herself a LGBT role model, someone who can help LGBT visibility, which makes her sexual orientation relevant to her public life. I'm not going to press hard to have her in the LGBT category, however. I'm just letting you know why I believe that she fits in that one with regard to WP:BLPCAT. Flyer22 (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Update: The matter was resolved at the BLP noticeboard, and WP:Consensus was for keeping Heard in the LGBT categories...but removing her from the bisexual ones. The discussion goes over why. And this is the date it was archived. Flyer22 (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

awards and nominations

where it says "herself" should that not read the film that was nominated/got the award ? ☭ИΘИ ИΘЬЇS SΘLЦMтдлж^ЅТЦФФ 06:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Personal life

Doesn't she date Johnny Depp now ? I don't follow the gossip press on a regular basis, but it seems that their relationship is now officially confirmed and has been reported by "serious" media (at least that's what I understood ; maybe I'm mistaken). If so, it should be mentioned. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 07:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Johnny Depp

Yes, Depp and Heard are dating. There are plenty of sources to confirm it. I've added 5, and there is plenty more. It doesn't matter if Depp or Heard have confirmed it or not, as long as plenty of 'sources confirm it. That's how Wikipedia works. Now, if they denied it, that could be an issue, but they haven't, so, in it goes... - thewolfchild 23:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

No, what you added (though I reverted it) is not exactly how Wikipedia is supposed to work, which one or more editors at the WP:BLP noticeboard would tell you. Sources, reliable or not, "confirming" something about a living person is not the threshold for inclusion. If that were the case, then the part of WP:BLPCAT that states "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question" would not exist.

And reverting like this again is silly. You were supposed to follow WP:BRD. You want me to do your work, which is to take this matter to the WP:BLP noticeboard? Okay, I might. But I see now that Kww has reverted you. Your re-addition at the Johnny Depp‎ article will likely be reverted as well. Oh, and this, this, this and this are just four of the many examples where this type of material concerning Depp and Heard has been reverted/removed. Flyer22 (talk) 23:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)