Talk:Depp v. Heard

Urgent need for editor input!

This case is ongoing and expected to last for the next 6 weeks. Currently, the section on pre-recorded testimony includes information on just one of the testimonies seen by 15 April, and the facts mentioned seem to have been cherry-picked to include only the info seemingly favorable to one of the parties. There is an urgent need for editors who could help update the article in a balanced way. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 08:47, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Late reply here, but I suggest maybe having one paragraph each for both Heard's and Depp's responses/actions in the trial, and another paragraph which documents general statements. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 05:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

nonsense
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
lmao why is this not write-protected in at least some way yet? i just vandalized it, genuinely thinking it wouldn't go through and i'd be met with some resistance. changes will be undone 1 minute after posting this comment. mods and admins, or if anybody with any pull see's this, it should be be write-protected/moderated immediately, trolls coming in the next 24 hours or so because viral coverage of the current case absolutely blew up today and has grown exponentially. thanks for listening. 2604:3D09:B87F:F800:20ED:3CD4:3946:CFBC (talk) 07:59, 22 April 2022 (UTC) fuck it, I vandalized it until it was specifically unreadable in sections, obviously missing words, and annoying to look at despite being factually accurate. If you want this information to be reverted, and people who ACTUALLY have malicious intent to make an obviously guilty party look like a victim without people trying to cover it up, WRITE-PROTECT IT, this is not hard, and knowing wikipedia and other edits I've made in the past under different IP's this is the only way this will get done. 2604:3D09:B87F:F800:20ED:3CD4:3946:CFBC (talk) 08:13, 22 April 2022 (UTC) Vandalizing to prove a point will not absolve you. --Pokelova (talk) 09:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit Request

I request that the reference to me (Ron Schnell) be linked to the WP:NOTABLE wikipedia page about me, at Ron Schnell. I don't believe I can do it, due to WP:COI. Thank you. Ron Schnell 19:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Jurisdiction and venue

The article needs to inform the reader as to why this trial is in Virginia. That's what I accessed it to find out and its not here. State or federal court? Diversity?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Toyokuni3 (talk • contribs)

Added. Evidently, it's because the servers for the Washington Post are located in that county. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

'when Heard's friend, journalist[39] Eve Barlow showed Heard's' missing a comma

The following text 'when Heard's friend, journalist[39] Eve Barlow showed Heard's' seems to be missing a comma which interrupted the flow of reading

I believe it should be 'when Heard's friend, journalist[39] Eve Barlow, showed Heard's' (I believe the comma after 'Barlow' should be present)

(I wanted to edit this myself but it's semi-protected (and I'm only a superficial Wikipedia editor, the last edit I made on Wikipedia was in 2016, so I'm not sure how to go about editing it or if I'll just post here and let someone else do it)) DarrenThatcher (talk) 08:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm in the same situation as you regarding the superficial wikipedia edits. Just in the same vein as this, the paragraph about Buzzfeed's article doesn't specify the platforms that the posts were on, and is slightly vague on what "interactions" may mean in this context. Just another minor edit that a verified editor could add add at the same time as the one above :) Camholl (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify for anyone looking for things to fix, the comma was added and the Buzzfeed article did actually specify the posts were on Facebook. Someone at some point also clarified that interactions referred to likes and shares. Thanks for the input and suggestions Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 17:26, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Too Much!

Am I the only one who thinks that this article contains far too much blow-by-blow detail and thus violates WP:NOTNEWS? Instant Comma (talk) 13:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

No. I think that too. Pictureprize (talk) 23:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I would say that this is justified by the amount of reliable source coverage and public interest. [1] The defamation trial between actors and former spouses Johnny Depp and Amber Heard has quickly amassed more online attention than some of the country's biggest and most pressing news stories, including the leaked Supreme Court decision and Russia's war in Ukraine ... On a per-article basis, the trial has dwarfed all other major topics in the news. starship.paint (exalt) 02:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it may be useful to cover as much of it as possible while the trial is ongoing so that it can be more easily trimmed into a concise article. Cassie Schebel, almost a savant. <3 (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

This is the wisest course, I think. It's classic wall-o'-text now, and eventually we'll have editorial perspective. kencf0618 (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2022

Amber and Johnny got divorce 2016 not 2017 2601:588:4380:1090:39EF:394F:9151:336D (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Our page currently cited this article which states they finalized the divorce in 2017. do you have a source that contradicts this? Cannolis (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Benjamin G. Chew not just Ben Chew

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

someone, please change Ben Chew to Benjamin G. Chew — Preceding unsigned comment added by RangerBowens (talk • contribs) 06:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

done SpiderBreadIRL (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

not exactly, you wrote Benjamin J Chew, its Benjamin G Chew — Preceding unsigned comment added by RangerBowens (talk • contribs) 04:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Biased documentation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article not expanding on Heard's testimony but has on the other party? Is there reason for this? 2A02:C7E:3C19:9500:E091:9B28:147:CBF7 (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe people have jobs, school, and/or families that take priority and no one has found the time to do it yet. Depp, as the plaintiff, went first and had several weeks of a head start to be documented. Trillfendi (talk) 21:56, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on May 9th

• the second line in the third paragraph in 2.3.4 - Week 4, states - "However, Marks testified that the op-ed, in alleging physical abuse, was "was something different" from articles discussing...":
• I believe grammatically, the "was" before the quote should be taken out:

גרגמל בזמני הפנוי (talk) 19:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

References

 Done Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Reference tags

I've noticed that Starship.paint has tagged several of the sources in the Background section as not suitable for the article as they pre-date the Depp v Heard lawsuit (filed in early 2019), stating that "We need contemporary references connecting the Virginia lawsuit to this content about past situations, and this old source simply could not have done so." I'm a little bit confused by this, and would like input from other, more experienced editors and admins. Currently, the section has a short description of Depp and Heard's marriage and divorce, and another summary of the Depp v NGN & Wootton case in the UK in 2020. I would understand asking for sources that directly reference the current trial/lawsuit if it were somehow disputed that these two topics are relevant background to this article, or if their content was controversial; but this is not the case. It would be quite difficult to explain Depp v Heard without offering a summary of their relationship or of the libel previous trial where they have been on opposing sides. I think adding a couple of lines of the UK case and how the VA case was talked about it articles covering it may be a good idea, however. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• @TrueHeartSusie3: - if some piece of information is so obviously connected, then reliable sources will cover it. It’s up to editors to find reliable sources doing so. We can’t be including every detail of their relationship and past trial, and which details will be mentioned - reliable sources will help us decide which - by connecting past to present. starship.paint (exalt) 09:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm, so you think those things you tagged (e.g. dates for divorce) are potentially irrelevant details? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@TrueHeartSusie3: - I have not come to any conclusion on that. However, if no one can find a source to relate the present (Virginia lawsuit or trial) and the past, that would give the appearance of irrelevance. I think there are sources explaining the past disputes between the duo, and some of these sources would explain the past, and if any particular detail is important enough, it will be mentioned. starship.paint (exalt) 12:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I managed to find, with relative ease, a contemporary reliable source linking the present to the past. It says that that duo reached a settlement in 2016, and finalized the divorce in 2017, however, no months were stated. It would seem that at least for this source, the months were unimportant. starship.paint (exalt) 12:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I found another contemporary RS with the months, and cited the dates for settlement and divorce. These are the types of RS I'm looking for. starship.paint (exalt) 13:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

DV expert opinions on the media

In addition to the actual coverage of the trial, I've also noticed that there has been a lot of coverage in RS publications (e.g. BBC, CBC, The Independent, USA Today, NPR, New Statesman, Deadline) where experts in domestic violence (e.g. representatives from RAINN, Women's Aid, National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, National Sexual Violence Resource Center) have been asked to weigh in on the case. I would therefore argue that it would make sense to add a small section on this commentary. This is a bare-bones version that I have drafted:

"Several media outlets included commentary from domestic violence experts on the trial. Many of these experts expressed fear that the coverage of the trial on social media may discourage survivors from coming forward. Many also noted that the case was showing that there is a need for further public awareness of topics such as trauma, gender stereotypes and power dynamics in abusive relationships.

Sharon Curry's diagnosis of Heard was also criticised by forensic psychologist Jessica Taylor, who stated that borderline personality disorder "has been used knowingly and deliberately weaponised against Amber Heard, just as it is against many women testifying against their male abusers in court". Similarly, barrister Charlotte Proudman, who specializes on violence against women and girls, stated that Heard was being branded mentally ill and that "every headline that has commented on Heard’s mental health has stigmatised people with mental health challenges, while simultaneously undermining the credibility of victims who come forward"."

Further articles/coverage from less RS sources but showing how there is sustained coverage on the case from this angle:

• Yahoo! News
• Entertainment Weekly
• Salon
• Psychology Today
• iNews
• Insider
• Psych Central

TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

References

While I acknowledge Jessica Taylor (author) has a degree in psychology, she is not a practicing psychologist. Also, The Independent notes Dr Taylor, who examines the pathologisation of women in mental health settings, said that in her view the two disorders the psychologist diagnosed Ms Heard with are "not proven medical conditions" but are instead "highly contested controversial psychiatric labels". ... suggested it is a “debunked disorder”. The disorders in question, borderline personality disorder and histrionic personality disorder, are recognised by both the DSM and ICD. I think that makes Taylor's views fringe even ignoring her lack of practicing psychology qualifications. As a combination of both these facts, I would object to that sentence's inclusion.

Sentence about Proudman seems fine. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think either the Taylor or Proudman sentences should be included. You've elaborated on the former brilliantly. Looking at the Proudman quote in context, they also argue that the conditions are not genuine psychiatric diagnoses, arguing instead that those terms are "sexist diagnoses" used by psychologists to "label" people "rather than understanding that they are suffering with trauma caused by domestic abuse." If Proudman is a "barrister ... who specializes on violence against women and girls", then how is her opinion of psychology and psychiatry notable? This also seems like a fringe viewpoint. I've not read the sources of the first paragraph, so won't comment on that. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I think these views are inclusion-worthy in the sense that they are opinions from RS sources where experts state that Curry’s diagnoses are controversial when it comes to DV cases. How is Taylor not a practising psychologist (and even if she isn’t, why is that a reason for not including the bit?)? She’s a forensic psychologist who has published two books on this subject, taught in the field and received a prestigious award for her work for DV victims. Proudman, on the other hand, is a lawyer focusing on abuse towards women and girls. She does not claim any psychological qualifications or that her opinion is from that angle; rather, she is reflecting on what she knows from her profession as a lawyer in abuse cases. I’d say both are definitely experts in the field of DV cases. If these are fringe viewpoints, then why are publications like the BBC and The Independent giving their views space in their coverage of this case?TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 07:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I should've stated this principle from the outset to be clear, but: Especially on articles with lots of buzz and gossip, I think 'reactions' should only be added when they add something of encyclopaedic significance and are made by an authority speaking in their area of expertise. Otherwise we'd be adding in paragraphs on paragraphs of irrelevant reactions, or worse potentially misleading readers by including unqualified reactions. The claims she makes would be of encyclopaedic significance, but Taylor is not an authority speaking in her area of expertise. She has no experience of mental health disorders in a clinical or academic setting (and as far as I can tell she doesn't have any clinical/academic work in any field of psychology, excluding her PhD thesis). I think that alone means this is not appropriate for inclusion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:09, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, what do you think about the first paragraph? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 07:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

{ping|ProcrastinatingReader}, what about merging those articles with the first para (comments on that as well, please!), simply saying that there has also been discussion in the media regarding these diagnoses? I absolutely understand that we must be very discerning as to whose comments are included, but given how many news outlets and websites have now published articles related to the cultural and societal aspects related to this trial, adding a summary is warranted. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader:, sorry, writing on phone which is causing mistakes!TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:07, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, two further articles on these themes:

Vogue UK, includes comments from a rep from Women's Aid and an article on The CutTrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

At a glance I have no issues with the first paragraph; its inclusion seems fine to me. I'm not too fussed about whether the refs are moved up or not, but I think the para's current refs (of which there are a lot) are probably of better quality/suitability. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources have deemed Curry an expert in her field. It's really ironic that a woman's credentials are being demeaned and discredited just because she was doing her job and it doesn't fit the Believe All Women movement narrative. If we are to include criticism of Curry's analysis (she seemed to know what she was talking about when explanining how she drew her conclusions.) it must be on not on psychological priciples if she violated them, not because their feelings are hurt seeing headlines of Amber Heard. It's a sad cop-out to say Amber's alleged diagnoses can't be accurate because she's a woman scorned. There are men with borderline personality disorder (Pete Davidson is a famous example) and no one says they were labeled that way because they're a man. Trillfendi (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

• Agree with ProcrastinatingReader on Taylor, agree with Homeostasis07 on Proudman - include neither. No comment on the first proposed paragraph yet - I have not reviewed the material. starship.paint (exalt) 14:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: The Guardian just published a piece on this topic as well, you can read it here. I understand if the opinion is going to be to not include Taylor’s comments, but just a heads up that this article also mentions her. There’s also another expert, London’s victim commissioner Claire Waxman, who comments that ”It’s quite common for women who allege abuse in the family courts to be told they’ve got personality disorders, they’re mentally unwell, they’re unbalanced. It’s misunderstanding the impact of abuse, the response to it and the trauma that they may have.”TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: I will say that the "Reactions" section originally started as "Reporting and social media" if my memory is correct. I had been going back and with the potential idea of creating an "Analysis" section or something similarly named to include the reactions of academics and those who work specifically with DV victims. It seemed strange to include those types of reaction with the frenzy that is social medias reactions about this case. Maybe either create an "Analysis" type section where its only people connected to the topics like those that work with DV victims, psychologists, psychiatrists etc were its them reacting to the witness statements that are entered into court/the trial as a whole and not lumped into the reaction category. Leaky.Solar (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

  Analysis would be good in the long run but most quality analysis won't come until after the trial concludes. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I concur. We need to hew very closely to RS and be exquisitely careful about their own framing –so is expert analysis in the eye of the beholder, or nah? kencf0618 (talk) 22:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Start of relationship

Our article, based on a April 2022 source, states that Heard and Depp began dating in 2012. According to Heard's testimony in May 2022, she began "secretly dating" Depp during the press tour of The Rum Diary, which was released in October 2011. [2]. We'll need a better source, but we need to clear this up. starship.paint (exalt) 14:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I can look into this at some point - as far as I know, they began to get closer during the press tour in 2011, but did not really start a relationship until 2012. Perhaps we should change ’date’, which is very vague, to’began a relationship’? I think Depp and Heard have both agreed on the timeline for their early relationship.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Not neutral. Sources biased.

I found that almost all sources used are biased, unlike Wikipedia should be. Specially on detailing testimony on both defendant and plaintiff, more on the first. Wikipedia should be neutral so readers can make their on opinion and ideas about the item or issue described. Also is too long, and have a lot of problems in its redaction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:A4:1F6F:3D00:B9FF:8C95:2FD7:DD28 (talk) 23:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Can you explain which sources in particular are biased and how? The section on the plaintiff’s witnesses is currently longer because he has presented his side of the case, while Heard’s side is only about mid-way through. Furthermore, please remember that WP is a collaborative effort by volunteers. Most of us do this in our spare time, hence the backlog in adding data. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

My apologies to editors and makers of the article.

Not intent to diminish anyones work.

I'm aware this is voluntary and made in spare time.

Since I only can recall about a magazine as a source on the pallette make up issue, that was not only biased but argumentative and sepculative of the mentioned issue. And other instance about photos showed in evidence. Some sources on those matters had personal opinions by them authors, either on plaintiff or defendant, that's why I found it difficult to make an neutral analysis of them.

I know is still ongoing case, and is a lot of information and a lot to read, it felt confusing to follow

I'll need a new read, the article is very complete. I still feel it hard to follow.

Apologies, again. And thank you for your hard work 201.217.139.3 (talk) 13:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

How should we organise the text?

This is a lengthy trial with dozens of witnesses, and as a result, the section on the trial is getting intimidatingly long. Although there is most likely some space for tightening the text, we can't cut that much of the content if we want to present the case in a balanced way. This is why I think it would be useful to find a way to organise the text in some way. Splitting it by person seems to me the easiest and clearest way of doing this (then if someone finds their way to this article because they are looking to find out what witness X said, they can easily find them) but some of the testimony is brief and does not need more than a sentence or two, so it would feel weird if they also had their own sections. Could using bolding for the names of who is giving the testimony work? Any ideas? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the need for organization but I think, messy as it is, the current format is still the lesser of evils. Mainly because the chronological ordering gives context to specific statements or testimony. People can always use CTRL+F to find where else a person's statements or testimony came up. Week 5 is definitely a gigantic section at this point but I think the developments are best managed by generous splitting of paragraphs so readers can latch onto new ideas or events more easily. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 17:45, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

@Jasonkwe@TrueHeartSusie3, We could make subsections inside the weeks per witness. >>> Extorc.talk 14:24, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

For the start of the jury deliberations should it be a sub section from the trial section or its own section?Leaky.Solar (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Subsection of Trial. >>> Extorc.talk 20:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I think having subsections by Weeks is fine, I think the current format, subsections by person, is too much? starship.paint (exalt) 07:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it makes really easy for a reader to jump to a particular witness considering there are 10s of them each with a paragraph dedicated to them. >>> Extorc.talk 14:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Day by day witness list

Please can we add a table (or something) showing which witnesses testified on which days, who did the direct and who did the cross? Lollapalooza4725 (talk) 10:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Political impact of the trial

A lot of observers have describe this trial as a political statement of "End of #MeToo era". By the self existence of Deep-Heard trial and by the public opinion's reaction too.

So, would it be possible to made a section of that particular issue? ChemTX (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Whom? Citation needed. "Public reaction" is, practically speaking, today's social media. There certainly hasn't been any political impact as of this writing, nor any statements by politicians. kencf0618 (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Redaction problem found.

Am I the only one who foun that: "Several false claims about Heard have also been disseminated through social media" should instead be redacted: "Several conspiracy speculations and theories have been running through social media about defendant's behavior"? Because "Several false claims" sounds like defendant and/or planitiff have done it or contradicted, which none of them have pointed out those matters, but instead are theories that came out from watchers of the livestream of the trial. (I hope I made sense).

Johnny Depp won.

Holy crap. 2601:40:0:B37:80DC:61F0:72A4:E8C6 (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

The changes are flowing in as we speak. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 19:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I see LawyerTube(broad term for lawyers on YouTube) are saying Depp's

award is going to be $8.35 million. After accounting for Heard's two

million claim, the five million in punitive isn't actionable because

Virginia State Law apparently states that the maximum for punitive

damages is $350K. I'll let actual lawyers on Wikipedia handle this in retrospect though. AirNinja (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Holy crap is right and he deserved it! 174.115.22.232 (talk) 19:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Damages won

How do we want to word it. From Variety source cited. Was 10 million in compensatory damages, and 5 million in punitive damages. But the state caps punitive damages at $350,000. Right now lead says awarding him 15 million, do we want to give in the additional details? WikiVirusC^(talk) 19:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)