Talk:Amber Heard

Lede

@Emir of Wikipedia:, final section to be discussed, the lede! I've added an extra source from Aquaman's article for the box office (although both sources could be moved to the article body?) and have cut the detail considerably. It would be helpful if you could let me know what you think! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

I think you cutting it down has improved it, but I am not sure if the Aquaman box office should be mentioned in the lead (or the article at all but I can only see it in the lead right now). Also not sure about the sentence saying she was in The Stand. Is the fact that it was a miniseries on CBS really such an important part of Heard's life that it should be in the lead. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: If we don't mention how the films fared, then the article will simply be a list of films. Aquaman is the most successful film in Heard's career thus far (her only A-list film) and an important career milestone (first big-name studio film, first big box office success). Therefore it is necessary to mention it in this context; it's also how pop culture ledes are usually written. I do agree there's no point in going into specifics (i.e. exact amounts in different markets etc.), but to not mention it at all would be, quite frankly, weird. It is also mentioned in the career section. The Stand can be removed, I mainly left it in the lede as it is currently quite short. Feel free to delete it.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

@Emir of Wikipedia: I've deleted the mention of The Stand, but have left the Aquaman info due to the reasons outlined above. The lede is now significantly shorter and more concise (which seems to indeed be the custom – my previous experience is mostly from editing pre-1960s pop culture articles, hence the longer ledes). Do you think the tag can be removed? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

I still don't think the box office should be in, unless mentioned proximately by the sources. Possibly be mentioned at James Wan or Jason Momoa, but that is a stretch. We are an encyclopaedia not a news article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I'm getting quite tired of this, but you really need to explain yourself better. How is a film's reception NOT relevant to an actor's article, especially when it is their first major studio film and a box office success? Are you honestly of the opinion that ledes should be simply lists, with no elaboration on what the significance of the film is to their career? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

You need to explain yourself, the WP:ONUS is on the one who wants to include information. I did not say a film's reception is not relevant. This is meant to be encyclopedia article, not a news article of resume for Heard. What you put in was WP:SYNTHESIS as it was linking information in way the WP:RS's had not done. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I have explained myself above. Copying it here again: "Aquaman is the most successful film in Heard's career thus far (her only A-list film) and an important career milestone (first big-name studio film, first big box office success). Therefore it is necessary to mention it in this context; it's also how pop culture ledes are usually written. I do agree there's no point in going into specifics (i.e. exact amounts in different markets etc.), but to not mention it at all would be, quite frankly, weird." You keep saying that this would somehow go against WP:Not news, but please do explain in more detail exactly how. FYI, Aquaman was released in 2018, over 2 years ago. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, if you come to an article and start deleting material that is not clearly vandalism or libelous, and get reverted, you should be prepared to discuss it and reach consensus in Talk prior to deleting said material again. This is basic courtesy.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

That is your subjective weighting of what you consider the most important part of her article. We are meant to summarise what the WP:RS's say, not put in "an important career milestone". It is not how pop culture ledes are usually written. It is not mentioned at James Wan or Jason Momoa, which I said above. It is not mentioned at Chris Evans (actor) (GA), Chris Hemsworth, Mark Ruffalo, Scarlett Johansson (FA), Chris Pratt, Paul Rudd, Benedict Cumberbatch, Tom Holland, Chadwick Boseman (GA), Evangeline Lilly, Brie Larson (FA), Josh Brolin, or Samuel L. Jackson. I have never brought up WP:NOTNEWS, you seem to have misunderstood (and seem to be describing WP:RECENTISM anyways). The WP:ONUS is on the editor who wants to include information, not exclude. If you have been reverted as per WP:BRD, then you should be prepared to discuss instead of reinserting. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Emir, how is it relevant what's mentioned or not in other DCEU actors/directors profiles? Can you explain? As for James Wan and Jason Momoa, the only other people in this list with any connection to Aquaman, both of them are much more established than Heard. Hence naturally Aquamans success may also get different weight in their ledes. The lede is supposed to summarize the contents of the article. The article clearly cites RS sources saying this was a.) Heard's first major role; b.) the film was a major box-office success. Reflecting this in the lede is part of summarizing the contents of the article. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

You said it's also how pop culture ledes are usually written.. I was giving you examples (including a GA and FA) that prove your statement is wrong, that it how what wrought is relevant. Those examples were from MCU actors not DCEU actors/directors, so not sure why you are saying that. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, I'm not into these types of films hence the confusion between MCU/DCEU! If you take a look at for example Johansson's, Evans', Boseman's, and Larson's ledes, none of them just list films, but indicate the significance to their career. E.g. "Larson's breakthrough came with a leading role in the acclaimed independent drama Short Term 12 (2013), [...] The 2017 adventure film Kong: Skull Island marked her first big-budget release" or "Transitioning to the screen, he landed his first major role as a series regular on Persons Unknown in 2010, and his breakthrough performance came in 2013 as baseball player Jackie Robinson in the biographical film 42."

My suggestion for a compromise is this: "Heard had her first major studio role in the DC Extended Universe superhero film Justice League (2017), in which she played Atlantean queen Mera. She reprised that role opposite Jason Momoa in Aquaman (2018)." This would still convey the meaning that this role has to her career, without going into too much detail on Aquaman's success.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: ? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

You do not need to apologise for not being into certain types of films, but if you don't know about them then don't try to use them as evidence to support your argument. If there are problems with other articles then go and fix them, don't try to ruin this article to make it consistent with others. I am not going to check the others right this second, but I imagine those statements are sourced and not an editors own interpretation. Your suggestion is an improvement though, I will admit. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

More lede

The divorce and suits are a limited part of the article, but fully half of the lede.

The last para could be trimmed to

Heard was married to actor Johnny Depp from 2015 to 2017. Their divorce drew media attention as she alleged that he had been abusive during their relationship.

possibly adding "and each later sued the other for defamation". Leaving details and amplifiers to the appropriate section. – SJ + 16:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Arguably, Heard is probably most widely known for this debacle. I do think it should be shortened, but I don't know how to do that without losing some of the meaning. "and each later sued the other for defamation" leaves out completely that another suit found Heard's claims to be substantiated. Hopefully there will be clarity to this after the second libel trial. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

I've listed at Wikipedia:Third opinion#Active disagreements. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

There are more than 2 editors engaged in this discussion. Having said that, i feel that the lede should be shortened as described above. Bonewah (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

IMHO, the lede seems about right as it stands, given the notability of the case. Chumpih ^t 23:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Mention of tapes

The article not making mention of the audio tapes released showing Heard confessing to abuse is at best intellectual dishonesty. If some people believe the tapes to be taken out of context, they should add in that context rather than censoring mention of the tapes completely. Anything else cannot possibly taken to be in good faith.

Amber Heard is quoted in the tape as saying “I can't promise you I won't get physical again. God I fucking sometimes get so mad I lose it” and “Tell the world, Johnny, tell them, Johnny Depp, I Johnny Depp, a man, I'm a victim too of domestic violence”. Saying that her claims of self defense after the fact constitute infallible evidence against this tape and proof that it shouldn’t even be mentioned are purely dishonest. Snokalok (talk) 02:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

This is your interpretation of it, adding it to WP would be adding your POV (btw, the quotes you have written here come from two different tapes). The High Court of England and Wales found that there's overwhelming evidence that Depp abused Heard. The tape, as Heard has stated, contains discussion of self-defense, and she has been clear about this since when she filed for divorce (and at that stage, Depp didn't even accuse her of abuse... in fact their joint statement says nobody lied). It is common for abusers to try to twist self-defense as abuse. The tapes are snippets of discussions from Heard and Depp's arguments, not confessions. Please also see section VII: 169-176 in the High Court ruling. Please also note, from the same file, that Depp was completely unable to present any evidence of the abuse he alleges to have suffered. There is 0 actual evidence that Heard was abusive towards Depp. There is ample evidence that Depp was abusive towards Heard. There is also ample evidence that Depp is conducting a smear campaign (via Adam Waldman), claiming this tape is about her being abusive is part of it.

"There is 0 actual evidence that Heard was abusive towards Depp." This claim is utterly unconscionable. There is a tape of her gaslighting and admitting to her abuse. "Who are you going to believe, the WP talk page or your lying ears?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.55.50 (talk)

To add a mention of this tape would be going against facts, WP:BLP, and WP:AVOIDVICTIM. It would also make WP part of Depp's online smear campaign.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Your comment reveals that WP is being used to shield Amber Heard from the consequences of her domestic abuse. It's not a "smear campaign" to be a brave survivor of domestic abuse and speak publicly about it. This article is re-victimizing Depp by mischaracterizing his brave admission of being abused publicly as a "smear"; WP is blaming the victim. 24.57.55.50 (talk) 13:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

100% agree Mirddes (talk) 13:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Multiple things you’ve said have been proven objectively false - there is physical evidence of the abuse Depp suffered, namely, his finger literally being removed and shown as such. Additionally, courts are not the arbitrators of what is true and right - once upon a time the US supreme court ruled that slavery was okay. Once upon a time, the SCOTUS ruled that banning homosexuality was okay. Once upon a time, the UK house of lords ruled BDSM can never legally be considered consensual, and I don’t even need to tell you how many rulings the UK legal system has struck against trans people. Courts are not the arbitrators of truth, they’re the arbitrators of government action.

Furthermore, I’d argue that not including the tape is a far worse act of POV than that, and that you’d be perpetuating the smear campaign committed against Heard by her victim, Johnny Depp.

Additionally, you seem to be treating Heard’s words as automatically true, and Depp’s as guilty until proven innocent. This is further POV, and in clear violation of wikipedia policy. The only objective thing to do would be to include the tape, and then include Heard’s statements on the contents. Otherwise you yourself are enforcing your own POV that Depp is automatically guilty and Heard is automatically innocent, and censoring any facts that may throw that view into question. This is again, your point of view, but not reflective of the truth of the discourse. If you like we can even include a “criticism” section, but the bottom line remains - the tape is relevant evidence, and if you believe it to not be reflective of the full picture, then the appropriate action is to add more information as to why, not to censor events completely to reinforce your worldview. Snokalok (talk) 06:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure, law reflects the society it exists in and many laws are found to be abhorrent by later generations. That's why laws get changed. As it stands though, a 21st century High Court has found that there is overwhelming evidence from multiple sources backing up Heard's version of the events, not Depp's. Depp didn't lose on a technicality, he lost because the evidence —much of it discussions he had with his staff and friends and which his lawyers at first tried to prevent NGN's legal team from accessing— backed up Heard's account. You're free to believe that this is part of a grand conspiracy or an outdated legal system (how though? also remember that it was Depp who began these legal proceedings), but as it stands, there's no evidence to back it up. As for the finger, the judge found that on evaluating all the available evidence, Depp caused the injury himself while intoxicated and enraged. Again, POV, conspiracy theories and tabloid/smear campaign material do not have a place on WP.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 08:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

You’re missing the critical point though - it’s that courts are not infallible, judges are not infallible. Judicial rulings are simply opinions issued by one or more people whom both sides are trying to convince. The ruling as it stands doesn’t mean history proceeded that way, it simply means that one team of lawyers was able to convince a group of people of it better than the other team. Legal rulings do not dictate truth, they dictate a judge’s opinion, and the fact remains that these tapes being released is a relevant event that has had a significant effect on the course of future events, and to censor it would be to deny critical context to said future events in the name of preserving your and the high court’s point of view, which is just that, their point of view. It’s honesty to list their ruling and explain why they ruled that way, it’s not honest to intentionally censor any information or evidence that contradicts their ruling because all their ruling is is the point of view of someone given authority.

Also for the record, Heard also said under oath that she’d donate her winnings, and that has yet to occur, so clearly her testimony is not as automatically true as you might think. Snokalok (talk) 04:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The High Court found that Heard's allegations were proven to a civil standard, and that neither the claim that she was conducting some elaborate hoax against Depp nor that she was violent towards Depp except in self-defense (of which she has been clear ever since she filed divorce) were backed by evidence. His evidence included these tapes. As I've now said several times, you're free to keep thinking the way you do, but that's not what we should write in Wikipedia, because information from reliable sources does not support the way you want to think about this case. I would also seriously encourage you to be more critical with the sources you use and to learn more about this case before making such claims – that you do not seem to know that the statements you give above come from two separate tapes and that the London trial was not a jury trial do not give the impression that you actually know a lot about this case beyond tabloid headlines. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

I never said it was a jury trial, but many court cases involve multiple judges and thus I felt it best to have my generalized statement on the nature of civil suits reflect that. The fact that you don’t realize this says to me that you hold a very limited knowledge of how court cases in general actually work.

Regardless, you continue to miss two facts: 1. Wikipedia, per its NPOV rules, takes an international perspective, and thus one country’s courts’ rulings do not dictate truth for it. 2. Even if Wikipedia were taking an anglocentric view, the fact remains that the results of court cases - and especially civil cases - do not reflect absolute reality, they reflect the beliefs of one court and determine what action that court will take.

By your logic, we’d have to completely rewrite our page on women’s rights because a court in Saudi Arabia took a very restrictive view on them. By your logic, we’d have to delete our Tiananmen Square article entirely because a court in China said it never happened. Simply put, the words of a court in the UK are just that, the words of a few people given limited legal power in one country. If you want to have in the page that the high court found no evidence of DV against Depp, fine, that’s a relevant finding, but enforcing that viewpoint as objective fact and deleting any mention of relevant events that throw that viewpoint into question is textbook violation of the NPOV policy and puts the possibility that you’re not acting in good faith on the table.

I’d like to bring up another example of what a more neutral coverage of a court case looks like. Consider, the wikipedia article on the OJ Simpson murder case. It says he was ruled innocent, which he was, however it also goes in depth listing the various evidence against Simpson, including DNA evidence placing him at the crime scene, and mention of documented evidence of OJ Simpson beating the hell out of his ex-wife, one of the murder victims. In keeping with the neutrality policy, like with the OJ case - even of a single court’s ruling says the alleged abuser is innocent, the documented evidence is still considered relevant to mention, and thus it is worth mentioning.

By your logic, we’d have to delete the mention of evidence of OJ abusing his wife and the mention of all the other evidence against him, because he was acquitted of her murder and never convicted for beating her (and thus is considered innocent under the American legal system).

Finally, I repeat my suggested course of action - we bring up the tape, and then add Amber Heard’s claim after the fact that she was acting in self defense. Snokalok (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I've said what I have to say on this, and you're refusing to understand that BLPs need to include only material from reliable sources and only include material that has very good grounds for inclusion, especially when it comes to the very serious and potentially libelous claims you are making. We're going around in circles, this is just not a productive use of my time. Could an admin or other experienced Wikipedian intervene, the above user is repeatedly adding material that goes against BLP criteria and refuses to stop. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Could an admin please address this user making changes that violate wikipedia’s neutrality? I’ve cited everything with reliable sources, specifically GlobalNews.ca and Medium. You are the one who continues to censor major events relevant to the topic on the grounds that a single court in a single country sided against Depp. By your logic, we’d have to delete the Tiananmen Square article because a court in China denied its occurence. You are violating the international perspective section of wikipedia’s NPOV, simple as. Snokalok (talk) 12:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Medium is WP:USERGENERATED / WP:SELFPUB and can't be used as a source for a WP:BLP-sensitive claim (even the WP:SPS exceptions for subject-matter experts and the like don't apply to such BLP-sensitive claims; Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.) GlobalNews.ca is probably usable, but given that this is an obviously WP:EXCEPTIONAL statement and highly BLP-sensitive, we should wait until we have more sources - if it is broadly interpreted the way you state, then there should be a large number of high-quality sources for something so shocking, rather than a single source from an entertainment section mostly consisting of a transcript. --Aquillion (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

There's no discussion; globalnews.ca is as reputable a news source as most. Further, that this discussion is mired in discussions of appropriate sources -- when the matter is recorded, and on tape for everyone to hear -- really only betrays the motives of those who want to use this article to disguise the narrative-busting reality that Amber Heard physically abused her spouse. She admits it on tape. That this has been scrubbed from the article reveals a lot about wikipedia's elite editor agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.55.50 (talk)

This is more of an issue for WP:RSN, but I have to admit to doubts about using GlobalNews.ca and Medium.com as sources. They are not really blue chip.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Here's a BBC article which quotes the recording: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-53472114. No one doubts the veracity or integrity of the recording itself. Why is GlobalNews reporting even a dicussion -- Global is suitable because it's a reputable source (sure, even if not blueChip, NON-blueChips *are* allowed as sources of material which are of *no* debate - no?). This isnt at all about globalnews.ca, that argument is subterfuge to supress the recording of Amber Heard admitting, on recording, that she abused her spouse. No dispute. She admits it on tape. But in the article here, the weasel-word "alleged" ("Depp also alleged that Heard had been the abuser"). Amber Heard admits it -- in a recording -- that she is an abuser. A transcript of the recording, and citations to BBC and globalnews.ca should be made here. The fact that she is an domestic abuser is _the_ most notable thing about this person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.55.50 (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

EDIT: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?target=http%3A%2F%2F*.globalnews.ca&title=Special%3ALinkSearch

EDIT: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?target=https%3A%2F%2F*.globalnews.ca&title=Special%3ALinkSearch

Wikipedia uses globalnews.ca in thousands and thousands of citations. The "globalnews.ca" isnt sufficiently reputable is a complete distraction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.55.50 (talk) 14:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

TrueHeartSusie3, I've seen you for several times that you're saying here that Heard has not denied that she was violent against Depp in self-defense. Can you source this? Because I do not know anything about this. This is not mentioned in the article and that's why it's important to mention those tapes. Surely you remember that we have already talked about it, you wanted to wait for Heard's response or from her team, but still nothing had changed, their truthfulness has not been questioned. It was also not announced only in tabloids, but even on for example USA Today. Therefore I demand the return of their mention to the article. And the last thing, I agree with what he wrote about OJ Simpson murder case, it also goes in depth listing the various evidence, removing them is against NPOV. Jirka.h23 (talk) 12:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

For starters, please see the High Court judgment, and court docs and transcripts on Nick Wallis' website. The incident that the tapes discuss is the so-called 'stairs incident'. Since our discussion, Depp was found to have been the abusive party due to overwhelming evidence against him (which includes really serious violence such as hitting, kicking and choking Heard on at least 12 occasions), and the tapes were found not to be evidence of abuse towards Depp, please see the above links. This does not speak for including a mention of the tapes. What's more, in the case of a BLP and such a controversial case and heavy accusations, this would have to have been reported widely in top RS media for inclusion to be even considered. Furthermore, I would strongly encourage you to study source criticism, media literacy and WP:BLP guidelines. You've yourself stated above that you do not have a strong grasp on source reliability, and to put it bluntly, you are therefore perhaps not best suited to make decisions on what should go to such a controversial article on this stage. Now, let's both focus on something else for a change as we are going in circles. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

And now will you finally answer me? (self-defense, USA Today). Since you didn't answer, you may be deliberately lying here and your views here should not be taken seriously. Or are you just unknowingly mistaken? You can tell us, just don't lie here anymore. IMO, Depp was not the abusive party, it's all based on the construct that Heard is telling the truth and Depp is not. But as Depp then said, he WILL KEEP FIGHT FOR THE TRUTH! Depp never admitted this, on the contrary, she admitted it in the recordings, so it is important to mention them here. Jirka.h23 (talk) 12:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I found something in that document "Approved Judgment". Heard said that she did throw pots and pans at him in self-defence. Did she say something similar about the recordings and with that she doesn't deny to beat him? This should be mentioned in the article as a crucial thing. So if no one objects USA Today, I am in favor of mention of the discussed topic. Jirka.h23 (talk) 15:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I stumbled on the page, and realized there is no mention of the tapes which was widely circulated on media. Found a DailyMail article as well https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7947733/Amber-Heard-admits-hitting-ex-husband-Johnny-Depp-pelting-pots-pans-tape.html . Are we still debating that we don't have enough cited articles?

Is it a fact that the tapes exist or not? Zengalileo (talk) 02:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the tape exists. Aardwolf68 (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Amber Heard in recording admits to being a physical abuser of Johnny Depp

As someone will surely prevent this information about the recording of Amber Heard admitting to being the aggressor in physical attacks on Depp, here's where apologists can argue to suppress that information. Zengalileo (talk) 02:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

The bad news is that you have it backward, and the onus is on you to build consensus for including the information. The good news is that you already have this section created. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I’m surprised that there hasn’t been more discussion on this. A lot of people don’t seem to fully understand those recordings, so I think it would be a great idea to include them in the article, as long as the information is balanced and fair. We should also move to Mr Depp’s page to gain consensus there to add it. Ookadookasodacracka (talk) 20:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

After further inspection I can see there has actually been plenty of (intense) discussion of the recordings on the Talk page, as such I don’t want to get involved and am now backing away. Good luck good people. Ookadookasodacracka (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Incomplete information in Infobox needs fixing

The "Partner(s)" item in this article's infobox is fully a decade out of date, although much more recent information is available in the body of the article. It should either be edited to add Elon Musk (2017-2018) and Bianca Butti (2020-present) as noted in the "Personal life" section, or be removed from the infobox altogether. -- 73.113.16.101 (talk) 04:17, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I think you're right, and I removed it all together. Template:Infobox person has some guidance for the partner(s) parameter: include relevant/notable " unmarried life partners in a domestic partnership". If any of Heard's relationships meet that standard, as shown by reliable sources, please feel free to restore the infobox parameter. Firefangledfeathers 07:38, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

The page is biased in favor Heard

There is zero information pertaining to the fact that Amber Heard nearly cut off Depp’s finger, mishandled evidence on purpose to make Depp look like the abuser, defecated on his bed, and the fact that there’s ZERO mention of the tapes of Amber MOCKING Depp of her abusing him is intellectually dishonest at best. Now; tell me why information is being withheld from this page? I’ll wait for a good answer. Aardwolf68 (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

The simple answer is that those are Depp’s claims that the English court found not to be supported by evidence ie they were found to be false. Please note that the article also mentions no specifics of the abuse that Depp inflicted on Heard, even though the English court found those allegations to be substantially true. As you probably know, the second trial on the same allegations is currently ongoing in Virginia. Given that WP is not a news media, I suggest we hold our horses when it comes to adding any detail until the jury has reached a verdict. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 07:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

And how does that explain the exclusion of the tapes in which Heard mocks her abuse onto Depp? Aardwolf68 (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Aardwolf68 We only write about things that reliable sources discuss. We use them to decide if something is important enough to include in an article (WP:WEIGHT). Even if individual editors thing something is important (e.g., those tapes), we only include it if reliable sources say it's relevant and notable.

For WP:BLPs, we have a higher bar for what should be included. Tabloid materials is not allowed. We avoid negative material in general unless those sources (abbreviated RS for reliable sources) say it's an important part of that person's biography. For example, on Tucker Carlson there is a discussion about whether or not to put the "Russia's favorite TV personality" in the beginning of the article. I and others say it's not important enough to his overall biography to highlight it in the beginning (WP:LEAD) but that it does belong in the article because it was so widely covered. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

So we should just exclude evidence because a “reliable source” hasn’t covered it and/or because it’s negative? I’m sorry, but to me, that sounds like a lot of hokey BS to excuse the bias that this page has Aardwolf68 (talk) 20:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Aardwolf68 There is no "evidence" because we are not investigators, journalists, police, or activists. We are writing an encyclopedia, not collecting "evidence". EvergreenFir (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Aardwolf68, yes. Wikipedia policy is to only include assertions made by reliable sources. WP:RS is one of the founding principles of WP. We are not allowed to use primary sources (ie. the tape itself) and make our own analysis of it. For bios of living people we need to be even more conservative, this is also a WP policy. As frustrating as it may be. Ashmoo (talk) 08:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Please don't report her pledging donations that were never made. It smells like bias toward an admitted spouse-beater. 108.28.48.241 (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The tapes are definitely relevant information that should be added fast. How about a very noncommital sentence like this: "At the end of 2019, private audio recordings came to light, from which it could be concluded that Johnny Depp was abused by Amber Heard."

 (Translated from the German Wikipedia Article) To avoid lying by omission while also not jumping to conclusions prematurely. Tim Hermes (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Now, the same tape has been played in court. I’m assuming none of Johnny’s POV will be expressed though? Aardwolf68 (talk) 02:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

We cover the basic outline of his allegations, eg: In early 2019, Depp sued Heard for defamation over an op-ed she wrote about her experience of being a public victim of domestic violence, which was published by The Washington Post in December 2018. Depp also alleged that Heard had been the abuser, and that her allegations constituted a hoax against him. However, we cannot use raw court transcripts as a source for BLP-sensitive implications that a court has previously dismissed; and higher-quality sources are not (at the moment) treating this as something decisive the way some editors feel it is, eg. [1][2] Right now, the outcome of the British case means that we have to basically go with their finding that Depp abused Heard and that Heard acted only in self-defense; and we cannot say or imply otherwise in the article text without extremely high-quality WP:SECONDARY sources directly contradicting that result. If you think the previous court was wrong in how it read the evidence, you can wait until the newer court case ends and hope that it affirms your views, or find other high-quality sources that interpret events and evidence the way you do. But you can't try to argue from the evidence yourself; your personal feelings about what the recording means are WP:OR, and you can't try to insert evidence in the article to lead the reader to an uncited conclusion per WP:SYNTH. --Aquillion (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Ambiguity

This sentence is slightly ambiguous: "...Depp in turn alleged in 2018 that Heard had abused him, before unsuccessfully suing the publishers of British tabloid The Sun for English defamation." I assume it is Depp that sued The Sun's publishers, but it is not entirely clear it wasn't Heard who sued. Someone with access to this locked article should clear up the ambiguity.

Also, it seems like suing for "English defamation" should just read suing for "defamation." Adding the "English" qualifier makes it awkward and confusing. No one sues for "American defamation" in the US. If "English defamation," is a common term across the pond, then I apologize for the correction. I have just never heard of it and it sounded odd.66.91.36.8 (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2022

Amber actually entered into a legally binding domestic partnership with Tasya Van Ree in the state of California in March 2008. However, their union was never recognized federally, as the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t make same-sex marriages legal in all 50 states until June 26, 2015. 67.86.187.167 (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

What now?

So is TrueHeartSusie3 gonna be consistent and claim the findings of the new lawsuit will be relevant enough to include or are they just gonna reject it if it doesn't fit the narrative of Heard being utterly innocent? I have to specifically mention this editor because they have practically laid claim to this article and all articles related to the matter. All changes appear to have to go through them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:a420:25:5693:b0e9:eb17:f5ca:b99f (talk) 04:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Are you talking about this? [3][4] The lawsuit is still in progress, so there are no "findings" from it yet, just claims by the competing sides. Since Depp's claims were previously dismissed by another court, I think we would have to wait until the trial is over (and only include them if the court supports them) - we can't just include them because Depp has made the same claims again in another venue. --Aquillion (talk) 07:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I said will be. I'm asking in advance if TrueHeartSusie3 (or others) will decide to obstruct inclusion of new findings that accuse Heard of wrongdoing if they are supported by court deicision this time around. The argument has been that they shouldn't be in there because the court dismissed it, so then it would stand to reason that the outcome of this case matters, right? 2A02:A420:25:5693:B0E9:EB17:F5CA:B99F (talk) 08:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, there's no point in discussing that until the case is over, since it will depend on the exact conclusions they reach. But generally speaking I would not expect an American defamation case to succeed where a British one failed, since British laws on defamation are, infamously, far harsher due to the lack of anything akin to US First Amendment protections. --Aquillion (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2022

The the sentence "Following the verdict in the Depp v NGN case, a Change.org petition asking for Heard to be fired from Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom reached over one million supporters." in "Relationship with Jonny Depp" should be changed to something like: After the verdict Warner Bros fired Jonny Depp as Grindelwald in “Fantastic Beasts 3, which led to a Change.org petition asking for Heard to be fired from Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom reaching over one million supporters." Because it more accurately represents the sources cited and doesn't risk any misinterpretation as to why the petition gained traction.

Ps: I hope this is the correct form for an edit request. Tim Hermes (talk) 22:28, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Disputed: The disorders Amber is alleged to have

I agree with TrueHeartSusie3 that it shouldn't be there. At least not without consensus. Pictureprize (talk) 00:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

It's controversial and one-sided because that psych was hired by Depp's team. Leave it for the trial article where it can be put in proper context. If it stays here, then also put it in proper context, as Amber's team doesn't agree. Pictureprize (talk) 00:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The current version represents an attempt by Firefangledfeathers and myself to address the objections of TrueHeartSusie3 to NikonovNikolai's initial addition. Please abide by WP:Preserve until consensus is reached in the talk page.

The current objections are: (1) psych hired by Depp’s team, (2) none of Heard’s previous psychs agree with the diagnosis, (3) legal team is accusing Dr Curry of bias, (4) the legal team disagrees with the diagnosis. (1) and (3) are relevant objections and are addressed in the current revision. (2) is also relevant IMO and was addressed in my edits but removed by Firefangledfeathers. (4) does not seem pertinent, since a legal team cannot make this kind of diagnosis.

As for whether to keep in the first place, the information is pertinent, relevant, sourced correctly, and presented in NPOV manner by listing the objections. I think it is a fair compromise, but I would vote for reinstating the objection (2), which is important for NPOV purposes. Retxnihps (talk) 10:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

One of the biggest problems that I have with this edit (or any other related to the trial) is that this is coming from an ongoing trial. I would wait until the trial concludes and there’s a judgment to add anything about it anywhere else but to the trial’s article. Furthermore, the problem is that this is not a diagnosis that the subject of this page has herself declared, and it’s not coming from a neutral source (e.g. court appointed mental evaluation), but was done by request of Depp’s legal team, by a psych they chose. Its purpose is to be useful for their legal arguments, ie to prove that Heard abused Depp and falsely accused him of abuse. Also, I’m not convinced that this is ’pertinent’ etc. and would like to hear why you consider it to be so. Why should this be added, while Depp’s legal team’s other claims and witnesses are not? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the issue of WP:Recentism should be taken into account, and if the judgement pronounces on whether Amber Heard has BPD or HPD the information should be updated to reflect it. Re: not declared by Heard, that is not a criterion for inclusion, since Wikipedia articles are not autobiographies and they routinely include information that is not disclosed by the subject. The issue of the neutrality of the source is addressed in the current edit, but it can be improved by re-inserting the remark that Amber Heard's treating therapist did not diagnose her with either Borderline or Histrionic PD, not sure why Firefangledfeathers chose to remove it, if there is no opposition I will re-insert it. As to pertinence, a diagnosis of BPD or HPD is usually included in articles about people, see ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:People_with_borderline_personality_disorder. Regarding including other claims and witnesses from the trial, it can be considered on a case-by-case basis, you can either make proposals here or Be Bold. Retxnihps (talk) 12:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

It’s true that bios do include mental health diagnoses if such info can be found from reliable sources, and that a bio can include info that is not confirmed by the subject. However, I would argue that here the issue is that this is not a neutral diagnosis reached by a treating psychologist or in a court-ordered mental health evaluation. Instead, it’s a very disputed claim made by one party in an ongoing trial as part of their case. This is very different from other BLPs where a personality disorder diagnosis is mentioned. If it must be mentioned, then it definitely should be mentioned in the paras where the trial is discussed, however this again brings us to the question of why this piece of testimony should be included and not others. I think once there is a judgment, we will have a lot more clarity on this and hence I think the wise thing is to remove it for now and return to the discussion once the jury and the judge have reached their verdict in this case. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the claim is disputed. At the same time, it is a finding by a forensic psychologist after extensive evaluation and under oath, so the source is authoritative although not final on the matter. It is a general principle that disputed claims are not omitted from articles, but rather included and contextualised appropriately. Retxnihps (talk) 15:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with THS3 that we should remove the content for now. It's perhaps impossible to neutrally present the dispute without overweighting this recentist content relative to the rest of Heard's biography. I gave it a shot, but keeping the content short meant leaving out important qualifiers like Heard's actual treatment team not making the diagnoses. Post-trial, we'll have more summary coverage in RS to indicate what bits are or are not worthy of mention. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Retxnihps pointed me to a page about preserving. It states, "As long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), Verifiability, and No original research." We don't have that yet here. Okay for the trial article, but not here. Thinnyshivers (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I 100% agree with this stance, especially with you begging the question of "why this piece of testimony should be included [in Heard's article] and not others." Statements like those strongly call into question the neutrality/bias of the article in my opinion. Personality disorders are very sensitive and personal topics (especially Borderline and Histrionic), and it seems highly inappropriate for Wikipedia to include something that a psychologist hired by Depp's team alleged in an unfinished trial - especially given the context of the allegation. Both diagnoses were a result of Dr. Curry helping to bolster Depp's team's argument in court.

It seems inappropriate to include that information at all, much less before a verdict has even been reached, especially given that several other psychologists disagree with the diagnoses. It is also worth noting that the validity of the diagnoses was heavily questioned in court as well, given the circumstances of Dr. Curry's hiring, the disagreement of other psychologists, and the short amount of time that Dr. Curry spent examining Heard before reaching either diagnosis.

I guess in summary, please consider the context of these diagnoses, as well as Heard's team's refutations. The Depp v. Heard article seems like a much more appropriate place to bring them up. Including them on this article seems very inappropriate. Afddiary (talk) 01:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• WP:PRESERVE does not normally apply to BLP-sensitive statements; there, per WP:NOCON, the default when consensus is unclear is to remove. And I think this is obviously a BLP-sensitive statement. More generally I would oppose including blow-by-blow evidence from an ongoing trial in a biographical article unless it there is truly overwhelming levels of coverage (which I am not seeing here) - every event in a high-profile trial will attract at least some coverage, but for this to be a significant aspect of Heard's biography rather than just a sentence or two in Depp v. Heard, there needs to be more indication that this particular day of court arguments played a significant role in her life. --Aquillion (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Testimony given by witnesses, hired by the opposition, who only interviewed her briefly, is really not appropriate for labelling someone with a "diagnosis". If it's to be mentioned, yes, it has to be contextualized as the opinion of Depp's hired witness. Also agreed it goes in the trial article, not here. Am removing it. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I guess we can consider the issue settled against including the BPD and HPD diagnoses (unless the verdict pronounces on those, which is unlikely), so I will remove the disputed warning on top, since I was the one who added it (Firefangledfeathers is the one who changed it from factual accuracy dispute to NPOV dispute, which I agree with). Anyone feel free to add it back if you feel that there are other NPOV issues on the page, but I don't see any at the moment. Retxnihps (talk) 18:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Amber

Hella fake news bud 2600:1010:B148:DE33:68B8:B16F:E65F:7C8E (talk) 23:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Why is the change.org petition in the lead?

this is scarcely a notable enough detail to be in the article at all — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.248.223 (talk) 09:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

ACLU & Diagnosis

In April 2022, it was revealed that Heard had not paid what she had claimed in court under oath and on television, the sum of $7 million. Why is it not on her page? During the same trial, it was revealed that she had been diagnosed with bipolar personality disorder by Dr Curry as an expert witness. Why it is not on her page? JeremyTh01 (talk) 11:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

There are prior discussions on this same Talk Page regarding what information is appropriate to include in this article (especially the personality disorder diagnosis - an extensive discussion on that is included just 2 posts above yours). That information is simply not appropriate to include on this page - especially since the validity of both is currently being questioned in court.

Both of the alleged topics in question would be more appropriate to include in the Depp v. Heard article, anyway, and not the article for Amber Heard's career and objective facts about her life. Afddiary (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

She didn't donate 7.5 million to charity and that was confirmed in the current court case in VA. Loftlizard26 (talk) 10:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2022

JohnFisher2 (talk) 11:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I would like to review and change any inoformation wrote by the Johnny depp fans

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 12:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2022 (2)

Spouse to : Tasya Van Ree (2008-2012) Schneck11 (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This has been discussed in the past, with no consensus to include. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

New changes following the court ruling

Regardless of whether or not the court rules in favor of Heard, we should know that court rulings are not representative of the truth. And since there are many (many) news articles that report on Depp's evidence of Heard's wrongdoing this article should be allowed to detail said wrongdoings even if she wins the case.

This is the same way that pages like Emmett Till, Killing of Trayvon Martin, O. J. Simpson murder case, and Kenosha unrest shooting are handled. Despite the court ruling the perpetrator of all these crimes being ruled innocent, there is plenty of evidence of wrongdoing by said perpetrators that were invalidated by evidence in support of them. Some would say these perps are comically evil, and the rulings are a miscarriage of justice, and these articles reflect that opinion since it was a strong and reasonable one. So the view of Depp being the abuse victim, and Heard being an abuser, regardless of the ruling, should exist. June Parker (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

You do understand that this is a civil suit and not a criminal one, right? PRAXIDICAE💕 20:28, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Praxidicae, I don't understand what this has to do with what I said. Court rulings do not reflect the truth and all the cases I mentioned in relation to this one illiustrate that.

I would like to note that you appear to have shadowed [5][6][7] three edits I made right before replying to me, which had not much to do with this conversation whilst accusing me of "Changing facts" when I merely added a category and copy-edited from an existing article. June Parker (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

All of those were on my watchlist, as was this and after seeing your extremely dubious and untrue edits, I read this and responded. If you'd like to bring this up elsewhere, I'll gladly chime in about your less than truthful edits to other articles which are also under DS/GS. PRAXIDICAE💕 20:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

"after seeing your extremely dubious and untrue edits"

@Praxidicae: What is this supposed to mean? I will bring this up in the future, because you're just up and accusing me of nonsense.

First, as we discussed n my talk page, all I did was copy edit an image + its description and add a category. You are accusing me of changing facts. To boot, I don't believe that these pages are on your watchlist. Two of the three only have one edit coming from you, which is the most recent revert and accusation [8][9]. Do not change the subject to previous edits of mine.

What do you have to say about what I actually brought up though, about rulings vs truth? Any lurkers feel free to contribute. June Parker (talk) 22:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree with June Parker on discussing wrongdoing independently of court ruling. Retxnihps (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

June Parker, the difference that I can see with those articles, except for Emmett Till, is that they're case articles. Wikipedia, it appears, decided Till didn't need a case article because the whole topic is just him. There's a case article for Johnny and Amber. Thinnyshivers (talk) 19:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

George Zimmerman and OJ Simpson still have their wrongdoings listed in their articles despite being ruled innocent, because their obvious, moral guilt is reported on by reliable sources. The same should apply to Heard and Depp, because the former's wrongdoings are reported on by reliable sources. June Parker (talk) 22:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Minutes in Aquaman 2

Should the article mention that Heard's role in Aquaman 2 has been reduced to ten minutes? Grace Randolph, a film reporter, tweeted to say that had happened. Unreliable sources, including the New York Post, the Daily Mail, and TMZ, have republished the claim. One possibly reliable source, this Indy500 piece, also did so. Given the unreliability of the reports and the scarcity or reliable source coverage, I urge exclusion of this essentially WP:GOSSIP material. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:52, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

According to those articles the screentime was not reduced. It was merely revealed at the wrong time. I don't understand how this got through but reliable sources that grant neutrality and nuance on her claims of abuse by Johnny Depp got rejected. June Parker (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Heard's comments of continued inclusion in the movie come in context that one official Teaser Trailer Concept that is voiced in its majority by AH and shows Mera as a pivotal figure. Having said this, Grace Randolph, who made the comment I hear #AmberHeard has less than 10 min of screentime in #Aquaman2 is herself contested to have otherwise been an unreliable source.

A producer has also made comment on retaining AH in the film which may provide more informative content. GregKaye 06:52, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I've edited to say: The film's co-producer, Peter Safran, has commented “We felt that if it’s James Wan, and Jason Momoa, it should be Amber Heard. That’s really what it was.”. GregKaye 07:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@GregKaye: I like the replacement line, but I worry it's misleading based on where you've put it. Readers will assume Safran was responding to the 2022 petition, when he was responding to an earlier wave of the campaign in mid-2021. We could move it earlier in the paragraph and expand a bit on pre-petition social media efforts, but I'd rather not get too into it in the Career section. Any ideas? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers Something like that could be one positive option which I'm thinking might require a slightly larger workaround. The petition mentioned is the oldest of several and was started on 22 Mar 2019 (with knowledge of this timing perhaps being OR - learned by going to change.org and searching on Amber Heard).

This petition is just one of aspect of efforts by Depp supporters and Heard detractors that relate across her work and advocacy involvements.

Our article places a time reference to the petition with the text reading:

As of May 4, 2022, an online petition on Change.org to "Remove Amber Heard From Aquaman 2" has reached over 3.5 million signatures, exploding in popularity since the Depp v. Heard trial. Heard confirmed her involvement in the film and described efforts to remove her as "paid rumours and paid campaigns on social media". When asked generally whether the social media campaign for Heard’s removal ever had any influence on the production and their casting decisions.

A simple change to the following sentence might read:

Within an interview on July 29, the film's co-producer, Peter Safran, made comment on the casting of the film, "We felt that if it's James Wan, and Jason Momoa, it should be Amber Heard. That's really what it was."

GregKaye 14:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

What is the meaning of the cross by the film credits and the highlighted remark of Aquaman 2? Placing crosses on wikis have often been associated with death. USN1977 (talk) 14:05, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

it’s explained on top of the list. Btw, Heard confirmed in her testimony that her part has been reduced, possibly even completely cut. Don’t have time to add this right now, but for example ’’Variety’’ is reporting on it. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Newseek source dispute

@ScottishFinnishRadish, TrueHeartSusie3, and GregKaye:

Everyone drop your two cents here.

I was told, based off an interaction I've have with a similar "Unreliable" source (The Plain Dealer) that if RSP doensn't list a source as unreliable then it can be used if it serves the context correctly. Newseek not only fits this, but her prejury investigation is also being reported on by other sources. If Plain Dealer can stay I don't see why Newseek can't.

https://www.newsweek.com/amber-heard-perjury-investigation-continues-australia-amid-johnny-depp-trial-1705603

https://www.marca.com/en/lifestyle/celebrities/2022/05/11/627be68622601dad508b4621.html

https://okmagazine.com/p/amber-heard-investigation-perjury-dog-smuggling/

https://www.eonline.com/news/1307851/amber-heard-under-investigation-for-perjury-in-2015-dog-smuggling-case (From oct 2021)

June Parker (talk) 04:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

If true this is hot news.

The newsweek article says "a spokesperson for Australia's Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment (DAWE) told Newsweek on Wednesday that investigations are ongoing over allegations that Heard lied under oath."

When my edit was undone I got to wondering who was the spokesperson, why weren't they named and whether all other news organisations were picking up their phones to contact the DAWE to confirm the story. The story is feasibly true but I'm wondering about its veracity. GregKaye 04:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Unless it's picked up by better sources than celeb gossip rags, I'd rather wait until it's more than "investigating allegations of perjury by Ms. Heard." If high quality sources pick up that she's being investigated it may be due, but as it stands it seems like unencyclopedic information with little import. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:51, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Seconding ScottishFinnishRadish. I’ve not seen top RS sources write about this at all; even this update that’s currently in the article is based on info from sources generally not considered to be good for contested info. Furthermore, it should be noted that this investigation is based on claims made by Depp’s employee Kevin Murphy, and that the judge in the UK case rejected them. You can read the full details from the UK judgment (linked in the case’s article), but essentially there was no actual evidence other than his claim, plus actually one of the dogs was Depp’s, but Heard volunteered to take the blame so that Depp wouldn’t lose his working visa. So while it’s probably true that Australian officials are investigating (as they need to do for any claim), the whole claim is quite dodgy to begin with and most likely only made it to any media sources because Depp’s team/ Adam Waldman leaked it.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. I find the situation interesting because it displays entitled approaches and hardline, uncompromising Australian responses. It's all potentially instructive but we've also got to balance with brevity. GregKaye 19:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

• It's an obviously BLP-sensitive claim, so we have to wait until it's picked up by higher-quality sources than these. I definitely don't think Newsweek can be used for BLP-sensitive claims, and whoever told you it is acceptable as long as it serves the context correctly is wrong (how would you even determine that without a better source?) My assumption is that you misunderstood what they were saying and that that was in the context of something unexceptional and not BLP-sensitive. --Aquillion (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Charity donations

It appears to me that this article is becoming inundated with minute details about Heard’s donations to the CHLA and ACLU. I would instead suggest summarizing the content and if the details (e.g. where did each part of the donated money come from) are needed, they should be moved to a footnote. In general, I think that adding content from this ongoing trial to either Depp’s or Heard’s articles is very unwise. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 07:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Lead reference to charitable pledge

@TrueHeartSusie3:

Another call for anyone's two cents.

At the time many headlines that referenced the JD/AH divorce mentioned the AH pledge to charity per Depp Heard divorce in news from 13 Aug 2016 – 24 Aug 2016. It wasn't in the news while the divorce was being worked out but that changed.

I think that reference to the pledge in the lead is relevant. The Depp vs. News UK case declared the AH allegations to be 'substantially true' but this was in a context where other things that AH had said by the time of the case were definitively false. It's notable content and was noted both at the time and thereafter.[10].

GregKaye 16:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I’m not saying the pledge was not noted by the media at the time Heard made it in Aug 2016, but the media ’frenzy’ was due to the fact that she alleged domestic violence. After the coverage in Aug ’16 and the finalisation of the divorce in Jan 2017, the pledge was not widely in the headlines until 2019/2020, when Depp started his lawsuit against her. So yes, stating that it’s one of the main reasons for the media coverage in 2016 is revisionist and simply not true. Furthermore, if you’ve read the judgment or the appeal denial, or summaries from RS sources, you’d know that the judge in the UK case did not evaluate whether Depp or Heard was more credible, but looked at all the 14 incidents and the evidence that both sides presented for them. The evidence (ie other witness statements, messages, photos, medical records…) made it more likely that Heard’s account was true, although the judge did not accept all of her claims. Depp brought up the delayed donation in the appeal, and failed because Heard’s character had nothing to do with how the verdict was reached. The judgment is 129 pages and explains in detail how the verdict was reached. The fact that you’re implying that we should cover the delayed pledge in such minute detail and overemphasize it so much as to have it in the lead because it supposedly shows that Heard is untrustworthy (rather than that she is actually delayed because she has been tied up in expensive litigation since 2019 as she says) is a clear reason for not doing so. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

The final terms of the divorce were agreed in January 2017. She had $7 million in her hands and had made a pledge to give it to charity. As far as the notability that Heard gained from the divorce in all her publicity was all about the massive charitable gift that she repeatedly reported that she had made. That's the thing that she referred back to. What happened in 2019 had nothing to do with it. She repeatedly lied. Heard's character had everything to do with it. The evidence was largely based on her claims in context of taped evidence of Depp being the one having things thrown at him and being hit and potentially getting into wrestling situations on the interpretation of wanting to reduce damage. A lot of it was one person's word against another. If systems had been transparent and Heard's lies such as those relating to claimed payments had been discovered, other arguments could have been presented in the UK case. BTW, I think they're both variously untrustworthy but that's my personal POV. GregKaye 17:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I’m not sure that this discussion is going anywhere, but what I’m trying to say is that in WP we go by facts that can be demonstrated. Heard filed for divorce in May 2016 and applied for a restraining order, citing abuse. This made the case a scandal that summer, not the pledge, which was not made until the end of August. Again, I’m not saying there wasn’t media coverage on it, but it quite simply was not the reason why the divorce made so many headlines to begin with. You need to have some excellent sources to prove otherwise, especially since the pledge came 3 months after the intense media attention started.

As for your other claims, I would again suggest that you familiarize yourself with the judgment and appeal, they are easily accessible. How you are representing them is simply incorrect. Further, you may want to also look at the court docs by Depp’s accountant on how Depp paid the settlement - in installments over a year since Jan 2017, not in a lump sum. All I’m saying is that as an encyclopedia, edits need to be based on facts, not impressions or social media rumours.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

The settlement of $7 million was not a social media rumour. Fine, the amount was paid to AH over a year to so as to be in her full possession by Jan 2018. It's not a social media rumour she repeatedly claimed to have given all the money to charity. It's all correct. Someone who says "money played no role for me personally and never has," gets $7 million and gives perhaps 10% of it to charity while getting multimillions of dollars in film roles and then cites money trouble after a couple of years even while saying she gave the lot.

One option, instead of just presenting one side of the story in the lead, we could take out the reference of the judgement from the lead to let people work though the article to find their own way to a full view of the content. Otherwise I think there's value in presenting evidence from both sides. GregKaye 18:59, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Balance is definitely one of the most important standards to follow in writing a WP article. However, balance does not mean that we should be comparing well-sourced facts with fringe/conspiracy theories. The facts that the ACLU rep testified to are definitely facts, and since 2019/2020 there has been sustained media attention on this issue. However, it does not change the fact that the pledge or the subsequent delays in fulfilling it are not why their divorce drew so much media attention in 2016. If you disagree, then you need to find good RS sources to back your statement. Part of balance is also to not overemphasize things, especially not if they are current news and/or part of contested allegations in an ongoing lawsuit. (Will be going mostly offline for the weekend, but I doubt there’s much more for me to add to this discussion.) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:54, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

You insinuate basing on impressions or social media rumours and fringe/conspiracy theories while asserting that she is actually delayed because she has been tied up in expensive litigation since 2019 as she says despite Heard having been in full receipt of the money since Jan 2018. GregKaye 06:18, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Helping to see the violence as inherrent into our system

[11] I'm wondering how reference might be added of the histories of violence of Depp and perhaps Heard as well.

In the lead of the Johnny Depp page I've previously added a text into the lead to say "Depp has been [[#Legal_issues|arrested and/or sued four times]] in relation to acts of physical violence and has struggled with alcoholism and addiction for much of his life." Can similar references be added into the AH article and, if so, how would be best done?

Perhaps the hatnote to the Amber_Heard#Relationship_with_Johnny_Depp section could be modified to read:

See also: Johnny Depp § Amber Heard, Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd, Depp v. Heard, and Johnny Depp § Legal issues

Perhaps a linked text might be added directly into the section or even the lead. Perhaps a foot note could be used.

What do you guys think?

Personally I think that all such references provide a public service for people in the various faction Echo Chambers who are fed arguments on just one side of the issue but not the other.

GregKaye 14:13, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Depp's history of "Violence" belongs on the Johnny Depp article. It does not belong on Amber Heard's article, only Heard's violence does. The only thing from Depp that belongs to her article are any truthful, verifyable instances of violence she may have suffered that are not hearsy, and everything Depp has accused her of, regardless if it's true or false. June Parker (talk) 16:08, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Raspberry picking

I've previously removed a within body text reference to Heard's Golden raspberry and recently ScottishFinnishRadish has done similarly.

I tried to add some only appears on the editing screen text to say (with hopefully better functioning formatting): <!! PLEASE DO NOT add reference here of Heard's golden raspberry nomination. This is already covered in the section on "Awards and nominations". If you feel reference should be added, by all means raise it on the talk page if you like but this could mean that other of her awards may similarly need to be added to the text. THANK-YOU!>

Prob was that the text was still very visible on preview which kind of defeated the purpose. grrr. Anyone got thoughts, advice? GregKaye 13:13, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I honestly don’t understand the removal of the GR mention. It’s standard to mention notable awards nominations within the article body even if they are also listed in the awards section. Razzies are a major award, though of course no one wants to be nominated for one. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Coverage of the settlement of the Depp-Heard divorce

The Depp-Heard divorce was notably bitter [12] [13] and ugly [14] [15] with numerous claims and counter claims, demands and counter demands being. These became known not just by court reporting but also by public statements being made. It is fair to represent the complication that was involved in the divorce within the article.

I developed the section Divorce settlement, charity and activism inclusive of the sentence below in italics to read:

In August 2016, Heard pledged to donate her $7 million divorce settlement with Johnny Depp to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Children's Hospital Los Angeles (CHLA) saying, "As described in the restraining order and divorce settlement, money played no role for me personally and never has, except to the extent that I could donate it to charity and, in doing so, hopefully help those less able to defend themselves". Heard's team made a statement rejecting a plan by which Depp would make payments directly to the charities saying, "if Johnny wishes to change the settlement agreement, we must insist that he honor the full amount by donating $14M to charity, which, after accounting for his tax deduction, is equal to his $7M payment obligation to Amber. We would also insist that the full amount be paid immediately and not drawn out over many years." The final terms of the settlement were agreed in January 2017.

This text both reveals Depp's choice not to donate twice as much money to the charities and Heard's expectation for money to be paid immediately all of which is instructive of the approaches of the participants but has been deleted.

Can this information be included in the article?

GregKaye 10:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support The divorce was an ongoing and complexed affair this can be covered in a way such as the one proposed. The content is notable and is of significant relevance to the participants' approaches. GregKaye 10:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
• Even if we should include this content, we don't need long quotations or italics etc. I think it can be summarised in a couple of sentences, describing the quotes and their clearer descriptions present in the sources. That said, while I'm not strongly opposed, I don't really think this adds much to the article. We provide a high level WP:10YEARTEST summary, not the minutae. I also think that, as-worded, the prose is slightly more confusing. And it is especially unhelpful since the "final terms" aren't described, so I don't think the implications you intend the text to have are really that clear. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
• That proposal is excessive, and it isn't clear it'd add anything worthwhile. Even a proposal for a small version would only be a little better. Thinnyshivers (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Blaming Depp, providing context

The article currently quotes Heard's attorney in saying that "...she had been "delayed" in extending the donations, blaming Depp's 2019 lawsuit against her."

However this fails to acknowledge the fact that the end of the payment schedule had already been reached by the end of December 2017 per ther Reuters article: Actors Johnny Depp, Amber Heard finalize bitter divorce which says that "Film star Johnny Depp’s tumultuous divorce from actress Amber Heard was finalized on Friday" (ie January 13, 2017) and that "Depp ... will pay the rest over the course of the year". I think there's a real POV problem when Wikipedia quotes accusations without getting them in context.

Perhaps the easiest thing to do would be to add a sentence subsequent to mention of the attorney's apportioning of blame to say something like:

The terms of the divorce were finalised in January 2017 with Depp required to make payments over the course of the year.

Alternatively this sentence could be placed earlier in the paragraph with currently reads:

In August 2016, Heard pledged to donate her $7 million divorce settlement with Johnny Depp to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Children's Hospital Los Angeles (CHLA) saying, "As described in the restraining order and divorce settlement, money played no role for me personally and never has, except to the extent that I could donate it to charity and, in doing so, hopefully help those less able to defend themselves". After Heard made the pledge, she was appointed an ACLU ambassador for women's rights. In 2021, a 2019 letter from CHLA to Heard was published, which asked if Heard's pledge would be fulfilled. Heard's attorney said that she had been "delayed" in extending the donations, blaming Depp's 2019 lawsuit against her.

The reason it would be more straight forward to place reference to the payment details at the end of the paragraph is that no date is provided for "After Heard made the pledge, she was appointed an ACLU ambassador for women's rights". Heard personally announced the appointment on December 19, 2018 (verified on a twitter search on "ACLU ambassador (from:realamberheard)") with the ACLU responding to Heard's announcement on the same day and also mentioning Heard in a list of appointees on December 24, 2018 (verified on a twitter search on "Amber Heard (from:ACLU)").

In this light perhaps the mid way sentences could read something like:

The terms of the divorce were finalised in January 2017 with Depp required to make payments over the course of the year. In context of her pledge, Heard has been appointed an ACLU ambassador for women's rights.

What do other editors think would work best?

GregKaye 16:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Added with payments made over the course of the year as I think that's not really a contentious addition and is relevant material. I don't think it has the implication you suggest, though, or that it clarifies any POV issues or ambiguities. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

To add, I think what you're trying to say (in shorter words) is: 'Heard had the money and didn't pay it, and the article should say this'. If this should be included (on which I have no position at this time) you don't need to beat around the bush, the current source in article (Deadline) says it directly, so a direct statement could be made attributed to them. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank-you ProcrastinatingReader, things like this have been objected too like mad. GregKaye 23:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Undue weight regarding Depp in the lead

This article's lead is ridiculous. By wordcount, 80 percent of it is on her relationship (or lack thereof) with Depp. That's some heavy undue weight. It's not neutral, misrepresents the article's content, and is recentist. For contrast, only a single paragraph of Depp's lead covers their relationship. It really needs to be fixed. ~ HAL333 02:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

How does this sound?

“ Heard was married to actor Johnny Depp from 2015 to 2017. Their divorce drew media attention due to Heard's allegation that Depp had been abusive throughout their relationship. Heard was a witness in Depp's defamation lawsuit against British tabloid The Sun's publisher, during which the judge ruled that the printed article, which alleged that Depp had abused Heard, was substantially true. In 2019, Depp sued Heard for defamation in regard to Heard's op-ed in The Washington Post; Heard countersued the following year. The 2022 Depp v. Heard trial ended with the jury ruling that Heard had defamed Depp on all three counts of Depp's suit and that Depp's lawyer had defamed Heard on one count of Heard's suit. The jury awarded Depp compensatory and punitive damages from Heard, while Heard was awarded compensatory damages and no punitive damages from Depp. ”

KyleJoan^talk 15:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I think the lead needs to talk more about her career. 3 out of 4 paragraphs are about her relationship with Depp and the lawsuits. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

That proposed paragraph looks great. I think three paragraphs on her career and one for Depp is a good balance. ~ HAL333 16:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

The part that the jury ruling that Heard had defamed Depp on all three counts of Depp's suit and that Depp's lawyer had defamed Heard on one count of Heard's suit fails to explain how she defamed Depp, particular in light of the earlier statements that Heard's allegation that Depp had been abusive throughout their relationship and the judge ruled that the printed article, which alleged that Depp had abused Heard, was substantially true. What is sorely needed is mention that Heard had defamed Depp with the op-ed's allegations of "sexual violence" and "domestic abuse", and that Waldman's allegations of Heard's "sexual violence hoax" and "abuse hoax" against Depp were not defamatory. Naturally, as a balance, we would explain what she won: Waldman defamed Heard when alleging she "roughed up" a penthouse as a "hoax" against Depp. starship.paint (exalt) 01:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Post-verdict statements

Do we need them here? I don't even find Heard's relevant, let alone Depp's. That final paragraph of the "personal life" section reads news-y. KyleJoan^talk 15:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. They should, at the very least, be trimmed back. ~ HAL333 16:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

If you want, go ahead. starship.paint (exalt) 15:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Is Amber Heard a model?

I happened to read a witness statement of hers that described herself as an "actress, model, and activist". I didn't see any mention of "model" when I CTRL-F-ed. Did we miss something here? starship.paint (exalt) 03:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

As an average person (with access to search engines) I don't really see much evidence of her being a model. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sourcing, while the lead and infobox should stick to things that the person is primarily known for.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

How to really help Amber

Cards on the table, I think Amber ~needs or could gain advantage from some level of psychological help.

Sure, I know it's not Wikipedia's role to be greatly involved but, for the sake of background understandings, I thought it might be worth giving a potential prompt to people's thoughts on the subject. From what I've seen she is in denial and that's just for starters. She gathers people around her that agree with her and then her friends still leave her.

Personally I think that the only way a person like this may actually seek or at least be open to help is if people, at any closeness of connection to her, are open that there at least might be issue/s.

Above there is a discussion on the topic, #Disputed: The disorders Amber is alleged to have and here's a timestamped link to it (though the ppl pinged will be well aware of it). There was debate as to whether inclusion of trial initiated diagnoses of Amber should be left for the Depp v Heard page, now relegated to the testimonials page, or whether it could also be mentioned in the trial section of her own article. Personally I think there's still an argument for this but that's something we'd need consensus on. @Pictureprize, Firefangledfeathers, TrueHeartSusie3, NikonovNikolai, Retxnihps, Thinnyshivers, Afddiary, Aquillion, and CorbieVreccan:

GregKaye 22:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)