Talk:Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd

Using verdict and other official court documents

There have been concerns that this article relies too heavily on primary sources. I am in the process of adding more secondary/media sources, but would like to point out two things: 1.) There is no blanket ban on using court docs in BLPs, see for example Irving v Penguin Books Ltd, which I have used as the model for editing this article. 2.) There is a difference between using court docs filed by either party (which are naturally biased) and using the actual verdict. The verdict is done by a neutral court, and as such is one of the best sources for how the court ruled on the case, especially when it comes to details on why they ruled one way or another, which media usually doesn’t go into as it would bore readers. Finally, I would like to stress that I am in the process of adding even more secondary sources to the article within the next couple of days. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I am no specialist in writing law articles but Sky News did a day-by-day account of the court case [1] which may be helpful if you want to add more secondary sources.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 18:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the tip! Is Sky News considered RS though? I'm not very familiar with it.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I mean from my understanding I think so, but I can double check at WP:RSN.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 18:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

RSN post can be found here Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Sky_News.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 18:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Much appreciated, thank you! Also, an addition to the primary sources thing. I would argue that it is ok to use them as I have in this case – as the source for what the parties –Depp and NGN&Wootton— stated in their legal filings against each other. It would be different if I was using those documents to support one argument or another. For that you definitely do need the verdict and secondary sources. However, currently the article only uses primary sources (court docs) to represent what both parties alleged. Therefore, I don't think the tag is fair. I'm not going to remove it myself at this stage, but won't be unhappy if someone else does. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I believe the longstanding problem with editors using WP:PRIMARYSOURCES is that those types of sources invite editors to gather their own interpretation of the content, and then those users edit accordingly. In a high-profile case like there, there is no shortage of WP:SECONDARYSOURCES. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

In general that is a problem with primary source. In legal articles it is a problem because people present allegations/claims as proven fact. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. Primary sources should be excised from this article ASAP and replaced with secondary sources, with their content gradually added using neutral phrasing. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The majority of the primary sources used here are either backed up by secondary sources in the same footnote, or refer directly to the wording and content of the verdict. I.e. they aren't used to argue or back up a point one way or another, but simply to summarize the main contents of the main legal filings (opening and closing statements, skeleton arguments, verdict, appeal and appeal verdict). Secondary sources (at this point only media sources) are unlikely to include information on the non-sensationalistic parts of the verdict for example, they focused solely on the 14 incidents, not on any of the other parts of the judgment or for example the particulars of the law that related to this case. You are more than welcome to find and add RS secondary sources! But I don't think removing all primary sources is warranted. We will be needing neutral editors with experience in editing legal articles to weigh in. I have already requested such assistance from WikiProject Law, but it seems that no one has thus far had time/interest. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

TrueHeartSusie3 Its the references to the transcript that seem to me to be particularly problematic. They don't even have accompanying links and, if guy are happy, I'll delete them. The citations for Judge Nicol's Judgement document I think can have use, if nothing else, as a kind of footnote so that when readers mouse over, they can access further reference. In comparison the following seem near worthless.
^ Opening statement – Depp, pp. 5–6; 10–11. Skeleton argument – Depp, p. 7
^ Opening statement – Depp, pp. 17-24. Skeleton argument – Depp, pp. 5-14
^ Opening statement – Depp, p. 8
^ Opening statement – Depp, pp. 6–10. Skeleton Argument – Depp, pp. 6–14
GregKaye 18:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

MOS:LEADCITE

Please remember MOS:LEADCITE, Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead.. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia's recent edits

Since I don't want to continue a budding edit war, I'm taking this here. Emir of Wikipedia finds the following sentence to be controversial, without explaining why:

• "During the highly publicized three-week trial in London in July 2020, both Heard and Depp testified in person"

The trial date and place, Depp and Heard testifying in person, and that it received a lot of publicity, are all discussed and cited in the article body. I fail to see anything controversial about the sentence that would warrant repetition of the cites in the lede.

Emir also wants this added to the lede or at least in the article body: "The recasting was considerd a bummer by the fandom. Depp intends to have his name cleared." He insists on this even though I have pointed it out to him that he cannot claim an overall public/media opinion based on one statement in a Cinemablend article, and that 'intends to clear his name' is highly biased wording, and doesn't belong in the lede. Furthermore, he uses the gossip rag OK Magazine as a source for the latter. Finally, the wording 'bummer' is colloiqual, not encyclopedic.

Could Emir of Wikipedia clarify yourself here?

TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

When did I say the sentence was controversial? I said that we must remember MOS:LEADCITE, Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead.. You were the one who reverted this edit by {[u|Jienum}}. with this edit claiming you were reverting POV. It is not POV to follow the sources that are there. If someone has not put the sources there then that is their fault, not mine or Jienums. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Was meant to be Jienum not {[u|Jienum}}. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia, "Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged" (let's not fight about semantics here), what in the sentence is likely to be challenged? Are you aware that ledes generally don't need cites?TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

It says "including within the lead". It does seem like you are trying to fight semantics here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia, Can you answer this question: what part of that sentence do you believe is likely to be challenged?TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, please do answer for the other add as well. It fails WP standards on many fronts. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean? Are you saying your edit fails WP standards by your own admission? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to explain myself any clearer: what part of the sentence you just tagged is likely to be challenged? For the second part, I am referring to the 'clears his name/bummer' part that you added, I have explained above how it fails WP standards. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

You have not made yourself clear. If this was about two separate "parts" then you should have made two separate sections. In my view this section should have been entitled something like "Edits that TrueHeartSusie3 does not like", if you were going for something like that. You must remember you are not the WP:OWNER of this article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I am happy to reinclude the content removed in this edit, even if in a rewritten form. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

It failed WPs criteria on many fronts, as you can see above. It’s on you to fix the problems with it. Stop adding the redundant tag to the article. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 07:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

What redundant tag? I said that we can reinclude the content removed with this edit, and therefore fixing the problem. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

You have been explained why the addition fails WP criteria, but you do not seem to understand this? I'm not sure I can be of help here. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

What does that have to do with a redundant tag? If you can not be of help here then you are free to go and carry on improving this article if I am able to do so. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any issue that has been raised here that would be fixed by this edit, so perhaps you could explain your reasoning? Newimpartial (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Please also have a look at Emir of Wikipedia's recent 'improvements' to the article section headers. These are not improvements, in fact at best they just create unnecessary clutter in places where context is clear or explained in opening sentence, at their worst they are actually biased, unencyclopedic or introduce errors e.g. 'Claim of Heard's reliability'... (the claim made was that Heard was an unreliable witness). Emir does not bother with explaining their reasoning. The same is going on in Amber Heard, and has been for awhile. This editor is quite clearly trying to push their POV to the articles, with little regard to sources or trying to be neutral or even encyclopedic in tone. @Spy-cicle:, @SNUGGUMS:, @Ianmacm:, @SlimVirgin: for comment and advice on how to proceed.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

To be honest, I've tried to avoid get too involved in contentious topics like these when I don't know enough on what is/isn't true to comment on the matter. All I really know for sure is that both parties have insisted "I was the victim and did not get abusive myself" or something to that effect while it varies on which side other people believe and there's lots of debate over who's telling the truth. As for the recent edits here, I'm fine with removing "Claim of", but I don't see a problem with using "hitting Depp" since it's theoretically possible for people to hit both for defending themselves and as a form of aggression. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS, thank you for commenting! For what it's worth, the UK High Court was pretty unanimous in their judgment; I highly recommend reading the judgment and the appeal verdict for clarity on this case. However, this isn't about which side is lying, as WP isn't to play the judge – this article and the others where this controversy is mentioned should be written in a neutral and fair manner. Why I pinged you is because I'm worried that this is not happening, and about the conduct of editors like Emir, who refuse discussion (if you get to a talk page with him, he will claim not to understand/will disappear for weeks or months even if pinged/will accuse you of ownership of the article, etc. basically will do anything not to discuss the changes they made) and are instead creating edit wars. So it's more the conduct of this editor that I am seeking help with, it would be great to have more eyes on these articles as they are clearly controversial and need that. With the titling of the sections, I used another UK libel case, Irving v Penguin Books Ltd. It will be clearer if you take a look at the changes Emir made yesterday, without giving any clear reason for them, or discussing when reverted. As for 'hitting', Heard has admitted in her witness statements to hitting and throwing items in self-defence/to escape, that's clear from the section but surely adding it (hitting and throwing items) to the subsection title is a bit of overkill? How about 'violence in self-defence'? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 08:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Please do not lie and say I refuse discussion. I have discussed here multiples, and other talkpages where we have come across here. If I have not edited for weeks or months you should be patient, remember WP:THEREISNORUSH. I am a volunteer here and have things to do outside of Wikipedia. Just because you do not like my edits/discussion does make them any less valid. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

It's pretty ironic that everything TrueHeartSusie3 has said in their message above about Emir of Wikipedia is exactly what I would say about TrueHeartSusie3's conduct these past three months. Aside from this, I genuinely have no idea why three of these four users have been pinged to this discussion. WP:CANVASSING? Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Homeostasis07, I'll be happy discuss any problems you may have with my conduct, but without specifics or refs, it's very difficult. Please do explain yourself a bit further? Why I pinged these editors is because this page does not tend to receive comments, even though I have for example sought help from the Wikipedia Law Project to help with it. I'm honestly tired of the constant warring instead of trying to find consensus. Spy-cicle and ianmcm I pinged because they are some of the few people to comment/intervene previously here and on Amber Heard's article. SNUGGUMS and SlimVirgin I pinged because I know they are both far more experienced in Wikipedia than I am. Feel free to ping others to comment! AFAIK, there's no other way to bring a page with problems between editors to the attention of other editors who may not follow the page, unless one wants to go to ANI, and we're not there yet. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 08:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to ping others to comment! AFAIK, there's no other way to bring a page with problems between editors to the attention of other editors who may not follow the page, unless one wants to go to ANI, and we're not there yet. What about places like Wikipedia:Third opinion and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard? Do not try to attack my conduct, just because you can't defend your edits/reverts. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing those up, I was not aware of Third opinion! Dispute resolution noticeboard I have heard about, never 'used' it though. Have to look into it these two. But once again I am having to repeat: it's on the one who makes the initial changes that cause a dispute to go to the talk page to explain their edits and discuss if they are reverted. This is a basic WP rule. Citing WP:OWNER does not magically make it go away. In this case, it's you who has edited a stable version of the article, and been reverted by two editors. Disappointingly, you've again just denied that you don't discuss, but have not actually discussed the edits that begun this thread here nor provided rationale for your edits (either the headings or the bit you want to add to the lede). We have to be able to discuss your edits, that you think they are improvements is not enough. It needs to be clear to other editors as well that they improve the article. If you'd discuss, you'd probably find that I am not as possessive over articles I've edited heavily as you claim. I'm very open for improvements to edits I've made, but if there's no discussing and just edit warring, it's difficult to reach consensus. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:37, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I am glad you are now aware of those two routes if you ever feel you need to use them. What change(s) is it that you want me to do discuss? I have not problem explaining my edits. Accusing someone of trying to push POV just because they want to improve in a way that you mean not necessarily agree with does not mean you can't allow other to editors the article. It is certainly interesting that Homeostasis07 said that your conduct could be described as what you are describing me as. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

AFAIK, I haven't noticed you engaging in canvassing if that's what you think I'm accusing you of? As for the questions, please take a look at the beginning of this discussion, as well as the discussion between Spy-cicle and me below, those are the issues you should clarify: the tag on the trial, the 'bummer'/'clear face' mention and related sourcing, as well as the new, very long sub-section titles. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I did not you say were accusing me of canvassing. You said This editor is quite clearly trying to push their POV to the articles, which is what I was talking about. Are you talking about multiple "issues"/questions or just one? A talkpage section called "Emir of Wikipedia's recent edits" is not really helpful if the edits are about different things. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I've stated several times in this section what I would like you to clarify, that is your edits made this month, for which you have provided no reasoning. Btw, these subtitles + the tag aren't a consensus version, it's the changes that you added at the beginning of this month, and have ever since kept reverting to without explaining your rationale for them or discussing them. One of the titles is also grammatically wrong, but sure, keep reverting. It's incredible that this does not meet edit warring criteria. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

If a title is grammatically wrong then please point it out, but don't make some vague comment that is not specific enough for me to give a precise answer to. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I am guessing I was pinged since I have edited this talk page before and made an edit to the page.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 05:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

So from my understanding there are two things being discussed whether the statement "The recasting was considerd a bummer by the fandom. Depp intends to have his name cleared." should be included in the body and the "During the highly publicized three-week trial in London in July 2020, both Heard and Depp testified in person" should be cited in the lead for as it is a controversial or likely to be challenged statement (please correct me if I am wrong these type of controversial discussions can often be hard to follow). For the first provided if we have good RS(s) I do not see a compelling reason to exclude it but it would need to be rewritten in a more encyclopedic tone (Perhaps The recasting was considered a disappointment by the fandom. Depp intends to have his name cleared.). For the second I do not think that statement is about them providing evidence in court is likely to challenged for the lead and I am pretty sure it is sourced in the body.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 05:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Emir still finds the sentence they tagged to be problematic. As for the 'bummer', in addition to the colloiqual language, the issue is indeed the lack of RS. The only source given was a Cinemablend column where the writer says it's a bummer there's been a recast. One opinion does not represent the opinion of the entire fandom, or even parts of it. It's just one person's opinion. Now if there were several columns like these by several RS publications, then we could say that, or if we have a RS article saying 'the general opinion amongst fandom is of disappointment', then we could say that.

The 'clear his name' was sourced to OK Magazine, very clearly not a RS publication; furthermore, it's a pretty charged way of putting that. If we want to mention something similar in the lede (please note that Depp's appeal is already mentioned), I'd suggest instead adding something about the upcoming VA trial.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 08:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Judicial Corruption

I think given that there were some articles written about the corruption involved in this case, there should be mention of the fact that Judge Andrew Nicol's son works for TalkRadio, which employs Dan Wootton, and therefore gave him a direct conflict of interest. He also co-published a book with the employer of one of Amber Heard's lawyers so there was also conflict of interest within his own professional circle. 72.136.95.67 (talk) 02:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this conspiracy theory?TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 08:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

1 - https://www.quora.com/Did-Johnny-Depp-lose-his-case-due-to-the-judge-being-corrupted (all the proof of corruption answered in the top question)

2 - https://poptopic.com.au/lifestyle/celebrities/exposed-the-sun-libel-trial-judges-son-works-for-rupert-murdoch/ (proof the son works for TalkRadio)

3 - https://twitter.com/truthseekeruk5/status/1329204299335954432?lang=en (proof of Amber Heard's ties to Andrew Nicol's wife, Camilla Palmer)

4 - https://play.acast.com/s/drivetimewithdanwootton (proof Dan Wootton also works for TalkRadio)

5 - https://intelligenceuk.com/index.php/2021/08/20/johnny-depp-is-another-victim-of-the-corrupt-uk-justice-system/ (another article explaining the corruption and conflicts of interest)

6 - https://www.ibtimes.com/johnny-depp-no-wife-beater-libel-case-judge-called-out-twitter-3076716 (a tiny amount of the overwhelming evidence introduced in the US refuting the result of the UK trial) 72.136.95.67 (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

This absolutely is NOT a conspiracy theory, but well documented fact, and I've taken screenshots of all of the web pages and contacted his legal team in case any censorship of my post happens.72.136.95.67 (talk) 03:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Can someone reach a consensus over this since my edit is getting deleted even though I've shown multiple sources and have yet to receive a reply??? 72.136.95.67 (talk) 01:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

What you're doing above is combining sources in a form of original research. Again, that doesn't work here. agtx 01:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

IP72, this seems like the kind of thing that, if true, major news outlets would mention. Please be on the look out for such sources, as the ones you've cited here are not reliable for such a contentious claim. User-generated content outlets like Twitter and Quora are not usable for this. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

They would mention it if major news outlets weren't owned by Rupert Murdoch, who Depp was essentially suing. I didn't just source Twitter and Quora, and the Twitter sources I used are pictures that are obviously legitimate. But whatever, I've contacted other places so maybe this information will finally get out and the truth can start to actually exist about this circus. 72.136.95.67 (talk) 01:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTHERE if you're to make further edits. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 01:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I would say my contributions would have fallen under this:

Expressing unpopular opinions – even extremely unpopular opinions – in a non-disruptive manner

Merely advocating and implementing changes to Wikipedia articles or policies with reliable sources is allowed; even if these changes made are incompatible with certain Wikipedia policies and guidelines, it is not the same as not being here to build an encyclopedia. The disagreeing editor should take care to not violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines such as not reverting due to a lack of consensus, getting the point, and civility in the course of challenging unpopular opinions.

But it's clear you're not interested in having this information public. 72.136.95.67 (talk) 01:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I frankly don't care much for the information being public or not, I'm not the one with any ties to the case here. I do care for someone just barging in and demanding everyone else to put this piece of info that is not confirmed by any reputable, independent news source, to then accuse all of us of somehow being manipulated or corrupt. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 02:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Well given that I've been told that I'm only using Quora and Twitter, and that I was using The Sun as a source, none of which is true, it's clear you aren't actually interested in the information that I presented because you didn't even care to read it! 72.136.95.67 (talk) 03:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not the one who said that. We're not one big conspiring hivemind. All I see is that you're kicking against literally everything anyone here tells you, and don't actually care to discuss the critiques other contributors bring up. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 13:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring § User:72.136.95.67 reported by User:Amadeus1999 (Result: ). ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 01:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Wiki

I think people need to know the truth I thought wiki was about telling the truth but it won't let me add the facts anything concerning Depp losing the uk court case is slander due to all the evidence in that case was fake Amber heard created it all to destroy her ex husband's life cause she didn't get what she wanted she was the abuser not him and yet wiki is obviously a Amber heard lover since they refuse to allow the truth to be told its sickening that low life scum like wiki are still abusing Johnny by spouting fabricated lies and refusing point blank to clear the record by making then accurate 5.68.13.71 (talk) 07:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:THETRUTH is important on Wikipedia. But WP:RELIABLE sources are more important. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment on WP:THETRUTH which can often be enabled both by helping people see summary while also enabling them to look into the details. Also, if WP:RELIABLE sources aren't helping us with WP:THETRUTH, we're f***ed. GregKaye 17:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Quote walls

I suggest roll-backing GregKaye’s edits in this article. He took a well-sourced article and replaced it with a quote wall. Even worse, the quotes are misrepresenting the case. Eg. ’Consideration of the evidence as a whole’ discusses everything but the topic in the title. He is seriously misrepresenting the verdict because he wants to bend the article to his version of the ’truth’, ie a conspiracy theory. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan:, apologies if this is not the correct way but I noticed that you're an admin – any chance you could have a look at the edits made to this article in the aftermath of the Depp-Heard verdict? In particular, the section on the verdict seems highly problematic. If not, any chance you could point me to a right direction on how to get an admin to look into this? Thank you! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@TrueHeartSusie3: pinging me is fine. I haven't gone over this article before, but am now looking at it, per your request. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I have manually reverted GregKaye's additions since June 8, constituting more than 26,000 bytes of content, nearly all of it copied/pasted from Justice Nicol's judgement. Even setting aside the concerns about GregKaye's strong POV on this topic, this is just poor drafting of an encyclopedia article, rendering the page nearly unreadable for the general public. As just one example, Wikipedia's summary style does not benefit from including the following text exchange:

• "Nicol judged that something of Depp's feelings towards Heard can be seen in a 15th August 2016 text in which he said, 'She's begging for total global humiliation. She's gonna get it. ... I have no mercy, no fear and not an ounce of emotion or what I once thought was love for this... I'm so fucking happy she wants to fight this out!!! She will hit the wall hard!!! And I cannot wait to have this... out of my life!!! I met fucking sublime little Russian here ... Which makes me realize the time I blew on that 50 cent stripper ... I wouldn't touch her with a goddam glove. I can only hope that karma kicks in and takes the gift of breath from her ... Sorry man ... But NOW I will stop at nothing!!! Let's see if Mollusk has a pair ... Come see me face to face ... I'll show him things he's never seen before ... Like the ...' "

Regardless of GregKaye's motivation, this level of granular (even salacious) detail is inappropriate (and unnecessary) for an encyclopedic overview of the case.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I've definitely made errors here and must certainly offer my apologies. Sorry especially to TheTimesAreAChanging who was faced with the hassle of the reversions which should have been my responsibility. My thought had been to supply neutral information to let people take considerations into their own hands. On the quote above I ended it "... the ..." [Nicol's edited version of the text, further edited.]" with Depp's language being uglier than even I presented. Motivation still got the better of me, it was granular and yes with salacious content as well. I was wrong. GregKaye 05:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Heard's admission to violence against Depp

This section title is quite misleading. The court made a verdict on "Ms Heard's admission to violence in recorded conversations contrasted with her evidence in which she denied being the violent party". The title should reflect that. In these recordings she is not admitting to self-defence but to beeing violent and intiating violence against Depp.

The description of Heard's statements is quite vague. The verdict deals with quite a few statements that should be listed.

Furthermore, the section adds quite a bit of explanation which is not part of the rulling as such. The verdict is quite clear that the court regarded the recorded admissions as irrelavant because Heard denied that behaviour in court. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IheardTheShot123 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

? I had edited to Heard's admission to self-defence. with a full edit description (→‎Heard's admission to self-defence on record: Shortening ===Heard's admission to self-defence on record=== to ===Heard's admission to self-defence=== the paras 169-176 referenced are titled: vii) Ms Heard's admission to violence in recorded conversations contrasted with her evidence in which she denied being the violent party)
Would a title like "Heard's stated admission to self-defence" work? To my mind "... on record" adds distraction leaving questions "when? and "how?" The Judgment reference is in para 169 which reads: "In her witness statements and in her evidence, Ms Heard maintained that it had always been Mr Depp who had been the aggressor. She said that the only occasion when she had hit him back had been in the course of incident 9 ..., in defence of herself and her sister,.."

"for reference (from para 171), quoted sections taken from an audio recording include: "AH: ... hit you across the face in a proper slap, but I was hitting you, it was not punching you. Babe, you're not punched." "AH: You didn't get punch. You got hit. I'm sorry I hit you like this. But I did not punch you. I did not fucking deck you. I fucking was hitting you. I don't know what the motion of my actual hand was, but you're fine. I did not hurt you. I did not punch you. I was hitting you." "AH: ... Just because I've thrown pots and pans does not mean you can come and knock on the door." "AH: I did start a physical fight."

GregKaye 06:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Given that the judge writes in the verdict "Heard's admission to violence in recorded conversations", I think we should go with that. I don't think we should use the same exact title as in the judgment simply because it's VERY long.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

But that was "... contrasted with her evidence in which she denied being the violent party". In the section's penultimate paragraph (175), Nicol says, "In my view no great weight is to be put on these alleged admissions by Ms Heard to aggressive violent behaviour... A witness giving evidence in court does so under an oath or affirmation to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Questioning can be controlled by the judge. Questions which are unclear can be re-phrased. If a question is not answered, it can be pressed (subject to the court's control) and if still unanswered may be the proper object of comment. ..."

At least one of the parties must of been lying and Nicol judged that Heard was the one relevantly testifying truthfully of the incidents.audio timestamped to beginning of last 2/3rds of para 171 (graphic) GregKaye 19:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Para 174 says, "In her evidence, Ms Heard said that she did sometimes throw pots and pans at Mr Depp but only to try and escape him and as a means of self-defence. ..." GregKaye 20:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Original title of the Sun's article

AknolIikiW I've cleaned up the Sun's article title to always report the original title as that is the one that "caused" the whole dispute in the first place. Reliable sources mostly report the original title because if you remove the words "wife beater" from it isn't clear why Depp would have sued them. We can clarify in the body that the title was changed (but it is a very minor detail). {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 15:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources do mention the term "wife beater" as do we. But they mostly do not use the whole defamatory title. The reliable sources obviously think it's clear enough. AknolIikiW (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Gtoffoletto, I dispute both your claim that the "title ... "caused" the whole dispute in the first place" and of "cleaned up". Justice Nicol even stated, "79 I have already noted that neither party sought to distinguish between the articles. The notable difference was that the original online article in its headline referred to the Claimant as a 'wife beater'. The amended online article and the print version instead referred to the 'assault claim'. However, as I have said, neither party treated the differences as material."[2] He had previously noted such things as the extreme rapidity with which the online article was changed. On claim to the "Original title of the Sun's article", the "wife beater" version of the title didn't make it into the tabloid in print and it disappeared from the online version, in the UK overnight, after a mere 10 hours. Nicol indicated it to be practically an irrelevance in regard to his judgement of the Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd trial.

AknolIikiW, Reliable sources do not typically mention the term "wife beater" prominently though this may happen in WP:Cherry picked examples. Searches on Depp "News Group Newspapers" and Depp "The Sun" give few visible reference to "wife beater". It's easy to check the publishers from the listings and that are from RS. If anything it maybe the trashier sources that use this reference more. GregKaye 06:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Your interpretation of the judge's views is WP:Original Research. I haven't found a single WP:RS that DOESN'T use the original title. For example: the Associated press, the BBC, the Guardian, the Washington post. So I guess the case is closed here. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

The case, as ruled by Justice Nicol, was certainly closed without "wife beater" being an issue. It was an irrelevance in the Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd trial and was of similarly little relevance in WP:RS. Searches on Depp "News Group Newspapers" and Depp "The Sun" give few visible reference to "wife beater" any yet it's the less reputable publications that seem to use the reference more readily. It's a sensationalist reference that even The Sun rejected.
That's a problem. WP:BLP says "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively" and that "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist". GregKaye 16:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

GregKaye, as a very experienced editor, I have literally no idea what you think the raw Google search results above are supposed to "prove". Like Gtoffoletto, "I haven't found a single WP:RS that DOESN'T use the original title" of the The Sun's article. Even Starship.paint, who has defended you several times in the past, inquired as to "why you're so touchy about the 'wife beater' stuff. There is plenty of reliable source coverage to support it, including the Holy Trinity of news agencies - Associated Press / Reuters / AFP, and reliable sources - BBC / NYT / WaPo. I'm sure I could find many more sources. Regardless of how many hours that term appeared, it did appear online, and Depp sued for it in London, and lost. As such, it would be wrong for Wikipedia to not include it." In fact, it seems clear that you also have been unable to find even one secondary source noting the title change, considering that you have not presented any over the course of numerous talk page discussions and your edits in article space instead relied on the deprecated source itself (along with Nicol's judgement).

Furthermore, the Nicol excerpt that you cited above proves exactly the opposite of what you are contending. Read it again: "I have already noted that neither party sought to distinguish between the articles. The notable difference was that the original online article in its headline referred to the Claimant as a 'wife beater'. The amended online article and the print version instead referred to the 'assault claim'. However, as I have said, neither party treated the differences as material." [emphasis added] You added a lengthy digression and footnote trying to distinguish between the two versions of The Sun's article to Depp v. Heard, but Nicol is stating that the specific label used in the headline was not a material issue in the case. In other words, neither the interested parties nor Justice Nicol shared your concern that "wife beater" is any more "defamatory" than "assault claim".

Frankly, I don't know what results you're getting as they tend to fluctuate, but when I clicked on your link to "Depp 'The Sun'," there were three "visible references" to "wife beater". Still, why must we play along with this "visible" game in the first place, given that the rules are entirely of your own making? Simply put, there is no basis in Wikipedia policy for your stipulation that any particular phrase must be "visible" (i.e., from the headline or preview, without actually clicking on the article itself to see what it says) in raw Google search results to be included in a Wikipedia entry. This completely made-up "rule" tends to obscure the fact that "wife beater" would be "visible" in many, many, many more articles—if only GregKaye could be bothered to read them! (Again, none of the articles on the first page of the Google search results mentions The Sun's title change.)

Given that there is absolutely no support for your view in any secondary sources—reliable or otherwise—or in the primary source of the Depp v. NGN litigation, including the arguments made by Depp's legal team and Nicol's ruling, it is difficult, Greg, to see how you can so indefatigably insist on forcing your personal preference on this and other articles. The only reason that I have not pushed back until now is because I basically agree with Nicol that the precise label used is immaterial, but that doesn't excuse your illogical statements and misrepresentation of sources and the record.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging as a very experienced editor I dislike the idea of both of you avoid, here and at Talk:Depp v. Heard, issues from: WP:BLP, that: "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively" and that "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist".

Please be fair. Even while you reply to me without a ping, you'll still WP:CANVASS other editors.

WP:DUE states, "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery" and "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic."

While editors have WP:Cherrypicked references, you cherrypick quotations. In your words, "You should...know..." that the Starship.paint quotation you use was taken prior to our looking at the Depp "News Group Newspapers" and Depp "The Sun" searches with there notable absence of readily apparent "wife beater" references. (It's just a matter of fairly presenting quotations in context.

In rare occasions where "wife beater" is used prominently in articles, it is rarely in context of the full title. As AknolIikiW astutely points out above, "Reliable sources do mention the term "wife beater" as do we." GregKaye 11:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

"Even while you reply to me without a ping, you'll still WP:CANVASS other editors." GregKaye, your excessive pinging comes across as WP:BADGERING and is driving me crazy. I do not need to be pinged multiple times every day about articles that I have on my Watchlist already. When I posted nearly identical replies ([3], [4]) to your comments on Talk:Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Talk:Depp v. Heard, I pinged you only once, Gtoffoletto only once, and Starship.paint only once, as a courtesy, as I sincerely doubt that any of you require multiple duplicative pings. Even that is a lot of pinging for me! I am not a constant pinger, as I consider it to be poor decorum. Your assumption of bad faith is noted, and far from the mark.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

"Even while you reply to me without a ping, you'll still WP:CANVASS other editors." So, even though I've repeatedly requested you to ping me when talking about me, you retain the "duplicative pings" just for the editors you're canvassing and not for me, the editor you're replying to? (Elsewhere, in places where you had said or inferred things about me or similar I had pinged you to ensure you received notification of such things as broader understanding of the situations of which you spoke. I understand you keep notes. I'd like to ensure those notes are fair and accurate).
We are still left with the issues that I've raised such as from: WP:BLP, that: "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively" and that "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist". Following repeated pings to Starship.paint at Talk:Depp v. Heard, it strikes me that you have a selective concern in claim of "badgering" 06:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC) edit GregKaye 18:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Uff..... what an incredibly wasteful discussion. Let's unify the discussion in a single thread since we are talking about the same stuff and try to close this once and for all. Please continue this discussion here and let's try to end this mess Talk:Depp v. Heard#Summary of discussion points {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

They are both discussions that you began. They relate to different trials relating to a tabloid's sensationalist title wording relevant to one of those trials, wording which had not been notably referenced for months following an initial physical publication using different wording and a within hours amendment of the online title on the morning of April 28, 2018. The discussion relating to page content in the other trial didn't need your reboot and can be fully followed from the sub-heading: Talk:Depp v. Heard#Use of the temporary title of the Sun's online article which mentions "Wife Beater". Issues in regard to this article, such as raised by AknolIikiW above, remain and have not been set up to be covered in your other discussion. GregKaye 18:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh my, what GregKaye says here is accurate. Please do not let this discussion get even messier by mixing the two separate discussions on two separate talk pages on two separate articles about two separate trials. I guess the keyword is SEPARATE. Yes they are related, but they are certainly not the same.

Gtoffoletto your examples of articles using the complete original title are wrong. They mention the words "wife beater" but don't state the whole article title.

Your objections about the use of the modified title, I definitely understand. It's the consequence of compromising, but it feels strange to do so. When reporting about the article, it's more natural to just explain what the article is about and report that the Sun called J. Depp a "wife beater". The title is, in my opinion, obsolete. Also if we decide to use the Sun's whole article title we shouldn't use it in the lead and refrain from using it more than once in the body. AknolIikiW (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I think this discussion is pretty much over in any case. Here are 827 Google results (including many WP:RS such as BBC, Guardian, Wapost, etc.) for the complete full original title that includes "Wife beater". For reference the modified title without wife beater produces only 7 results from poor sources. I think there is no objective reason to continue this discussion. Right? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Gtoffoletto, your flawed WP:OR gives no reason to add content. Google often get mix ups with their search results. Go to the final (currently eighth page of that search) and find 78 results. Other references possibly have all the words but not in the same order. So you have 78 results. PLEASE LOOK AT THEM! Only one RS article (from Sky News) referenced "wife beater" in their titles. Other RELIABLE SOURCES have comparatively downplayed the reference. It's not an issue. PLEASE remember, WP:BLP says "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively" and that "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist". You continue to be more sensationalist than The Sun. GregKaye 14:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)