Talk:Depp v. Heard

Edit Request

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Too Much!

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

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

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

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

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

Biased documentation

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

---

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

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

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

Reference tags

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

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

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

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

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

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

DV expert opinions on the media

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also, two further articles on these themes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Start of relationship

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

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

Not neutral. Sources biased.

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

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

My apologies to editors and makers of the article.

Not intent to diminish anyones work.

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia isn't neutral and never has been. Whether or not it should be is not, and has never been, relevant. 2600:1700:49C0:C0A0:C56B:2B5B:1FFD:F58 (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

How should we organise the text?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent mass blanking

I've recently reverted mass-blanking by RandomCanadian since I think that the detailed, well-sourced content about the testimony is worth keeping in the article. I think the conversation here points towards a working agreement that the content should generally be preserved and I don't understand the motivation for nuking all of the witness testimony. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 23:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

The reason most of the content was removed is because of the ITN thread where this is being discussed. Far too much of this is trivial stuff which fails WP:NOT and WP:RECENTISM. We don't have a day-by-day, event-by-event account of stuff as pivotal as the Battle of Stalingrad. Or even for stuff like the Nuremberg trials; or the O. J. Simpson murder case (which does include a detailed account, but not a witness-by-witness quote farm). The trend in doing so seems really like undue focus on (and unability to distance oneself from) recent events - i.e. recency bias. People really need to look up the WP:10YEARTEST. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Regardless, completely blanking the section and not mentioning any of the testimonies should not be the ultimate solution. There should at least be an abridged version of what we had before, as even the OJ Simpson and Nuremberg trials mentioned at least some of the proceedings. --WuTang94 (talk) 02:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

It is better to have no content than to have bad content because the bad content sets a bad example; whereas no content may actually serve the purpose of driving forward the creation of new, better, more meaningful stuff. There should indeed be "an abridged version" of the description of the proceedings (in the same way the description of the Stalingrad battle is a much abridged documentation of main events). Simply said, what was in the article was not "an abridged version"; and is in fact so excessive I am not sure it is a useful basis from which to write a summary, hence the blanking. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I mean, there's gotta be a way to write about someone's point of view without presenting it as fact, and this stuff can be summarized in a few paragraphs instead of being drawn out, right? Instead of having full sections of each witness, we could probably lump certain witnesses into corresponding paragraphs. --WuTang94 (talk) 02:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to that. I'm just saying the interim non-solution of keeping blatantly excessive stuff is, well, not a solution. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I've moved the content to Talk:Depp v. Heard/temp where it can be worked on without making the main article look so ridiculously silly. I'll note that the overly detailed coverage should probably be replaced with reference to sources more distant from the events, or, given those probably don't exist yet, at least ones which try to make a summary and not give a "play-by-play" account of the thing (as the latter would be almost WP:PRIMARY, being original materials that are close to an event). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for doing that. That way we can trim it down and put it back when it's ready. WuTang94 (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Day by day witness list

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

Political impact of the trial

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

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

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

I added a sentence that it's the end of the #BelieveAllWomen philosophy of MeToo. The source i found is about that, rather than the end of MeToo. But if you find reliable sources about this being the end of MeToo, that could be added. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 12:31, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Redaction problem found.

Am I the only one who foun that: "Several false claims about Heard have also been disseminated through social media" should instead be redacted: "Several conspiracy speculations and theories have been running through social media about defendant's behavior"? Because "Several false claims" sounds like defendant and/or planitiff have done it or contradicted, which none of them have pointed out those matters, but instead are theories that came out from watchers of the livestream of the trial. (I hope I made sense).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.217.139.3 (talk) 16:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. All the sources say is that her using movie quotes is debunked. There's nothing in there to support the rest of that sentence. I updated the sentence to accurately reflect the sources. Just goes to show how easily a (in this case feminist) bias slips into a WP article. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 12:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Damages amount

I see LawyerTube(broad term for lawyers on YouTube) are saying Depp's award is going to be $8.35 million. After accounting for Heard's two million claim, the five million in punitive isn't actionable because Virginia State Law apparently states that the maximum for punitive damages is $350K. I'll let actual lawyers on Wikipedia handle this in retrospect though. AirNinja (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I heard something similar. Best to stick to the facts and wait until we get an official number, I suppose. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 19:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Punitive damages are capped in Virginia at $350,000. Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-38.1 Depp was still awarded $15,000,000 in damages, but he cannot collect that amount. The $8,350,000 is Depp's jury award offset by Heard's $2,000,000. However, offsetting the damages and statutory caps are issues for collection. That will take place a later date. For now, the number should be $15,000,000 awarded by the jury, who had no idea about the cap on punitive damages. Then follow up that statement with a mention of the statutory cap on punitives so the total he can collect is $10,350,000. CanadianUSLawCQEJLRMMO (talk) 00:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Damages won

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

The book here says the judge themselves will reduce the amount to whats stated in the law.

https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title8.01/chapter3/section8.01-38.1/ AirNinja (talk) 19:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I should have worded my comment better, the judge was the one who did limit to that cap and was stated she did in the cited source. WikiVirusC^(talk) 19:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Nothing changes though. The jury still awarded Depp $15M. Just because punitive damages are statutorily capped doesn't change that. See my comment above. CanadianUSLawCQEJLRMMO (talk) 00:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Wasn't trying to imply something changes, it was a matter of how much detail do we want to give. Current lead seems fine now though. WikiVirusC^(talk) 00:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Responses from abuse victim advocates

Since the verdict, multiple group/individual advocates for the rights of abuse victims have responded criticising the verdict. They have criticized the jury for ruling in favour of Depp whilst also ruling in favour of Heard. As, they have said this means Depp was found guilty of abusing Heard in these rulings - in addition to the previous 12 counts of abuse Depp was found legally responsible for - whilst Heard was ruled against for speaking out about his abuse. They have said this sets a precedent where people - especially women - are legally bound from speaking out against their abusers. They have also criticized the jury process as biased - including the fact that the jury wasn't sequestered and were exposed to media about the trial. This seems critical information to be included in the article, and I suggest it is. 92.10.13.209 (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

No one was found guilty of abuse in these rulings. This was a defamation case, defamation was the only thing the jury concluded happened. Anyways, if you want something added in, provide a reliable source and mention exactly where(presumably reactions) and how you want it in the article. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I know, I was talking about the reactions from abuse victim advocates who were talking about the trial's meaning and repercussions. 92.10.13.209 (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I had briefly mentioned an Analysis style section when we were discussing how to structure the Response section earlier on this Talk page. That would include more discussion by lawyers, DV advocates/survivors/nonprofits etc. At the time I believe we elected to wait until the trial concluded to add those point, but feel that section or responses from DV groups/survivors/advocates and lawyers about the differences in the UK and US trials would be beneficial in the response section or a new section.Leaky.Solar (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes I completely agree 92.10.13.209 (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Well this is one article covering criticisms of the verdict and process we could include. It doesn't mention reactions from specific groups but it's still relevant. We definitely need more sources though of course. This is just the first one I found. After Depp-Heard verdict, elation and disappointment at the courthouse - The Washington Post 92.10.13.209 (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

This content is absolutely crucial, but it is also varied and thick. I feel like it should be in the Reactions section below Amber Heard's reaction - since her and Depp are the two most important parties. However, I think there should be one subsection for lawyers and and another for abuse advocates/survivors/nonprofits etc. Since there's such a volume to cover considering how public the trial has been, as well as the huge precedent domestic abuse advocates are saying the verdict has. 92.10.13.209 (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I’ve read that WaPo article and it only mentions a single Heard supporter. We shouldn’t over-amplify her view. starship.paint (exalt) 04:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I said it was only one source and that we shouldn't use it until we have more sources. I was just putting it on the backburner as we collate sources. 92.10.13.209 (talk) 06:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

"Some people say..." Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 16:48, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

A civil court case doesn't determine guilt at all. No one was found guilty of anything in this case. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

92 IP: “They have criticized the jury for ruling in favour of Depp whilst also ruling in favour of Heard. As, they have said this means Depp was found guilty of abusing Heard in these rulings” - absolutely wrong from people who misunderstand the verdict or even this Wikipedia article. Jury only ruled that Depp’s lawyer defamed Heard with regard to Heard staging a penthouse incident. Depp was not found in this case to be abusing Heard. It was also found that saying that there was an “abuse hoax” from Heard against Depp was not defamatory. starship.paint (exalt) 04:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. This was a defamation suit - but Depp had been previously found to have committed 12 counts of abuse. And his lawyer admitted that some of the texts in question against Heard were real. Ergo, these people are saying that Depp being found guilty of defaming Heard - whilst Heard is also being found guilty of defaming him on more counts - rules that the abuse against her did occur but that she is being silenced. In addition to the 12 counts he was already held accountable of. 92.10.13.209 (talk) 06:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

For the jury to convict Heard for defamation, they had to believe that abuse by Depp did not occur. So they disagreed with the UK ruling. As did the large majority of experts and audience watching and commenting on the case who, in fact, find based on what's presented in this case that Heard was abusing Depp. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 12:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

92 IP, the 12 counts of abuse was the UK trial. Frankly, they are irrelevant to this verdict in Virginia, this is the US trial. It is ludicrous to combine the two. The Virginia jury did not believe abuse occurred. starship.paint (exalt) 14:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

in regards to

The use of 'in regards to', in place of 'in regard to' or 'regarding', is generally considered erroneous in written English. Please reconsider its use in this article. 80.1.169.182 (talk) 10:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

In regard to your tip: thanks, it's corrected ;-) PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 12:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2022

On the Reactions section, remove the bold text from "Camille Vasquez" and "Companies". Thank you! --93.42.64.220 (talk) 10:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Why? Subsection headers are generally bolded. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

The bold formatting is applied twice in this case. I believe it is not appropriate. --93.42.64.220 (talk) 11:31, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Why not? It's a paragraph title.PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 12:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2022 (2)

"A review by Newsweek in 2016 of tweets that used the actors' names and were liked at least 100 times found about 38 tweets that met the criteria and backed one of those involved."

To be changed to the following to accurately reflect the citation material.

"A review by Newsweek in 2016 of tweets that used the actors' names and were liked at least 100 times found about 38 tweets that met the criteria backed Amber Heard or disparage Johnny Depp" 154.47.97.111 (talk) 13:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

38 was actually incorrect all this time, it was supposed to be 36. I implemented the rest of your edit, though. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 22:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Jury instructions?

Would it be worthwhile to elaborate some more on the jury instructions under the section Jury deliberations? I was thinking of bringing the material from footnotes (b) and (c), or a slightly streamlined form of them, up into the text. I think it would help explain to readers what the jury actually determined. I’m a lawyer but not a jury trial lawyer. However, it’s just a suggestion; I know other folks have been working on the article and may have different views. Sean Barnett (talk) 20:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@Sean Barnett:, if they are covered in reliable sources, then okay. starship.paint (exalt) 00:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Done now--thanks. Some material in the verdict section is now redundant and could be edited out. I can do that later this week. Sean Barnett (talk) 03:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Around #MeToo biased?

In the "Around domestic violence and #MeToo" part of reactions to the verdict, the large majority of the quoted sources write under the premise that Heard was actually abused by Depp. This opposes the majority popular opinion, the stuff i read about it in newspapers, as well as the outcome of the trial. I really doubt this selection of sources (or what was used out of them) accurately reflects the weight of the opinions in reliable sources. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 21:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@PizzaMan: - you are welcome to find more sources. I didn’t add those sources, but for every source already added by someone else, I tried to identify the main point of each source. The only ones I haven’t gone through are those recently moved to “Broadcast”. starship.paint (exalt) 00:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

You're putting the burden of fixing this on me, rather than those who caused it. I don't have time for that atm. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 05:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@PizzaMan: - we all are limited by time. Since you suggest that the material is cherry-picked, it's up to you to prove that it is, by showing the other sources, which presumably are the majority weight in opinion as you suggest. Until then, I suppose the material will remain. starship.paint (exalt) 13:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Some sources talked about victims of domestic violence, without suggesting they specially if they had Depp or Heard in mind for part of the article. Some of those sources were quoted here in a way that strongly suggested they were about Heard as victim. For example, by quoting them right after sources that unambiguously state that Heard was the victim. I at least fixed some of that. By the way, Depp won the case, so the jury says he didn't abuse Heard. In the light of , shouldn't we be extra careful with opinion pieces that state he did abuse her, even when published in reliable sources? By doing so, we're propagating a continued defamation against Depp. From what i superficially read, these opinion pieces didn't really weigh the evidence differently than the jury, but rather originate from an agenda of beleving the women in such cases a priori, regardless of the facts.PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 19:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks starship.paint for vastly improving what I put there. In my estimation, opinion pieces in media (especially left-leaning sources like Vox and even NYT) are pretty negative on the verdict, in stark contrast to general social media. Alas, the best we can do is fairly represent what these pieces say (which I think starship.paint has really done quite well). You're welcome to put in more sources which take the stance of (weakly or firmly) supporting the verdict. The idea that we are continuing defamation is misguided, though; we never state "in Wikipedia voice" that Heard was abused. Covering allegations made by large news outlets, however misguided, is not a BLP violation. Ovinus (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

You're missing part of the point. The section is written with a bias that goes beyond the sources. For example, an opinion pieces rides the popularity of the subject, but then goes on to discuss domestic violence more in general. Here it's quoted in a way that suggests the part about domestic violence in general is actually about Heard as a victim. And that's just one example. If the sources are clearly biased when compared to public opinion and the jury vote (and the quality Dutch newspaper articles i read), that's what it is. I don't have time to do a search and read through many sources to verify or refute that. But the few quoted sources i did read were quoted in a way that exaggerated a Heard-as-victim bias and a women-are-always-the-victim bias. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 21:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that Depp has already been proven to have abused Heard in court in the past. The "majority popular opinion" is not really relevant. The fact that we have two courts reaching opposing verdicts is the reason why there is currently controversy on this case. Many (most?) sources have supported the first verdict and have criticised this one. The article should reflect that. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I think some people in this thread are confusing public opinion in twitter and youtube react videos with analysis from reliable sources, which generally view the verdict in a more ambiguous light. This article doesn’t exist to amplify public bullying. Opinion pieces and analysis seem to correctly note that there are likely to be effects on this case on future domestic abuse allegations, and so this is relevant whether you agree with the jury verdict or not. I don’t see the relevance of whether our sources “are biased compared to public opinion” at all. The public reaction is mentioned plenty here, anyway.173.56.203.56 (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, it's a pretty big stretch to say that the U.K. trial "proved" Depp abused Heard. The alleged abuse allegedly occurred behind closed doors, and the U.K. judge basically just found Heard's version of events to be more believable, and found the case in her favor. Plenty of analysts found that to be a miscarriage of justice before the U.S. trial (in which a lot of apparent perjury by Heard was called out) got started. Also, "Many (most?) sources have supported the first verdict and have criticised this one"? Does your spelling of "criticised" indicate you're mostly referring to U.K. sources? I haven't found that to be the case in U.S. sources, and I could imagine there might be a tendency to pooh-pooh the U.S. jury coming to the opposite conclusion from the U.K. judge. --Dan Harkless (talk) 01:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Actually the UK decision was mostly based on hard evidence while testimony by the two was much less emphasised. So how "believable" their version of events was was not that relevant. That's why Depp was denied an appeal. The evidence was deemed to be so solid that the appeal didn't have ay realistic chance of success. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 17:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Hard evidence? Hardly. Have you even read the full Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd article? And the denial of an appeal was merely another part of the miscarriage of justice in that case. In any event, this is not a discussion forum, and this is not the place to debate the merits of either case. --Dan Harkless (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Anyone considering Depp to be proven to have abused Heard in court per UK trial should similarly consider Depp to be "proven to have not abused Heard in court" per US trial. That's just how it is. starship.paint (exalt) 02:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Dan Harkless: - when you say that "Many (most?) sources have supported the first verdict and have criticised this one"? ... I haven't found that to be the case in U.S. sources - what are these U.S. sources you refer to? starship.paint (exalt) 02:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: The majority have been legal commentators on YouTube. I don't think they'd be slam-dunks for inclusion as cites that won't get ripped out, or I'd give you some links. --Dan Harkless (talk) 07:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: Okay, I watched an interview today with a legal commentator who's objectively notable enough for inclusion, Megyn Kelly: ‘Amber Heard Is Unemployable Following Verdict’, on the Law&Crime Network YouTube channel (which many turned to for their live video feed from the trial, accompanied by impartial commentary during breaks). Despite working as a correspondent for Fox News for years before moving to NBC, I think impartial observers would generally agree with Megyn Kelly's self-characterization as a centrist. She's also made high-profile accusations of sexual harassment against deposed Fox News CEO Roger Ailes, and she took a stand in reporting sexual harassment and assault allegations against Donald Trump while at Fox, leading to her feuding with Trump, Newt Gingrich, etc.

In the above video, her analysis of the case is much the same as other, less well-known legal analysts (also without a right-leaning axe to grind) that I've watched and read. That is, that justice was done in the U.S. case, and that the false accusations and obvious lies by Heard were properly called out. The interviewer, First Amendment litigator Floyd Abrams, takes a mostly passive role in the interview, but seems to agree with Ms. Kelly's assessments of the trial and verdicts. --Dan Harkless (talk) 01:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@Dan Harkless: - go ahead. Meanwhile, I found [3]. starship.paint (exalt) 03:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

:Shouldn't be "Mission Onlus - NGO" 'statement be added?

As an organization that actually supported plantiff, unlike the mentioned in the article, for more balanced details. Just wanted to mention it.

As for the UK issue, people are really confused, it was a defamation AGAINST The Sun, and Heard was not a party but a depositioned witness. 201.217.139.3 (talk) 17:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@PizzaMan: - I've now added [4] and [5]. Over to you. starship.paint (exalt) 03:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I think the majority of US media sources have been either somewhat critical or at least ambivalent about the verdict itself and its effects. Its not an issue of the verdict being “poo-poohed in the UK.” Again, you people are simply confusing public opinion and your twitter feed for reliable source commentary. It matters essentially zero whether the sources are “biased compared to public opinion” because the article isn’t written based on public opinion, so basically, who cares.

The only American news sources who are as jubilant about the verdict as the folks on twitter are conservatives. 173.56.203.56 (talk) 11:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

"You people"? Sorry, but I'm not whoever it is you imagine me to be. I don't use Twitter, most of my opinions on the case come from watching raw trial footage, and the analysis I've read and watched on this has mostly been by legal experts. Likewise, "jubilant about the verdict" is a bogus brush to tar me with. There was essentially nothing to be jubilant about in this entire situation, but I agree with the analysis I've seen that justice prevailed here, whereas it did not in the U.K. trial.

It's certainly unfortunate that commentators on the Right, along with abusive would-be evaders of justice, are framing this as a win for enemies of the #MeToo movement, but that doesn't make the verdict wrong. Being a male (with some psychological similarities to Mr. Depp) who was unfortunately the abused party in multiple relationships with women (with some psychological similarities to Ms. Heard), yet who did not respond with violence, further informs my evaluation of whether justice was done here. --Dan Harkless (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

So, after two long paragraphs pushing the case about DARVO, the article says: Social media interest was also seen as another factor. While jurors were instructed not to read about the case online, they were not sequestered and they were allowed to keep their phones.

This social media includes comment by lawyers, independent journalists and others who have kept abreast of the evidence and event and who have typically, unlike the case of many news articles, been brave enough to keep their comments open for open reply.

Sure it's right for the jury to remain in the legal court rather than that of either the media or public opinion but the suggestion in the article of Judge good, jury/people bad seems to me to be palpable.

If Heard wanted jury responses to be checked she didn't have to place the one year ban on their identities being revealed. The UK trial was also presented prior to further evidence being revealed indicating Heard's false statements and that could otherwise be used to oppose her testimony. GregKaye 12:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

SUGGESTION Following the section: Depp v. Heard#Heard's reaction and plans to appeal just add a link for:

See also: MeToo movement § Johnny Depp, Amber Heard, and #MeToo backlash

and place the relevant content in the relevant article. GregKaye 18:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Mark Stephens

Our opinions section begins with quoting Mark Stephens who, in the cited article, talked about "Darvo", stating his view that, "Lawyers and judges tend not to fall for it, but it's very, very effective against juries," In reality Laywers who have reacted to the trial include: https://www.youtube.com/c/TheEmilyDBaker https://www.youtube.com/c/LegalBytesMedia https://www.youtube.com/c/TheDUIGuy among many others.

The Chris Melcher[6] appeared on the UK's Lorraine show [7] (among other places) and said, that it was a she said case with the jury believing johnny, that the case was directly against Amber with Johnny being able to bring in more evidence with more extensive cross examining and that both parties were able to learn from a test run. The interviewer questioned the lack of evidence after claims such as having walked over broken glass etc. and the Lawyer spoke of striking inconsistencies in Amber's statements and that, in his mind, the things she was describing didn't add up. Refs also made to evidence that Amber's photos had been doctored or photos on adjacent days with and without bruises which all "made it extremely difficult to believe her" and he didn't think the case was an attack on #MeToo.

Lawyers who followed the case don't tend to take the Darvo accusations seriously for this specific case. I've not heard of it.

Mark Stephens has previously made statements about Depp's legal situation and, in his expressed opinion, I suspect he's doubling down. I think Wikipedia content should express better than this.

GregKaye 11:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Sources are key as always. If you find reliable sources (like the ones that reported on Stephens's statements) that state something different from what we have in the article we can then add them. Everything else is out of the article and Wikipedia. Watch out: WP:YOUTUBE is generally not considered reliable. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

It is soapboxing opinion. A declaration of DARVO is a declaration of a verdict. These people are not qualified. The people that should be making verdicts that we can immediately quote are those that authorised by the state to do so. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia based on facts not opinions. GregKaye 17:52, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Evidence admitted and not

Apparently, lot's of evidence was requested to be admitted and yet was considered inadmissible for various reasons. If anyone finds relevant reference for this it could prove valuable. Currently a blame is being applied in regard to the outcome of the case based on the inadmission of evidence. To help balance, it could be useful to show this cuts both ways. GregKaye 14:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Fwiw: Depp's legal team debunks that in this interview (starting at 1:26). All evidence that should have come in, came in and the judge was fair to both sides (which Heard's legal team also stated if i recall correctly). Depp's team also argued that in the US case much more (rather than less) evidence was presented as compared to the UK case. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 15:08, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

"Wife Beater"?

This reference really doesn't seem to have been an issue in the case. In Justice Nicol's Approved Judgement he only mentions the term in reference to the online article changing it's title the next day, paras 2 & 4 and in para 79 which says:

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.

In the Amber Heard article I've developed the following inclusion:

In 2018, Depp filed a lawsuit against the publishers of British tabloid The Sun for libel over an article that asked, "How can JK Rowling be 'genuinely happy' casting Johnny Depp in the [then] new Fantastic Beasts film after assault claim?" (The online version of the article temporarily had a title that described "wife beater Johnny Depp").

I think this presents a more representative reflection of what was going on rather than focussing on a paper's initial online article title which only remained in place for 10 hours overnight. I'm sure there are also BLP issues regarding the presentation of a sensationalist headline that was rejected and rapidly by The Sun. GregKaye 13:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I think mentioning original title is fine. Can probably leave full title out of lead and just mention it in Background section. The difference/timeline of when which title was up doesn't need explanation or detailing in this article, readers can find those details in the main article for that case. It being headline just "overnight" means nothing when its published in UK for an American actor. Idk what timezone that overnight was in regards to, but it was overnight for one country and during day/afternoon for another. Anyways, I feel the wording in lede In June 2018, Depp filed a lawsuit in the United Kingdom against the publishers of British tabloid The Sun, claiming that he had been libeled in an April 2018 article.... could be shorten to exclude title. And it can remain in background with the original online title. The parentheses and footnotes, seem excessive and unnecessary for this article. The BLP issue would be if we were presenting the sensationalism as fact, but we are indicated why he was saying he was defamed. It the entire WP:ACCUSED reason we say here alleged even for school shooters cuffed on scene. Him sueing for them calling him a wifebeater is more accurate than him sueing them for reporting his wife allegations. One title gets point across why he would sue without any explanation, the other requires reading the Sun article or extra details to fully explain it, and also is basically the Heard team's now and past narrative that he sued just because she spoke up about abuse. WikiVirusC^(talk) 14:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you WikiVirusC^(talk) , absolutely agree with "leave full title out of lead" which could certainly be a fair way to go. A internal link could also be included to the content where the article is more fully discussed. GregKaye 12:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Article bias

Most of this article seems biased towards (pro) Amber Heard and overfocuses on the meToo aspect. Just saying. Almost all the sources listed are from partisan sources. And the article uses quotes from those sites and writers. It seems quite biased overall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:7005:14b1:a068:d774:1d43:2a8c (talk • contribs) 20:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Could you provide precise examples so that we may fix it? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 08:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I've been working at it but I think that part of the problem is that, while there is a lot of content out there from court case submissions some of which was leaked early by Depp's side, a lot more content is coming from statements from Heard's camp and supporters. A lot of established media articles (admissible) have been sympathetic to Heard while many social media reactions (not directly being typically admissible) have not been. Both sides have had their extremes. I think an issue is that we are presenting the content directly in words without being directly able to reflect things like tone and manner. That's just the medium we work in. GregKaye 10:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Social media is not a reliable source. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

That's very much what I said per: "not directly being typically admissible" though there are exceptions such as the Amber Heard article citing one of her tweets. Wikipedia even provides the likes of; Template:Cite Instagram and Template:Cite tweet. Having said that and as a different topic I can see a case for an independent journalist with a proven track record being potentially judged reliable, but that's just theory.

I certainly agree with the OP that the article "overfocuses on the meToo aspect" which largely constitutes the soapboxing of the opinions that journalists in particular publications have chosen to write up. GregKaye 16:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

If several (most I would say) reliable sources talk about it then it should be in the article. Is this “soapboxing of opinions” your original research or is it supported by some sources? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 23:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I do consider it peculiar that reliable sources have clearly documented immense public support for Depp, plus the jury essentially ruled very much in favour of Depp, and yet, so many media reactions are pro-Heard. This is not to say we should be using random YouTube sources or random magazines to support Depp, and not to say that we should have a 50-50 balance for Heard-Depp, but that we should be on the lookout for pro-Depp acceptable sources to air their POV instead of shutting it out. starship.paint (exalt) 04:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Having re-read the Other reactions section, though, I think the balance is now adequate in reflecting the sources. I don't mind the MeToo stuff. Oh, and adding Megyn Kelly wouldn't be a big deal, either. starship.paint (exalt) 04:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Watch out. Most Reputable Sources (e.g. Guardian Analysis: Specialist lawyers, a jury trial, social media and targeting Heard all helped Depp win in Virginia BBC The jury was instructed not to read about the case online, but they were not sequestered and they were allowed to keep their phones. Time Azcarate did remind the jury over and over again to not watch news about the trial at night. But even logging onto Instagram or Twitter or TikTok might have led jurors to memes about the case, including unfounded allegations that Heard faked bruises and persuaded witnesses to lie. etc.) point to the immense public support and the fact there was a jury in the first place that was very influenced by that public support as major issues with this trial. We need to stick to reliable sources and not WP:OR or social media (which are irrelevant on Wikipedia). {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 10:30, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto: - (1a) That is a sub-headline from the Guardian, which is not as reliable as the actual text, (1b) If that is an "Analysis" article by the Guardian as it says so, then that is a lower tier of reliability than factual reporting, (2) Note that the BBC never explicitly says that jurors used their phones to read online content about the trial, (3) Note that Time also does not explicitly say that jurors definitely read about the trial online: logging onto Instagram or Twitter or TikTok might have led jurors to memes about the case. Certainly, there is a possibility that jurors may have accessed such content, and a possibility that jurors who did so were influenced, but here you are, assuming that it 100% happened: the fact there was a jury in the first place that was very influenced by that public support. I suggest you not over-interpret the sources. If we subsequently find out from reliable sources that it was a fact that jurors were accessing online content and being influenced by it, we will report it. Until then, this is conjecture: correlation does not imply causation. starship.paint (exalt) 13:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you starship.paint. I was just pointing out the general consensus here quickly (and somewhat imprecisely). All sources are just pointing out those two factors (jury trial vs. judge and the fact that it was televised) as crucial. I've tried to summarise this point in this edit. Since you have reviewed some of those sources do you think it is accurate? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 17:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

A WP:Article is a is a page on this site that has encyclopedic information on it. A well-written encyclopedia article:

• identifies a notable topic,
• summarizes that topic comprehensively,
• is written in an encyclopedic style of language,
• has been well copyedited,
• contains references to reliable sources, and
• contains wikilinks to and is linked to by other articles or article sections about related topics.

It isn't meant to be a WP:SOAPBOX for Tiffanie Drayton, a writer who happened to get on NBC News or a dumping ground for anything that a journalist managed to get published. Some of the additions to this article is getting insane. The article is about the Depp v. Heard case. Discussions on #MeToo can be rightly covered in that article. Totally agree with starship on the lack of balance and focus in current content. GregKaye 18:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

avoiding the whipping up of controversy

I'd like a different focus to be worked into the current argument: The trial has been described by some as backlash to the MeToo movement ...

Whatever is going on I doubt that Depp was intending a backlash to the #MeToo. Conversely I quite suspect he might have liked to have been part of it.

Wikipedia policy indicates we should Wikipedia:Criticism#Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies. The current wording just seems to be spoiling for a fight while also being WP:Weasely with an undefined quantity of "some". I'm hoping there can be a way to deescalate from WP:Political dispute and not rage into a full blown battle of the sexes. ping:Gtoffoletto
GregKaye 19:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll (very reluctantly) enter this discussion too, as I'm the one who introduced much of the "reactions to the verdict" from news media. It was very weaselly material but I thought it would seed an important section. It's now overgrown with quotes and I agree that it's totally non-neutral.

It's quite simple, really: We follow reliable sources and attribute opinions to them. It's strange that there's such a rift between RS and most of social media, but there's not much we can do about that. To specifically select for RS which support Depp and minimize the rest, however, is essentially WP:Righting great wrongs. I'd like to see a much reduced reaction section—say, three or four medium-sized paragraphs, one for the legal aspect and two or three for the trial's relevance to MeToo and related topics. Ideally we'd find some good summary sources which contrast the media's reaction and the public's reaction. Here's two: [8] [9]. And the phrase in the section title "including effect on #MeToo" is unnecessary. I strongly disagree with your notion that this is a "battle of the sexes"; not sure what you mean by that and I hope we won't treat it that way. Ovinus (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Differences between the Depp trials

Should anyone be interested here's a news search I did on US UK difference depp trials

I'll do some work on some NPOV article content

GregKaye 20:27, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Biased References and Tone

The tone of this whole Wiki article reads as very impartial, broadly mentioning quotes and articles that favor Amber Heard. Most of the articles chosen and included are ones that deliberate criticize Johnny Depp and do not offer an unbiased observation of the events that happened. Instead of looking to inform, this article seems to want to persuade, and that's not Wikipedia's job. SeleneMarie (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)