Talk:Amber Heard

Lede

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More lede

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

The last para could be trimmed to

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mention of tapes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Incomplete information in Infobox needs fixing

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

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

The page is biased in favor Heard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ambiguity

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2022

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

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

What now?

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2022

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

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

Disputed: The disorders Amber is alleged to have

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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