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)

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)

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)

Stephens can have the opinion that DARVO occurred, this is not a fact. starship.paint (exalt) 08:59, 10 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)

I disagree that the focus on MeToo is a bad thing. This connection has been extensively talked about in the news. X-Editor (talk) 20:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I also agree with X-Editor that we should focus on the effect on #meToo which has been extensively covered. The content I proposed above (this edit) has been extensively edited. Most reliable sources have been eliminated and substituted with minor and less reliable sources. This article is becoming a mess and content is being based on personal opinion and WP:OR original research instead of major reliable sources. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 10:30, 11 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)

Totally agree Ovinus. The section should be cleaned up by condensing the major points into 3 or 4 summary paragraphs. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 22:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I instead welcome the whipping of controversy. Why does this matter if the views are from RS why does it matter if they are controversial?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.56.203.56 (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Great. IP: Wikipedia is not anarchy, and if you prefer an unbiased feed of information, enjoy Facebook or TikTok. Anyway, the problem is execution; I'd suggest we draft it on this page, since a unilateral change on the article directly would probably be chaotic. Should also get the people who posted in other sections to attend as well. Ovinus (talk) 23:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Pretty cute when you’re the one proposing to change the article to reflect public opinion on Facebook and Tiktok. Th sources in this section are reliable so it literally does not matter if they “whip up controversy” so such changes have no basis. 173.56.203.56 (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I read your comment wrong. I have no such proposal. The section is bloated relative to the rest of the article; that's the problem, not the sources. By being so long and including so many quotes, it becomes far more of an argument or "exposé" than a proper subsection. I wouldn't be opposed to splitting it off, actually. Ovinus (talk) 23:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

OK, so I did a news google search for the last week for Depp #Me too and got the following results:

1. Johnny Depp’s Lawyers Don’t Think Verdict Will Affect #MeToo Movement archive
2. Depp v. Heard verdict is a turning point in discussion of intimate partner violence
   "Some declare “the death of the MeToo movement” and" ... "But I also don’t think the verdict will harm the #MeToo movement or female victims " ... "No harm to #MeToo and female victims of abuse" ... "I believe this case will not negatively impact the #MeToo movement" ... "“Instead of being the face of the #MeToo movement, she’s the face of a false accusation.” ... "#MeToo is a powerful social movement that is unlikely to be challenged by any specific case, even between celebrities. It’s the #MeToo’s mission to remove systemic barriers"
3. Camille Vasquez Says There's No Connection Between Depp Trial and #MeToo
   "and will not have any ramifications for, the #MeToo movement. ... won't have an effect on #MeToo movement. ... people don't realize that an abusive sociopath was able to seamlessly destroy a man because of the #MeToo campaign. ...
4. Amber Heard-Johnny Depp trial does not undermine the #MeToo movement
   "#MeToo is about removing systemic barriers ... Why are some feminists buying into the narrative that the Johnny Depp-Amber Heard trial verdict is a fatal blow for #MeToo? We have always known that there would be false allegations of abuse among genuine #MeToo disclosures. Some women lie, just as some men do. And we knew that women would continue not to be believed. #MeToo is about removing systemic barriers ... This should not create a challenge for the #MeToo movement, if it cares about the truth, ... The trial verdict is a product ...of the playing out of struggles over women’s bodies and rights on social media versus through judicial and bureaucratic systems. #MeToo was, sadly, destined to lead to such an outcome."
5. People are worried the Amber Heard verdict will change #MeToo
   "JD, never mentioned the #MeToo movement. " Abused men and boys were already winning within #MeToo. ... AH did; she abused what the Movement is about..."
6. What Depp v. Heard Means for #MeToo archive
   "there has been impassioned debate about what exactly the outcome means for the #MeToo movement.... could change the dynamics of the #MeToo era."
7. Emma Thompson Weighs in on Whether Johnny Depp-Amber Heard Verdict Will Impact #MeToo Movement
   "... not convinced Johnny Depp's legal victory against Amber Heard will affect the #MeToo movement. ... thinks the #MeToo movement, which aims to curb sexual misconduct against women, "is not going to be derailed" ... The #MeToo movement is not going to be derailed by that ..."
8. LBC Views: Why Depp v Heard shows us #MeToo is far from over
   "Yet the voracity of the backlash, not just against the notion that Amber Heard might have been failed by the justice system, but against the entire #MeToo movement which her and Johnny Depp’s relationship, ...men experience domestic abuse, rape and sexual assault too (although not in such large percentages, as #MeToo campaign highlighted, women ... we should give women the same respect we routinely afford men. Regardless of what the papers might say, #MeToo can’t be over until this becomes reality."
9. Is the #MeToo Movement Dying? archive
   "Harvey Weinstein, Larry Nassar, Bill Cosby: If there is a standard metric by which the progress of the #MeToo movement has been measured, it is the conviction of high-profile men accused by women and girls of sex crimes. ... commentators were declaring “the death” and “the end” of #MeToo. ... #MeToo still looms large in the cultural imagination. ... The rise and fall of #MeToo ... As Moira Donegan writes in The Guardian, the backlash to #MeToo is nearly as old as the movement itself: ... #MeToo hasn’t actually done much to curtail sexual harassment and abuse ... A 2019 survey from the Harvard Business Review found that while blatant sexual harassment in the workplace appeared to decline after the advent of #MeToo, hostility toward female employees appeared to increase, suggestive of a backlash. ... corporations and celebrities voicing their support for #MeToo, here we saw what Farrah Khan, a gender justice advocate and the director of Consent Comes First at Toronto Metropolitan University, called the “meme-ification of domestic violence”: ... Where #MeToo won: Not everyone is so bearish about #MeToo’s prospects. ... #MeToo has changed how governments and corporations handle claims of sexual harassment. ... Was #MeToo’s potential limited from the start? Of all the criticisms mounted against the #MeToo movement since its inception, ... the flattening effect of social media, from which the #MeToo movement derived much of its momentum. ... it has been even easier for #MeToo critics to claim that women must themselves think that ... what she believes is another flaw of the #MeToo movement ...
10. Johnny Depp waves to adoring fans outside Barbican in York ahead of Jeff Beck show
    "aimed at capitalising on the #MeToo movement." (that one's not so relevant)

WP:TENDENTIOUS editors please stop WP:Cherrypicking content to push your own selected WP:agendas. A Wikipedia:Article is a is a page on this site that has encyclopedic information on it and we are meant to present content with a WP:Neutral point of view. If editors want to tackle an issue, whatever it it, please present content on any and all notable references to it. Thank you.

GregKaye 04:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ovinus: - small point, but regarding your statement: We follow reliable sources and attribute opinions to them - reliable sources are for reporting facts. Opinion articles (and opinions) can come from less reliable sources. This is not, of course, to advocate for using the trashiest sources. starship.paint (exalt) 08:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@X-Editor: - you wrote in the lede The trial has resulted in a debate over the #MeToo movement, women's rights, and the hashtag #BelieveAllWomen - I like it. The opinions of Burke, Wheeler and Katz show that the trial is not necessarily a blow to the MeToo movement. starship.paint (exalt) 09:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! The previous version was definitely biased in a certain direction. X-Editor (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

These recent changes stemming from the author of this talk page section have, in all cases, been very poor and have each directly made the article worse, and should all be reverted. It's shocking that the poster who created this section would dare lecture anyone about tendentious editing and cherrypicking to suit agendas considering he has literally stated he is seeking to edit the article to "reduce the whipping of controversy," a completely irrelevant matter. In fact, the material this editor is busy deleting without justifiable reasons or cause is reflective of the coverage the trial and reaction has received in countless reliable media sources. The article and especially a section on analysis and reaction is meant to relect what is being said in reliable sources. If the media is biased with respect to the public, take it up with the media but it isn't a basis for changing the article. 173.56.203.56 (talk) 02:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the comment above. There seems to be an attempt to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS here. We must stick to reliable sources in the mainstream media. We can't cherrypick sources or rely on original research to decide when a reliable source should be included and when it shouldn't. Please: stick to reliable sources and no original research WP:NOR. I've reverted some changes to the article where major reliable sources have been substituted by less solid sources to justify a change in the content. - {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:30, 11 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)

Would you mind explaining what parts of the article are biased? X-Editor (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Under the Reactions tab, the Social Media section shows only references looking to show how the optics of it seemed to negatively affect Amber only, regardless of many TikTok accounts and videos siding with her. Under the 'Companies' tab, this quote "though the wording may be interpreted as relating to a generic example of a compact" shows a blatant opinion, not a fact about the case. On the 'Court Spectators' tab, you did not mention the Amber fans that carried a banner whom she stopped to talk to because they brought her flowers. Also, the opinion pieces selected are all about how Johnny seemed favored over Amber based on the perspective of the person, such as the Ian Sherr and Erin Carson opinion quote on the 'Broadcast' tab. Everything on the 'Broadcast' tab seems to be selected to prove a point, not to inform of stations, pages or websites that broadcasted the trial. On the 'Heard's reaction and plans to appeal' tab, you did not quote Elaine Bredehoft completely; you chose a quote that would highlight Amber's chances (which no one knows) and did not speak on any of the other information she provided to the show's hosts. On the 'Me Too' tab, you only selected quotes that favored Amber, as if she was officially sponsored or championed by the Me Too Movement. There have been many blogs, TV personalities, commentators and influencers that have aligned themselves with the Me Too Movement and have expressed sympathy and agreement with the trial's outcome. SeleneMarie (talk) 22:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, this quote on the 'Companies' tab "Paula Todd, a lawyer and media professor, suggested that the unsequestered jury members would not listen to the judge's instructions to avoid accessing online coverage of the trial" reads as if once again, you were trying to make a point or were trying to pass Todd's words as an accurate observation of the trial, or as if questioning the dignity and decision-making of the jury. SeleneMarie (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

"the Social Media section shows only references looking to show how the optics of it seemed to negatively affect Amber only, regardless of many TikTok accounts and videos siding with her." That's because most people on social media sided against Heard and with Depp, which the article will reflect. If you have any sources that better document people siding with Heard, please provide them. "this quote "though the wording may be interpreted as relating to a generic example of a compact" shows a blatant opinion, not a fact about the case." You're right that it sounds like an opinion, so i've gone ahead and removed that part. "Also, the opinion pieces selected are all about how Johnny seemed favored over Amber based on the perspective of the person, such as the Ian Sherr and Erin Carson opinion quote on the 'Broadcast' tab." There are listed under the 'Reactions' section, so of course they are going to be opinionated, come from the perspective of certain people, and try to prove a point, because that's what commentary is. You always have to take reactions and commentary with a grain of salt. If you can find any opinion pieces that suggest the opposite of Johnny being favoured over Heard, please provide them. "Everything on the 'Broadcast' tab seems to be selected to prove a point, not to inform of stations, pages or websites that broadcasted the trial." That info seems to mostly be in the social media section instead, so i've moved the commentary in the 'Broadcast' section to that section, since it is mostly about social media anyways. "On the 'Heard's reaction and plans to appeal' tab, you did not quote Elaine Bredehoft completely; you chose a quote that would highlight Amber's chances (which no one knows) and did not speak on any of the other information she provided to the show's hosts." What is the full quote and what other info did she provide? If you have any sources for these things, please provide them. "On the 'Me Too' tab, you only selected quotes that favored Amber, as if she was officially sponsored or championed by the Me Too Movement." Did you not notice the quotes from Reason, Newsweek, The Bulwark, National Review, and Sky News Australia? I don't think anyone would look at that section and think Me Too officially sponsored her because the movement is decentralized through hashtags online. As for the quotes in that section, it isn't Wikipedia's fault that commentary is one-sided because Wikipedia relies on the media for information, meaning the media is at fault and that is beyond the scope of Wikipedia to solve. "There have been many blogs, TV personalities, commentators and influencers that have aligned themselves with the Me Too Movement and have expressed sympathy and agreement with the trial's outcome." Would you mind giving examples? Thanks for the good faith criticism and for providing examples of bias. X-Editor (talk) 00:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

"Also, this quote on the 'Companies' tab "Paula Todd, a lawyer and media professor, suggested that the unsequestered jury members would not listen to the judge's instructions to avoid accessing online coverage of the trial" reads as if once again, you were trying to make a point or were trying to pass Todd's words as an accurate observation of the trial, or as if questioning the dignity and decision-making of the jury." I've changed the quote from "suggested" to "claimed" to make it clear that it is an opinion. Sorry I missed this one in my long answer. X-Editor (talk) 00:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Spotlighting the best pro-Heard sources

The response section has come a long way since i raised the issue of how biased it was. There's still a lot in it that goes against the public and jury opinion. And i can see how it still bothers some fellow editors that a lot of the sources assume Heard was the victim when, for anyone who followed the trial, that seems very unlikely.

The sources are what they are. And we should do our best to represent the best sources in a balanced way. Considering the verdict and public opinion, we shouldn't be giving much weight to opinion pieces if they don't even bother to argue why they think Heard was the victim despite the verdict. Let's face it, even when published in Time, these authors should learn the basics of WP:NOR ;-)

We should spotlight the pro-heard sources that actually argue why they think Heard was the victim. Like Grady in Vox. From those sources we should both summarize how they argue that Heard was the actual victim and what that means for society. Articles that skip that first step should be summarized only briefly, preferably combined in a single paragraph.

Opinion pieces that go against the facts should at least argue why they do so to deserve substantial representation on wikipedia.PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 21:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, here's an example of a poor source that was added - the MEL magazine one, where the author writes that the jury paradoxically ruling that Heard had defamed him as an abuser in an op-ed, but also affirming the counterclaim that Depp’s lawyer labeling her column a “hoax” had defamed her - if the opinion cannot get basic facts about the verdict right (Waldman's defamatory claim relates to messing up a penthouse, not sexual violence, not abuse), it should not be included. Oh, and also, it seems that all the reactions have been nuked, as of this post. starship.paint (exalt) 02:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@PizzaMan:There's still a lot in it that goes against the public and jury opinion. the goal of Wikipedia ISN'T to align with what the public and the jury opinion was. Our goal is to report sources. You seem to state that your goal is to introduce a non neutral POV into the article. This is not appropriate. @Starship.paint: as well. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 10:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto: - sorry, I was speaking rather generally on spotlighting of pro-Heard sources. You can see the example that I raised above as to what I was focusing about. Obviously we have many to choose from, we shouldn’t choose the one I listed above. starship.paint (exalt) 11:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto: I'm sorry but you're unintentionally strawmanning my point. I'm not arguing for less pro-Heard sources or or less neutral point of view or anything. I'm just arguing that out of the existing pro-Heard sources, we should pick the best ones. I propose an additional criterion for which are the best sources in addition to how reputable the website/magazine is. Namely that if the source assumes Heard was the victim, going against public and jury opinion, it should at least argue why it does so. The sources that do that, should be emphasized and the sources that don't do that are just not well-written and should be de-emphasized. Also because without such epistemology, an opinion piece is mud-slinging against Depp as a living person.PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 20:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

"The response section has come a long way since i raised the issue of how biased it was" In fact, most of the recent changes have been quite bad and essentially amount to you deleting sources based on your personal views. Sources don't need to align with public opinion; they just need to reliable. 173.56.203.56 (talk) 09:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@173.56.203.56: Huh? As far as i know, i haven't deleted anything. Could you please tell which edits you refer to? PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 14:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

The response section was never "biased"; it is meant to reflect the analysis of mainstream media sources. The fact that these do not resemble the pro-depp cheerleading on twitter and tiktok and instead present the verdict in an ambivalent light does not make them "biased." In fact, that is why media analysis can be considered reliable to begin with- it is not a mere thermometer of the public mood. Your writings in this section indicate you do not grasp this, and think reliability has something to do with agreeing with what the public thinks: "Namely that if the source assumes Heard was the victim, going against public and jury opinion, it should at least argue why it does so." This is your purely your own personal opinion and is without relevance. The reliability of a source is not measured by its distance from the public's views. 173.56.203.56 (talk) 14:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

You've lost me at not answering my question which deletes you're referring to. Perhaps you're a bit confused? PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 15:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

#MeToo

I've added a See also section with inclusion of a link to MeToo movement § 2022 (Amber Heard and Johnny Depp) which might be a potential destination for previously developed material. GregKaye 05:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

How should we organise the text?

I've moved this section, which was previously between sections "Not neutral. Sources biased." and "Not neutral. Sources biased.", down in the page as it relates to a now recently applied article hatnote. GregKaye 05:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

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)

Seeing as that talk page has amounted to basically a split that left zero coverage of the testimony in the appropriate section, I've tagged the page with {{NPOV}} for having WP:BALASP issues. Each aspect of this article—including testimony—needs to be treated with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. The article abjectly fails to do so at the moment, especially in light of all of the coverage that the testimony received. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

The solution is to go and undertake the hard task of fixing that by writing a proper encyclopedic summary; not abdicating and keeping the WP:NOTNEWS trivia in a separate place. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Now moved to Draft:Testimony in Depp v. Heard, where the issues with it can be resolved without being a massive thorn in article space. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The lack of consensus

Recently this edit was made with summary statement of placing several WP:RS summarising the current consensus among experts and advocates.

I searched news for the last month for Depp Heard experts "consensus"

Other editors can go further if they like but the uses I found in the first three results were:

• "a consensus was established online that Ms Heard was lying."
• " jurors will remain in deliberations until a consensus is reached"
• "Even as the whole concept of consensus reality seems to be collapsing into the abyss"

Beyond the jury I don't see evidence that there is consensus in regard to Depp v. Heard but am open to evidence.

I thought that X-Editor's 10 June 2022 "more neutral wording edit brought a positive removal of the "backlash" wording to say "The trial has resulted in a debate over the #MeToo movement, women's rights, and the hashtag #BelieveAllWomen."

I'm really hoping that we can secure representation of the range of contributors weighing into debate. Gtoffoletto

GregKaye 13:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are asking here GregKaye. You reverted back to your text here: [10]. Why? The sourcing is pretty solid and consistent. It feels like there is a lot of confusion in the discussion page and on the article history at the moment. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 14:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

p.s. I'm really confused by your use of Google Searches to substantiate your points. A Google search result is totally irrelevant on Wikipedia. What matters are sources. The sources in the edit are pretty clear and support the statements. Or do you believe otherwise? Unless you can point to an issue with those statements and those sources we should revert back. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 15:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Following your recent multi edit mass changes those were just some of the needs "Rescuing WP:NPOV broadly informative text on issues discussed on the talk page." We can go into the rest.

What I'm asking? Why? We work to NPOV. Editors cannot clarify Wikipedia contents to their chosen argument. That's not how it works. If you want to clarify things between editors, be welcome to raise your points on the talk page.

Google searches are one way to find the extent to which RS consider a topic to be WP:notable. Do a news search for, say, the last month on depp "metoo" "backlash" the content just isn't coming. There's no talk of a backlash to #MeToo in the headlines and those terms, even individually, hardly appear there at all.

Do that search, for instance, on depp "women's rights" or depp "domestic abuse" and the searches gush with stuff. You just shouldn't be pushing your own agendas. Either that or you are welcome take the challenge above to prove the consensus you claim. GregKaye 16:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@GregKaye: Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. It is irrelevant if those articles are recent. Actually what you are talking about is quite problematic as it leads to WP:RECENTISM. Also I think you might be mistaken about what WP:NPOV means. Neutral point of view (NPOV) [...] means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.. I modified a single paragraph of text in the article. Hardly "mass change". As you can see, the text you removed is followed by substantial secondary and reliable sources. So to remove them you should point out an issue with those sources or the way they are reported. That text was the result of three small edits describing each of the problems I was fixing (let me know if any of them is not clear):

- [11] Remove vague and unclear statement not properly supported by source

- [12] Excessive detail for lead. Restore to previous version maintaining only major points reported by most sources and only the major reputable sources to avoid having too many (they all say the same things)

- [13] Sources are less solid than previous text. NYT source is not easily verifiable and the other is the opinion of a single professor WP:DUE. Restore to previous text that reported several WP:RS summarising the current consensus among experts and advocates. Maintain text indicating ongoing debate. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Just would like to agree with Gtoffoletto that there is no consensus for Greg's recent edits "to avoid the whipping of controversy" and which are plainly aimed at some political agenda he feels is being stifled in mainstream media coverage of the trial. It does not matter whether the ambivalent media representation of the trial is at odds with the jubilant public reaction as our article is based on reliable media sources, not the public mood. It would also be swell if you didn't edit war for your inclusions again. 173.56.203.56 (talk) 19:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Gtoffoletto Whenever it can fit with WP:NPOV I agree with views on detail in the lead and further support the recent edit by Starship.paint in editing to simply say "Many legal experts doubted whether Depp could win his case having lost a similar libel suit in the UK." If we want to present commentary for reasons why this may have happened, we have to do so in a balanced WP:NPOV way.

Your text had been to say that: "Many legal experts doubted that Depp could win the case, having previously lost a similar libel suit in the UK. The fact that the US trial was before a jury and broadcast live, while the UK trial was before a judge was a major difference between the two trials." This was despite the fact that jurors were instructed not to engage with media.

My text had been to say that: "Differences between the US and the UK trials included the decision being made by a jury rather than a judge, a different understanding on what had happened to the divorce money, Heard being the defendant, additional witnesses coming forward in the US, Depp being able to opt for a location lacking strong anti-SLAPP legislation and that teams may have learned from the challenges of the previous trial."

I agree in removing explanations for reasons for the differences. Failing that, if we do present them, we have to do so in a representational and WP:NPOV way. To quote that WP page "NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia". It's decisive. GregKaye 05:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Everyone agrees articles should be written from an Neutral Point of view. The trouble is that your edits indicate that you don't understand what a Neutral Point of View is. As a result, you contribute edits which are, to put it bluntly, garbage-like in quality. Not only that, the sentence you cite there as "my text" is some of the most poorly written English I have ever read. I pray you have not attempted to put that into the article, as it is literally unreadable. 173.56.203.56 (talk) 09:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

It represents what a scan of RS had noted. I'd welcome anyone to contribute representational content. GregKaye 10:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

that sentence is again, to speak frankly, garbage. If you wrote that sentence, I gravely doubt your ability to produce readable English prose worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Your endless posts on this talk page confirm this. Not to worry, I will be reverting your detrimental changes shortly, as they are not improvements to the article and you have no consensus for them.173.56.203.56 (talk) 10:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

173.56.203.56 I trust edits you make will be representative of RS references regarding differences between the trials. A neutral view of such references can be as found, for instance, in a news search on terms such as US UK difference depp trials.
Inclusive of the time of your above edit and to now the lead succinctly reads: "Legal experts considered Depp's chances of winning to be better in the US than the UK" with that link leading to a section on Differences between the US and the UK trials. If there's a topic to cover, let's do it properly. GregKaye 12:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Why yes, my edits are indeed far more representative of the analysis and commentary of the trial available from reliable sources and certainly better written than yours are, thank you for asking. But I thought we were discussing the lack of consensus for your edits here, though, weren't we? Multiple editors have told you they disagree with your political campaign to "avoid the whipping of controversy" by removing reliable sources that you feel do not reflect public opinion. You seem fundamentally confused on what a reliable source is. Analysis published in major media outlets are reliable and notable whether or not they diverge from public opinion. It literally does not matter whether our sources are "biased compared to public opinion" because articles are not based on public opinion. Perhaps you should read WP: RIGHTGREATWRONGS and stop quoting policies to me to draw attention away from yourself, as if it is my conduct that is at issue here rather than yours. Multiple editors have repeatedly complained about your changes and yet you keep edit warring to re-insert them without having gained one iota of consensus. Your repeated edits to tailor the article your personal political perspective in divergence from analysis in media sources are just creating extra work that people will later have to delete. 173.56.203.56 (talk) 14:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

My complaint here regarded reference to "backlash" which I found not to be representative of material in RS.
In connection to this we may also note that, on the #MeToo movement page
editors have removed the subtitle == Johnny Depp, Amber Heard, and #MeToo backlash ==[14]
and replaced it with === 2022 (Amber Heard and Johnny Depp) ===[15]
If multiple editor push POV, I'll take on whoever. Take it to admin and see what happens. GregKaye 17:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

"If multiple editor push POV, I'll take on whoever." I'm glad to see you've basically admitted you do not understand how Wikipedia works and that you think you have the right to add whatever you personally think is true. You don't get the right to edit war for your inclusions because you think you are some noble hero championing the truth of men's rights or whatever nonsense fills your head. 173.56.203.56 (talk) 18:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)2 (UTC)

• Once we've covered the stuff appropriately in the body, I'd like to see The trial has resulted in a debate over the #MeToo movement, women's rights, and the hashtag #BelieveAllWomen., something along those lines. Differences between the US and the UK trials included the decision being made by a jury rather than a judge - this one is also okay. I think Gtoffoletto wants mention of the live broadcast, which is reasonable, I don't mind that being the second difference mentioned (Differences between the US and the UK trials included the decision being made by a jury rather than a judge, the live broadcast of the US trial...), but I don't really like outright combining the two factors like The fact that the US trial was before a jury and broadcast live, while the UK trial was before a judge. starship.paint (exalt) 14:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

"The trial has resulted in a debate" is just your own characterization, and it has nothing to recommend it. It is not drawn from the characterizations from the reliable sources themselves. 173.56.203.56 (talk) 14:24, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh yes, it is, for #MeToo, at least. See Guardian news story. some observers worried that the verdict might have a chilling effect on the #MeToo movement … others said that #MeToo … would continue to expose injustice and would not be halted by one court ruling in a case that many saw as unique. starship.paint (exalt) 15:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

precisely - the source says “observers worry that the verdict will have a chilling effect on the Me Too movement.” The word “debate” is never used and the sentence you wrote has a completely different meaning then that in the source. “The trial has resulted in a debate” in no way shape or form means the same thing as “observers worry that the verdict will result in a chilling effect.” The second is what the sources say and what the article should say. The first is vague wording that is not drawn from the sources but from your own mind and has no place in the article. 173.56.203.56 (talk) 17:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

That "some observers" ... "others said" wording is, I think, indicative of a lack of consensus regarding the topic. We must stay neutral and not push certain views. GregKaye 15:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Greg, you seem to have almost no idea of what the criteria are for citing sources in a Wikipedia article, and I'm beginning to lose my patience. We are not "pushing certain views"-- I could probably find you 100 similar articles to that guardian one where analysis of reliable sources is that they fear the verdict will have a "chilling effect" on abuse claim. The wording is almost always verbatim. This is not an isolated or fringe perspective. The fact that not everyone agrees is of zero relevance to whether it should be put in the article. If you want to seek out reliable sources with contrasting analysis that doubt that, then do so, but you've provided no grounds whatsoever for excluding the claim that some analysis of the trial fear the verdict and public treatment of Amber Heard could have a chilling effect on sexual abuse claims. 173.56.203.56 (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

We can certainly expand the article remit to a certain extent but the topic is Depp v. Heard. As I have done we can certainly also add links to other content. In any expansion we must fairly represent notable views. GregKaye 18:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

My point here is that there are countless reliable sources from which the claim "observers worry the verdict will have a chilling effect on MeToo or Sexual abuse claims" can be sourced. Nothing that has been said here -- that the claim diverges from or is biased compared to public opinion, or that not everyone agrees-- provides any grounds for removing sourced information of this kind. It is a clearly notable aspect of reliably sourced analysis of the effects of the verdict. When this claim is changed to "The trial has resulted in a debate" you are creating text that is different in meaning from what the sources say and that has no sourced grounding. You cannot just change what sources say because you think it is unfair or biased. This is the point. If you have reliable sources that have differing analysis, then add them too, by all means, but stop butchering what is said in the sources that are being cited. In no way shape or form is "The trial has resulted in a debate" a reasonable gloss on "Observers worry that the verdict will result in a chilling effect." You cannot just change the meaning of what is said in reliable sources because you find them biased. 173.56.203.56 (talk) 18:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's done in other articles. Would Implications be an appropriate section title for balanced cited material? GregKaye 18:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

What's done in other articles is that editors don't change what is said in reliable sources to suit their own political agenda, "men's rights" or whatever crap you're trying to push here. The fact that you believe the sources are "unfair" or "biased" literally does not matter even if it were true-- if there are multiple prominent, notable, reliable sources that make the claim that the verdict is, or may be, a setback for Me Too, or have a "chilling effect" on sex abuse claims, then that goes in the article. Indeed, there are hundreds such sources, as the editor below me confirms as well. No one cares that you think this is unfair or biased towards Depp. You can take it up with the media if you don't like it. Here we publish what reliable media and academic sources have to say on a topic, and we do not edit what they say because an editor has a concern that the media's treatment is "biased" or "unfair." You are wasting everyone's time here with this nonsense. 173.56.203.56 (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Comment: Not even entirely sure what the question is here, but I'd say the majority of high profile RS news sources in at least the US and the UK have released pieces recently stating that this verdict is a step back for domestic abuse victims and for #MeToo. For #MeToo, the movement's founder has also commented. Many major domestic abuse organisations have also commented publicly on this verdict and denounced it, e.g. RAINN, NCADV, Refuge. I don't have time to start listing articles right now, but a Googling of Depp v Heard + org/publication will easily find you their statements/pieces. Also, I would strongly advise against stating that there is a backlash against the hashtag #BelieveAllWomen – I'm pretty sure it's a MRA myth that this hashtag has ever been used by #MeToo or any other intersectional feminist movement. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed w/ IP and mostly w/ TrueHeartSusie. The coverage of relevance to MeToo is now woefully inadequate—a single sentence?? The topic is Depp v. Heard, one of the most heavily watched trials in the past decade, and there are numerous sources calling it a backlash to MeToo, along with some that rebut that claim (although they still seem to be in the minority). Their opinion is totally relevant and deserves several paragraphs, including at least a few direct quotations. Ovinus (talk) 06:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Ovinus User:TrueHeartSusie3 User:Gtoffoletto I attempted to restore these paragraphs to the article that gave numerous expert and media analyssts reaction to the article in terms of the effects of the trial/verdict on women's right/domestic abuse/Me Too, but it was removed by an editor who offered no real justification for the removal apart from rudely opining that "Opinions are like arseholes" as their explanation. This is a major aspect of the reaction and I ask that someone else restore the material. Surely the material on experts/analysts expressing opinions on the effect on Me Too/Women's Rights/Sexual abuse claims could be improved, like everything in the article, but no real justification has been given for wholesale removal of this section of the article. There is certainly no consensus that the article should remove all reference. Edit: I actually see that a new section has been created to discuss this issue with a link to the material directly, so perhaps it would be best to continue the discussion there. 173.56.203.56 (talk) 11:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

As a reminder, I was the editor most immediatly involved in getting #MeToo references back into the article. You're welcome. GregKaye 11:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Currently the article has no essentially zero reference to the verdict's effect on women's rights, domestic abuse, or MeToo as Ovinus literally just noted, so there is nothing to possibly thank anyone for. If you want thanks for making positive contributions to the article for adding discussion of this issue, then restore this deleted material. I'll be the first to thank you at that point. 173.56.203.56 (talk) 11:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Seconded previous comment. Given how widespread the coverage of this trial re: misogyny and domestic abuse is (virtually every RS publication in the US and UK is publishing pieces on that and has done so already before the verdict), and how organisations working in women’s rights and DV are releasing statements on this, it is difficult to see a good reason excluding that content. Unbelievable. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Implications as a section title for the aftermath of Depp v Heard, or something else?

Is something like this wanted? How can we accommodate balanced content on all available material? Ideas? GregKaye 19:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Can you stop making a new talk page section on the same topic every 5 minutes to distract from the conversation on the problems with your editing? How's that for an idea? 173.56.203.56 (talk) 19:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

My bad.
Since the 00:04, 11 June 2022 mass blanking of content including the ==== Other reactions, including effect on #MeToo ==== section
there had neither been mention of MeToo in the article body either at 04:48, 11 June 2022 when I added the MeToo movement § 2022 (Amber Heard and Johnny Depp) link or at 05:26, 12 June 2022 when I revived my deleted, long sentence into the original form of the ==Differences between the US and the UK trials== section.
Since then, at 05:29, 12 June 2022 reference to MeToo has indeed been added back into the article in a returning ==== Other reactions ==== section. I was unaware that there was a MeToo related reference back in the article content. It has since remained undeveloped though developments may certainly be warranted.
Generally I feel pretty good about my editing. GregKaye 23:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Why can't you simply respond to the points that I and other editors brought up to you in any of the multiple other sections you created where discussion was already ongoing instead of making a new section for the exact same topic? I think most editors would agree that is a case of trying to avoid scrutiny, which you really should not do. Putting that aside, the problem remains that you have removed reference to reliably sourced analysis that is representative of mainsttream media opinion that there are fears the verdict will have a chilling effect on sexual abuse claims. Since these changes you've introduced are unjustifiable, I will revert them. You can feel good or not feel good about the changes you've made for all I care but the fact remains these changes never had any justification in policy regardless of your endless complaints that the media is "biased" against your cause. I again refer you to WP: Rightgreatwrongs.173.56.203.56 (talk) 00:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The Consensus

On the Reactions tab, you wrote, "The trial drew much attention from supporters of both Depp and Heard, as well as the general public." On the next tab, directly below that line, you wrote "A consensus view emerged online that Heard was lying". I think one of these sentences should be changed because the only way we would know that supporters of Amber Heard were "drawn to the trial" is because they made themselves known in public forums, loudly. Therefore, that would cancel out the idea that there was a consensus. From what I have seen play out in social media, there is not a clear consensus that Amber Heard was lying. Sites like Buzzfeed, Vice, Vogue, and NPR shared pro-Heard views, and although it's the point of view of a specific writer, it was published (it had to be green-lighted). Also, the Social Media tab still has a pro-Heard tone, and it's within its specificity. Everything after this sentence ("with multiple such videos going viral"), beginning on "Journalist Amelia Tait of The Guardian" and ending down on "cocaine on the stand" sounds like there's a point to be defended. The imagery created in the Sunny Hundal quote feels deliberate, especially when that article is very biased against Depp. The piece seems to make the accusation that because people like Depp's characters, they are flawed in their assessment of what truly happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeleneMarie (talk • contribs)

"Legal experts considered Depp's chances of winning to be better in the US than the UK"?

User:GregKaye, who has expressed a desire to be personally involved in helping Heard (whom he addresses on a first-name basis) obtain "some level of psychological help," has been systematically rewriting much of both this article and Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd, often evading scrutiny through large numbers of edits (both major and minor) performed in quick succession with rather opaque edit summaries. To be fair, many of GregKaye's edits entail very subtle changes to language/tone (e.g., [16], [17], [18]) that are not obviously problematic at a glance, although he does seem to be WP:BLUDGEONing this talk page—he has contributed 30,781 bytes of content to the current version, roughly twice as much as the next-most-active editor. For all of these reasons, I am sympathetic to IP 173.56.203.56's concerns about possible civil POV-pushing (although needless to say this is not the correct forum to request sanctions against any editor). Regardless, GregKaye's recent edit claiming that "Legal experts considered Depp's chances of winning to be better in the US than the UK" is a straightforward misrepresentation of both what reliable sources generally predicted prior to the verdict and of the (post-verdict) sources cited by GregKaye himself. To wit:

• GregKaye's first source (BBC) states: "At the start of his recent trial, many legal experts suggested that Mr Depp had a weaker chance of winning than he did in the UK, because the US has very strong free speech protections."
• GregKaye's second source (The Guardian) states: "The perceived wisdom is that it is much easier to win a defamation case in the UK than in the US, where the enshrinement of free speech in the first amendment of the constitution is sacrosanct. So what happened in this case to reverse the expected result?"
• GregKaye's third source (Time), which is primarily discussing a separate matter (i.e., "What Legal Experts Think of Amber Heard's Chances on Appeal"), states: "Many legal experts doubted that Depp would win the case: The actor had lost a similar libel suit in the U.K. against the tabloid The Sun in 2020."

Therefore, all of the above sources explicitly or implicitly support the long-standing consensus understanding that having lost a similar case in the U.K., few legal analysts predicted that Depp would prevail in a defamation case against Heard in the U.S., especially given the strong protections for freedom of speech enshrined in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (and, one might add, the fairly anodyne nature of Heard's Washington Post op-ed, which did not even refer to Depp by name). For GregKaye to use these sources to insert a claim in wikivoice that (pre-verdict) "Legal experts considered Depp's chances of winning to be better in the US than the UK" is seriously misleading, and raises legitimate concerns about his judgement and competence. In any case, I have reverted the edit, and I do not expect it to be restored absent sources that clearly substantiate the (eyebrow-raising) assertion being made. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the claim that Greg is both 1) significantly misrepresenting the sources he cites (please look above and you will see that I offer other examples of this, such as willful misrepresentation of sources that said analysts feared a "chilling effect" on sexual abuse claims from the verdict); 2) attempting to evade scrutiny for his edits by sheer volume and making his edits difficult to revert without doing so manually-- conduct which extends to his edits on the talk page, where rather than listen to criticism, Greg creates multiple new talk page sections a day. By my count, Greg has created 6 new talk page sections since June 9. Since all 6 sections address the exact same topic-- Greg's unfounded concern that reliable media sources are biased in their ambivalent analysis of the verdict -- I can only assume that the multiple sections are created to evade scrutiny for his editing, which I have tried to warn him against doing. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs and unbias the media towards your much-beloved Men's Rights cause. Wikipedia is meant to report what is said about the trial in mainstream media and academic analysis, not twitter or public opinion or fringe viewpoints such as men's rights. 173.56.203.56 (talk) 02:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Yep. GregKaye: This is getting way out of hand. I was misled by your attempt to "avoid controversy" as I thought it would be a chance to lay down arms and, well, write what the sources say. You need to either be dispassionate and be faithful to the sources, or refrain from editing the article directly. Cherry picking sources is one thing; wholly misrepresenting them is another. Ovinus (talk) 06:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I've made huge contribution to the page as the second most prolific contributor after Starship.Paint.
For instance, I added all the page's footnotes.
Given the timing of the Since then, at 05:29, 12 June 2022 reinclusion of reference to MeToo into the body following my 05:26, 12 June 2022 addition of the valuable Differences between the US and the UK trials section and following my at 04:48, 11 June 2022 addition of the MeToo movement § 2022 (Amber Heard and Johnny Depp), I think it's possible that I can be somehow credited with both reintroductions of #MeToo related content into the article since the mass blanking of 00:04, 11 June 2022.
I even went as far as to suggest use of an additional title section in the text above so as to ensure that reference to #MeToo could be added, but not in a way that it violated WP:Lead which "serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents."
As to points raised:
I have long been concerned for Amber Heard with my initial strong concerns being that she might go the same way as Caroline Flack.
I've done a lot of work on the Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd article, taking the verdicts section from this to this. I've done my best to make content as accessible and usable as possible and, on a complicated topic, would greatly welcome an audit.
My edit summaries are among the most accurate and descriptive that I have seen
Social media is not a monolith. It is made up of people with a proportion of them having actually watched the trial. Non-the-less I agree that my edit referencing this[19] went beyond what was necessary.
I think that the lead reference to a "circus-like atmosphere at the courthouse" was inappropriate as was the positioning of the reference to the trial being livestreamed within the context that jurors were instructed not to engage with media.[20]
I used Jennifer Freyd's actual article quote so as to avoid misrepresentation.[21]
While I think other contributors have edit-warred, I have brought matters to the talk page.
My edit to "Legal experts considered Depp's chances of winning to be better in the US than the UK" gave accurate reference to article content while linking to the newly formed Differences between the US and the UK trials section.
You have edited back to edit of Starship.paint of which I also approved. One of the advantages of my edit is that it linked to content that I developed to include the topic of freedom of speech as referenced in the article.
Another advantage of the text at my edit was that it gave easy flow: 'Legal experts considered Depp's chances of winning to be better in the US than the UK. Heard's spokesperson and lawyer said she intends to appeal the decision. When asked about a possible settlement, Depp's lawyer referenced the trial to say, "this was never about money."' I think this a more constructive way to present article content.
GregKaye 07:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Greg, that's not the point; the point is that the text you put in (that the US would be an easier place for Depp to win) is not supported by the sources. Also, volume of contributions isn't a mark of quality or accuracy. Ovinus (talk) 07:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Ovinus, The sources I used were the ones previously in article and are mischaracterised as "GregKaye's ... source"
None-the-less, as above, they say:

• first source (BBC) states: "At the start of his recent trial, many legal experts suggested that Mr Depp had a weaker chance of winning than he did in the UK, because the US has very strong free speech protections."
• second source (The Guardian) states: "The perceived wisdom is that it is much easier to win a defamation case in the UK than in the US, where the enshrinement of free speech in the first amendment of the constitution is sacrosanct. So what happened in this case to reverse the expected result?"
  

My edits presented this while also linking to content relating to the topic of freedom of speech as mentioned. There were a lot of articles surrounding the topic. Being open to challenge, I chose to stick with the articles previously cited. We have talk page conversation where we can discuss article and adjudicate on article edits which is fine. In general I think I have improved the quality and accuracy of the article but am fine to discuss point by point. GregKaye 07:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

"In general I think I have improved the quality and accuracy of the article but am fine to discuss point by point." What everyone here is saying is that you haven't. If you would like to improve the quality and accuracy of the article, maybe try listening to the multiple editors pointing out that you are badly misrepresenting sources among other issues instead of just defending yourself and ignoring all criticism. How many people have to point out that you are misrepresenting sources before you listen? I count at least 6 different editors within the last few days who have pointed out that you are misrepresenting sources. Misrepresentation of sources is probably the worst fault a Wikipedia article can have, so this is a pretty big deal.173.56.203.56 (talk) 11:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging and Ovinus: - the edit you were referring to by GregKaye was certainly puzzling, but I think it's explainable (not straightforward misrepresentation). Simply put, Greg changed the lede based on what was written in the body, with three different references in the body, without changing the references in the lede. That was certainly clumsy. Now, the references in the body tried to explain why Depp won, and pointed to several factors, which Greg documented in the body, so Greg changed the lede (As an aside, Insider is a questionable source). It seems that Greg may have over-analysed this, as I don't think the sources actually explicitly said that the US trial was easier for Depp, though they did describe reasons why he won. So @GregKaye:, please be more careful. Ignoring the part where legal experts considered it easier in the UK due to defamation law was a mistake. starship.paint (exalt) 10:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Coming to an actual consensus for the "Reactions" section

Pinging potentially interested editors: @RandomCanadian, GregKaye, Starship.paint, 173.56.203.56, TheTimesAreAChanging, TrueHeartSusie3, Gtoffoletto, and X-Editor:

A /temp subpage was created some time ago for the testimony and then draftified for further work. For similar reasons (more about neutrality than inclusionism–deletionism) I've created Talk:Depp v. Heard/reactions for the reactions section, using the text that has been repeatedly restored and removed as a starting point (which I personally think is too long, but it actually has meat to it, unlike the current article's section). We can't spread this discussion over so many headings, really all about the same general problem, or a consensus will never be reached. Hopefully a more centralized approach can get it fixed; if not, the next reasonable step is probably the NPOV noticeboard. Ovinus (talk) 07:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Ping also Originalcola who deleted the content citing WP:NOTNEWS.[22][23]
As was kindly noted by TheTimesAreAChanging above, I've done a lot of work on the Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd. We may note that various lawyers had opinions regarding the varying fortunes of the two trials and it would be fair for any range of views to be presented. As far as I can see, for Mark Stevens to say that the judge ... dismissed a large amount of evidence that did not directly address whether Depp committed assault or not seems questionable to me. You are welcome to refer to Nicol's Judgement to see the range of evidence considered despite the fact that the Defendant was the publisher. While my overhaul has not got that stage in the text, there are four paragraphs on "Faeces on the bed". While I personally find Steven's view to be plausible, it seems questionable to me.
More worthy, I think, is the professional comment of Jennifer Freyd and I'd hope that her quote that "“Darvo refers to a reaction [that alleged] perpetrators of wrongdoing, particularly sexual offenders, may display in response to being held accountable for their behaviour,” might be faithfully used.[24]. Depp certainly admitted to a variety of faults and failings but, in the context of simultaneously presented accusation against Heard, Darvo can certainly be viewed to apply. This, I think, should certainly be seen as a welcome inclusion in the article.
Comment on "The trial has been described ..." is just news other than to provide context for the professional views or people like Tarana Burke. Further comments by journalists and film critics don't seem to me to be of much relevance to encyclopaedic content. GregKaye 08:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

"As far as I can see, for Mark Stevens to say that the judge ... dismissed a large amount of evidence that did not directly address whether Depp committed assault or not seems questionable to me. You are welcome to refer to Nicol's Judgement to see the range of evidence considered despite the fact that the Defendant was the publisher. ... While I personally find Steven's view to be plausible, it seems questionable to me." This is a perfect example of GregKaye's original research and inability to accept WP:V. Most of GregKaye's large-scale additions to Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd are selective, lengthy quotations from portions of a primary source (i.e., Justice Nicol's 129-page judgement) that he thinks have been ignored, neglected, or misrepresented by reliable secondary sources. While editors are always welcome to point out clearly demonstrable errors on the talk page, even using original research, it is not proper to insert said original research directly into article space, to over-emphasize findings from a primary source that are not considered notable by secondary sources, or to remove sourced content simply because one subjectively feels that "it seems questionable to me." I would like to know if GregKaye accepts the validity of these core Wikipedia content policies, because many of his edits/comments seem to be more or less openly dismissive of them.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging WP:OR relates to the instruction that, Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. We should certainly make enquiries into what and which materials are worthy of inclusion. Mark Stevens is a solicitor, not barrister, who has likely benefits from having his name in the WP:News. We could certainly look around for which legal experts to quote but I think many would be irrelevant. I'd provisionally say that specialists like Jennifer Freyd and Tarana Burke are, in my view, far more worthy of inclusion. GregKaye 10:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Whether an attorney "likely benefits from having his name in the news" does not describe a valid criterion for assessing the reliability of a source. Nearly all experts "likely benefit from having their name in the news." In addition, Greg, your claim is by definition original research-- it is not drawn from a reliable source.173.56.203.56 (talk) 12:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, to get us back on topic, I strongly support the inclusion of the material citing various academic, legal professional, and media views on the potential effects of the verdict and trial on domestic abuse claims, the MeToo movement, and women's rights generally. Even a cursory examination of reliable sources on the topic would show discussions of this nature were widespread, even dominant, in the aftermath of the trial. This perspective is clearly notable, prominent, and drawn from reliable sources, and we would do a great disservice to our readers by omitting mention of it because some editors believe the media is "biased" in this discussion. 173.56.203.56 (talk) 13:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Just to make clear, there's a difference between opinion articles in reliable sources and news articles in reliable sources. The former is only for opinion. starship.paint (exalt) 14:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I completely agree with the you on the inclusion of this trial's potential effects but much greater emphasis should be placed on information from professional or academic sources then on media views. Media articles used as sources should not be opinion pieces or include opinions of non-experts as they are fundamentally unreliable sources. This was one of the reasons for my removal of the (rather incoherent) wall of opinions that made up the other reactions section. Originalcola (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with 173.56.203.56, one can't dispute the reliability of a source solely due to the potential of the expert benefiting from having his name in the news. The primary issue with including professional opinions such as Mark Steven's opinion is presenting a balanced and accurate view representantive of the opinion of experts, as to balance out differing expert opinions we should use a suitable secondary source like an article from a peer-reviewed journal on the trial. Originalcola (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I can agree with you that it would be preferable to place greater emphasis on professional, academic, and scholarly views on this matter over opinions of media analysts. For now, I am more concerned that the section on this topic is restored and is included at all rather than requiring that it first be made perfect, however. It is not reasonable to remove clearly notable article sections in full because they are not perfect and could be improved. The proper way to address this is to improve them, not delete them. There-being (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The content I removed consisted of quotes from non-notable op-eds written in the style of a newspaper instead of an encylopedia. Low quality ontent that doesn't meet wikipedia's guidelines shouldn't be kept just because the topic they discuss is notable. The characterisation of the content removed being "not perfect" is, in my opinion, an understatement of the severity of the issues with what was removed. Originalcola (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Not only were op-eds written by journalists removed, but also citations to professors, attorneys, and other sources of just the kind you have yourself said you would like to emphasize in such a section over the analysis of journalists. Wholesale removal of an entire section is not justifiable by Wikipedia policy unless the section has no right to exist, yet you have yourself said that characterizing your position as advocating for the deletion of the section was "strawmanning" you. So I must say I am a bit confused on what your position is here. There-being (talk) 20:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The strawman claim was that I was against the inclusion of a reaction section which was completely wrong, I removed parts of the reaction section not the whole thing. The specific sections I removed were not notable as per the general notability guidelines as per the general notability guidelines(WP:GNG) as there is a distinct lack of detailed coverage and analysis from media outlets on the issues discussed Originalcola (talk) 20:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

"The specific sections I removed were not notable as per the general notability guidelines as there is a distinct lack of detailed coverage and analysis from media outlets on the issues discussed." This statement is simply false. First of all, you did not remove "specific sections." You blanked the entire section. Let's not mince words. Second of all. there is not a "distinct lack of detailed coverage and analysis from media outlets on the issues discussed." There is extensive detailed media coverage and analysis on this issue. You could easily find 1,000 references on this topic if you wanted. Please. Everyone here knows very well this topic has been extensively discussed in the media. There-being (talk) 01:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)173.56.203.56 (talk) 173.56.203.56 (talk) 01:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I took a two-week leave from Wikipedia, and it seems that in that time GregKaye has pretty much single-handedly re-written much of the articles related to this case. I am not even going to start going through every edit he has made, but I echo everything said above about his behaviour. He has a strong opinion on this case, very weak source criticism skills and on top of that seems to have decided that facts must bend to his will. Just two examples of this are his obsession with Heard’s ACLU donations and his replacing of much of the well-sourced content with quote walls in Depp v NGN; in both cases, he habitually misrepresents sources and overemphasizes those facts that support his view while leaving out the ones that do not. If I had the time, I’d take him to ANI as this behaviour has now continued for 2 months. Editing these articles is essentially all about dealing with his edits these days. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi TrueHeartSusie3 can I please refer you to the talk page sections above:

• Not neutral. Sources biased.
• Around #MeToo biased? and
• Biased References and Tone.

I wasn't the editor that, citing WP:News, blanked the content. Previously there was a real problem with bias. Now we're hopefully constructively discussing to work out what potential encyclopaedic ways there may be to go forward. GregKaye 14:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

• Could you explain what you mean by your claim that the sources are "biased"? What makes them unreliable? It sounds to me like you are inserting your own original research and personal opinion here- if the same type of material can be found in many reliable sources, you don't get to interject that you personally feel it is biased and exclude it on that basis. I am concerned there is an issue here of you personally rejecting Wikipedia policies and thinking you needn't abide by them if you disagree, as others here have suggested. There-being (talk) 14:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I believe that GregKaye is referring to the fact that the media coverage on this subject has included a large amount of personal opinions on social issues, with many major outlets doing op-eds that are being cited in this article. Op-eds are, by definition, at least partially biased towards a certain opinion and thus aren't the most neutral of sources. As a sidenote, I know you have concerns about the actions of another editor but try to avoid personal attacks. Originalcola (talk) 15:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
    • I think you should distinguish between the professional opinions of academics, attorneys, and journalists who are paid to analyze and opine on social matters and the effects of legal proceedings, and the purely personal opinions of Wikipedia editors, which are of no interest to anyone. I feel these are wildly different things are being conflated here, and I'm not really clear why anyone would have difficulty seeing how different they are, as this distinction is pretty simple to make.. What policy states that reliably sourced op-eds are not to be used on Wikipedia? There is none.There-being (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
      • What policy states that reliably sourced op-eds are not to be used on Wikipedia - not to be used for facts, for sure, only opinions. starship.paint (exalt) 16:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
        • And who exactly is claiming that op-eds should be used as a source for facts? The point here is that we are not covering significant themes in op-eds about this case in the "Reactions" part.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

          The principle issue is that there are a large number of op-eds from multiple different major media outlets that would require editors to make decisions on which articles could be used in order to provide balance and a neutral POV. That would require original research and thus cannot be done. In this case, reliable neutral sources are sorely needed. If one cannot find reliable neutral sources for the notable themes then the content cannot be included on Wikipedia. Unreliable sources for notable subjects shouldn't be used simply due to an absence of more reliable sources. Originalcola (talk) 20:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

          • If I understand your logic, we should not have a 'Reactions' section at all? If there are multiple op-eds from RS publications all citing similar themes –#MeToo movement's crisis, misogyny in our society, violence against women– then we definitely can summarize it as "Several publications wrote about XYZ themes. [Prominent example 1, prominent example 2]." This most definitely does not go against the policies you've cited and is not OR. What is bizarre is the exclusion of a major theme in the media coverage of this trial from the Reactions.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

            • User:OriginalCola Could you kindly direct me to the specific policy page and specific text that says that citing op-eds cannot be done because it would constitute original research? I do not believe this is true, and would like to see evidence. There-being (talk) 20:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

              Op-eds can be used as sources and I never claimed that they couldn't be used as such. According to wikipedia's policy on reliable sources, op-eds are generally,but not always, unreliable as sources of information. The policy page is here:WP:NEWSORG. Saying that it "cannot be done" as it would be original research was an error on my part, it would have been more accurate to say that it would require very reliable op-eds considering the nature of this trial. Originalcola (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

              • • Thank you for the reference to WP:NEWSORG. However, the op-eds and other sources of opinions cited were being quoted as sources of the opinion that ngos, professors, attorneys, journalists feared a "chilling effect" on domestic abuse claims from the verdict. Obviously they were not being cited to state as definitive fact that this would occur. So I do not see the conflict with the policy given on NEWSORG. There-being (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

                  The issue is that the actual reliability of the opinions determines their inclusion in wikipedia as, although they are not presented as fact, the opinions are presented as expert viewpoints and thus have to be of high quality, especially when dealing with a legal case. Originalcola (talk) 20:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

                  • At most you have given a possible rationale for excluding some of the opinions -- those from journalists, rather than legal, academic, or policy professionals. Yet the entire section was removed, including opinions of just the sort you've said you would like to emphasize. Why is this?There-being (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

                    The section was on media coverage, not expert opinions and was not notable due to a complete lack of reliable sources with analysis on media coverage on the trials. Media coverage was relatively minor, with most of the reactions to the trial being on social media platforms like TikTok. The opinions were valid but were not presented in an encyolpedic format.

                    If you want to write a section specifically on it's impact on MeToo and domestic violence you could use this article from the Associated Press : https://apnews.com/article/bill-cosby-johnny-depp-amber-heard-entertainment-politics-c105463a8b87f54d2ce19a9cd772a5d1. It does reference some of the sources that I removed. Originalcola (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

                    Thank you for the source but I don't feel you've given an answer to why the entire section deserves deletion when you claim to object only to op-eds written by journalists and that the reaction section should emphasize the opinions of academics, attorneys, and professionals. I still don't see where you've offered even a possible rationale for why the section as a whole was deleted and I think blanking the section was completely unjustifiable, to be frank, even by your own logic. There-being (talk) 22:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

            Let's try to avoid using strawman arguments, I very clearly am not advocating for a lack of a Reactions section. You could summarise in a way that would not be covering each and every source in excessive detail. The main issue is that it would have to be summarised in such a way as to not give undue weight to any particular viewpoint and in an encyclopedic format. Originalcola (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

            • Can you point to where exactly I have advocated for "covering each and every source in excessive detail"? I'm saying that when there is significant media coverage of certain viewpoints (+actual NGOs weighing in as well), it is most definitely not against any policy I'm aware of to summarize the main themes and arguments in those and give a couple of good examples. That's how you edit Wikipedia in general, at least any analysis/reactions section. I and There-being are asking you to point us to the policy that you are saying prevents this and to explain in more detail how this would be OR.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

              That was one of the biggest issues with the previous section, unless you wrote that section then I can't see how you advocated for it. Originalcola (talk) 20:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

              Media coverage doesn't guarantee inclusion on wikipedia(see WP:SUSTAINED and the notability guidelines) which is a reason why most of the op-eds were removed. Originalcola (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

First of all I think it needs to be said that, regardless of your personal opinions, you shouldn't assume that editors are acting maliciously and trying to sabotage pages without sufficient evidence. Let's all try to remain civil and avoid further edit warring.

As to the formation of a consensus, I think that the primary issue with the reactions section is that a large portion of it is simply restating op-eds and news articles that either support or oppose the results of the trial and then trying to balance it with other articles without any regard to the articles actual signifiance or impact. Not enough time has passed since the trial to find decent secondary sources with in-depth analysis of the trials to use(as far as I know)so the reactions section should remain relatively short. Nearly half of the social media reactions section is mostly just op-eds from a variety of newspapers that could easily be summarised in a few sentences and the section on companies, in my opinion, is unnecessary and as it stands now contains nothing worthy of inclusion on this page.

I think it's also worth saying that this article is seriously lacking in actual details about the trial despite extensive media coverage and the trial itself being livestreamed. There are no details on what actually happened in the trial, only the opening and closing statements.Originalcola (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the entire section was removed and replaced with no mention of this topic apart from 1 very opaque sentence that completely misstated what the underlying sources which it cited said in favor of a personal and inaccurate synthesis. Surely the section can be edited but not including it at all because it is arguably too long and of course needs editing (much like the entire article) doesn't make a lot of sense. I agree with you that the article requires additional detail about the trial, particularly regarding the testimony, which, amazingly, is not even present. But that's a different matter. There-being (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

• @Originalcola and There-being: - it is here, Draft:Testimony in Depp v. Heard, but obviously some editors thought it was not fit for an encyclopaedia (despite 100+ sources), first moved it off this article and then removed the link to the other article. starship.paint (exalt) 14:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  despite 100+ sources entirely misses the point that these are clearly excessive, intricate details which do not provide an encyclopedic summary of the topic. Wikipedia is WP:NOTEVERYTHING. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  • This is an absolutely bizarre rationale for why an encylopedia article about a trial should include zero details on its testimony, when testimony is quite obviously a key element of a trial. If you think a section of an article could be improved, and has excessive detail, the actual policy guidelines state that you should improve it, trimming it of the excess detail, not simply delete it. Your citation to WP:NOTEVERYTHING has no application here, as NOTEVERYTHING does not say anything that could reasonably interpreted as saying that encyclopedia articles about trials should include no details about the testimony in the trial. Could you please explain how you possibly get that from WP:NOTEVERYTHING? Moreover, could you explain why the proper response to seeing a section with "too many details" is to delete the section, rather than actually doing something to improve the article, such as trim the number of details? There-being (talk) 22:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

    Why such a hurry? Doing the work to "trim the details" takes time, and effort. An effort which we don't need to show to our readers while it is in progress, since an excessively detailed section brings attention onto itself and distracts readers from the rest of the article. The proper course of action is to spin out the offending section to a temporary draft page; fix the issues with it, and reinsert it once and only when the issues with it have been fixed. Wikipedia is a perpetual work in progress and simply because something is in the news does not mean Wikipedia needs to instantaneously have coverage on it. There is WP:NORUSH and Wikipedia not a newspaper. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

    • This reply strikes me as rather naive or disingenuous. There is no need to trim all of the details at once, given that there is no hurry, as you correctly note. Simply start by cutting one excessive detail at a time. Deleting a section such that it cannot be improved by other editors collaboratively is not a productive way to edit a collaborative encyclopedia. Also note that your rationale would equally justify deleting articles with problems rather than improving them, so I do not think you are interpreting those policies correctly. There-being (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

      What strikes me as "disingenuous" is claims that this has been "deleted". It's just been moved to a draft article so it can be worked on without being showed down every reader's throat here. This is standard practice with material which fails standards but could be reasonably reworked into something sensible (heck, it's the whole reason the draft namespace exists). Anybody can go and edit the draft (linked above) to trim it gradually until it can be included back in. There is no need to trim all of the details at once Except if this is done in the article while it is shown to readers, this will lead to very uneven coverage (and thus leave readers with a possibly unbalanced impression of things) until everything has been trimmed down appropriately. There are some instances where incremental improvements can be done on a reader-facing page. This, seemingly with an excessive reaction in every newspaper imaginable, is not it; i.e. we shouldn't accept getting it wrong, so we should patiently keep working on it until we have something that is right. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

      • I think you likely know very well that probably does not happen often, if it happens at all, and that when articles are moved to draft spaces they at most become an individual's personal project. Collaborative editing surely happens primarily in articles and secondarily on talk pages. Secret draft pages hidden away that almost no one knows where to find are not a significant locus of collaborative editing. What you are describing is a way to kill an article while claiming to not do so. I remain completely unconvinced by your interpretation of policy that the proper response to noticing problems in an article subtopic that nonetheless merits inclusion in the article is to blank the section, rather than fix the problems, one at a time, if need be. 173.56.203.56 (talk) 00:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

        Your accusations would sound less egregiously wrong if the link to this supposedly "secret hidden away draft page" wasn't prominently featured at the top of this comment chain. Here again just in case you've somehow missed it: Draft:Testimony in Depp v. Heard. You know where the draft is. If you want to work on it, feel free to do so. If you don't, then don't complain. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

        • Most editors of this article are not going to notice this link. Therefore it reduces collaborative editing, which is the intention in blanking the content rather than working to improve it, presumably. I still fail to see how the policies you've cited could reasonably be construed as supporting blanking what you admit is a relevant section of the article for "excessive detail." You've not offered any justifications, just overly general links to policy pages that do not offer any support or justification for the blanking of entire sections for "excessive detail." 173.56.203.56 (talk) 00:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

          You're barking up the wrong tree. I'm not the one who removed the notice about the draft ([25]). As for the policy explanations, I've already linked NOTNEWS Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories; and this is also a helpful explainer of why we shouldn't include excessive information which is of little if any long-term encyclopedic interest (see the WP:10YEARTEST). The solution of removing it to a draft page and reinstating it once it has been fixed is the simplest to implement (copy pasting it back in should pose no difficulties), the one which is likely to result in the highest involvement (as draft space is still not an individual editor's domain; and on a topic like this I'd expect there to be interested people to work on it); and also the most pragmatic as it avoids duplication of work (having a single copy that can be worked on with no rush and without being shown in an incomplete state to readers ensures as few problems as possible). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• @Starship.paint:Thanks for pointing out the draft but I was aware of it already, I just thought that a brief summary of the testimony could be included in this article.Originalcola (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Originalcola: - you are right, unfortunately, that takes work, and the Reactions in this article also take work, and the rest of Wikipedia also takes work, so simply, no one has gotten around to do it yet. starship.paint (exalt) 14:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm wondering about the extent to which this data may affect editor's perceptions of the extent to which sources find topics to be notable.

In news searches on google for June 1-12 we find:

• 25,600 results for Depp Heard trial
• 48 results for Depp Heard trial MeToo
  50 of them are listed (yes I did that) at Talk:Depp_v._Heard/reactions but with 2 results displaying "451: Unavailable due to legal reasons"
• 35 results for Depp Heard trial "Tarana Burke"
• 26 results for Depp Heard trial "emma thompson"
• 4 results for Depp Heard trial "Jennifer Freyd"
• 2,060 results for Depp Heard trial "Camille Vasquez"
• 389 results for Depp Heard trial "Elaine Bredehoft"

On the results page you can only see the result numbers by selecting the text around and under the date and copying and pasting somewhere else.

GregKaye 16:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, was there a point here? I am not seeing it. Was this supposed to be your "argument" for removing the section? I hope not.

1) Google search of the terms "Depp-Heard" "MeToo" returns 6.7 million hits; (https://www.google.com/search?q=depp-heard+metoo&client=safari&ei=rHCnYuv4NeHNptQPqPOTmAw&ved=0ahUKEwjr_qf49qr4AhXhpokEHaj5BMMQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=depp-heard+metoo&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAM6BwgAEEcQsANKBAhBGABKBAhGGABQrgJYwylg3DJoAXABeACAAUiIAZYDkgEBOJgBAKABAcgBCMABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz2))

2)Encyclopedias do not simply use google search data to determine notability of topics or sub-topics. And even if they did, 6.7 million hits obviously passes any such test. There-being (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

1) Google search of the terms "Depp-Heard" "MeToo" not in news returns 581,000 hits https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Depp-Heard%22+%22Metoo%22&rlz=1C1CHBF_en-GBGB959GB959&biw=1220&bih=570&sxsrf=ALiCzsYfV_BV3gn3aCQN-4f-9sxmtSeGHw%3A1655142181539&ei=JXenYtPEII2UhbIPrpWA8AI&ved=0ahUKEwiT66GO_ar4AhUNSkEAHa4KAC4Q4dUDCA4&oq=%22Depp-Heard%22+%22Metoo%22&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAw6BwgAEEcQsAM6BAgjECdKBAhBGABKBAhGGABQ0wdY8Q5gwxloAXABeACAATmIAagBkgEBM5gBAKABAcgBCMABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz

while a Google search of the term "Depp-Heard" returns 10 million hits https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Depp-Heard%22&rlz=1C1CHBF_en-GBGB959GB959&biw=1220&bih=570&sxsrf=ALiCzsZ-LBnZGDEzqSmiZ6kNJD0aeho-lw%3A1655142186756&ei=KnenYqXjLc6ggQak6YDICA&ved=0ahUKEwiloOCQ_ar4AhVOUMAKHaQ0AIkQ4dUDCA4&uact=5&oq=%22Depp-Heard%22&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAMyBAgjECcyBAgAEEMyBAgAEEMyBQgAEIAEMgQIABBDMgUIABCABDIKCAAQgAQQhwIQFDIFCAAQgAQyBQgAEIAEMgUIABCABDoHCAAQRxCwA0oECEEYAEoECEYYAFCQBVjwBmCSDWgBcAF4AIABdIgBswGSAQMxLjGYAQCgAQHIAQjAAQE&sclient=gws-wiz

2) it's nice to compare like with like.

3) I was actually getting on with work on suggested content on the subject when I got working on this.

4) I find sources have found related reference to Jennifer Freyd to be relatively of little note.

GregKaye 17:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

• Your personal view that sources are "of little note" is not relevant to others besides you. Obviously a search for Depp-Heard vs Depp-Heard and MeToo generates fewer hits for the second as opposed to the first; indeed, this is true by definition. What exactly do you think this proves, and why do you possibly think that said number of search results is insufficient for notability? This is not how notability is determined to begin with, so this whole discussion is pointless, but google search data for this topic OBVIOUSLY indicates notability if you chose to assess notability in that way. Could this be a case of WP:COMPETENCEISREQUIRED? There-being (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  Try to remain polite and civil as well as assume good faith when dealing with other editors as per WP:EQ. Originalcola (talk) 20:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

35 sources including The Guardian twice, CNN, The Washington Post, Huff Post, Time, The Week and The New York Times have used content on Depp Heard trial "Tarana Burke"
4 sources, The Guardian once, Sportskeeda, codelist.biz and Letras Libres have used content on Depp Heard trial "Jennifer Freyd"
GregKaye 18:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

• Again, what is the point supposed to be here? I quickly scanned and was able to find many more sources than you claimed citing Freyd's analysis in less than 60 seconds. The Washington Post, Newsweek, The Global Herald, Vox, The Guardian, Yahoo, University of Oregon, Stanford University, all have citations to Freyd on the Depp-Heard trial within the first 2 pages of results (in addition to the ones you already claimed). Your claims here have no meaning and reflect only an inadequate attempt at searching for sources. There-being (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

OK, Show your scan. GregKaye 18:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC) There-being

With pleasure. Here are a number of links quoting or citing Freyd on the Depp-Heard trial found on the first page of a simple google search for the terms. Your personal opinion that a notable and prominent university professor who has been quoted multiple times in national and international outlets such as Washington Post, Newsweek, Vox, etc. on this precise topic is "of little note" has no possible relevance here. I really do not understand how you can reasonably dispute that a prominent, notable University Professor at perhaps the most prestigious university in the United States who is quoted at length on this topic by multiple prominent international news outlets like the Washington Post on this very topic is not notable. The criterion for being a reliable source is not whether or not Greg Kaye finds something to be "of little note."

https://www.vox.com/culture/23043519/johnny-depp-amber-heard-defamation-trial-fairfax-county-domestic-abuse-violence-me-too

https://www.newsweek.com/johnny-depp-amber-heard-trial-darvo-tactics-1710797

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2022/06/02/me-too-amber-heard-johnny-depp/

https://www.pajiba.com/celebrities_are_better_than_you/johnny-depps-case-against-amber-heard-was-textbook-darvo.php

https://dynamic.uoregon.edu/jjf/defineDARVO.html

https://www.yahoo.com/video/impact-amber-heards-testimony-080857320.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2022/05/31/the-world-is-watching-depp-heard-jury-faces-difficult-task/

https://theglobalherald.com/news/unpacking-the-trauma-in-amber-heards-testimony/

https://twitter.com/Clayman_Inst/status/1531723618035634177

https://www.newsweek.com/darvo-johnny-depp-amber-heard-trial-testimony-court-twitter-fans-1705898

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/jun/02/johnny-depp-amber-heard-libel-outcomes-differ-us-uk

Cheers. There-being (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

'Comment I'm starting to believe that, as was previously suggested by someone else, this dispute needs to be sent to some sort of administrative intervention, as a committed minority of editors seems intent on blanking an entire section of a clearly notable subtopic filled with reliable sources, but has been unable to describe justifiable policy reasons for doing so. There-being (talk) 01:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

You have been given clear reasons why. Disagreeing with it does not make such reasons illegitimate. Something that fails WP:NOT (as argued) should be removed, not kept indefinitely until someone bothers to fix it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and since you seem to be insisting on exact "letter of the law" stuff (even though Wikipedia is not a court of law; there is WP:INAPPROPRIATE (Information that falls under any guideline listed under What Wikipedia is not or several other Wikipedia guidelines and has been added to an article can be boldly removed.; though this really was common sense RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I heard your supposed "reasons" but, alas, bad reasons are not actually reasons ('reasons' is a success term, to put this another way.) The topic has received significant media coverage and is indisputably worthy of inclusion in the article. I'm honestly astonished someone could even argue that the article should wholly omit discussion of a topic which has been as extensively discussed in the media as well as academic and policy sources with regards to the trial as this.. Equally astonishing to me is that anyone could think extremely vague justifications like WP:Inappropriate or joke articles like Opinions are like Arseholes could possibly justify blanking of obviously notable content based wholly on reliable sources. Nor do I even grant the premise that there was anything especially wrong with the section to begin with (I only say, that even if you take that view, blanking the section was still grossly inappropriate.) Since a minority of editors chooses to inappropriately blank reliably sourced, notable, relevant, informative content without adequate or reasonable justification, I take it that the only solution is to submit this dispute to higher authorities, as User:Ovinus] suggested would be necessary when creating this section. There-being (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

A Key argument here relates to WP:DUE which says: "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Despite protestations on the page here, I have clearly demonstrated, in the context of vast coverage on the topic as a whole, the relatively small proportion of those articles that in some way referenced #MeToo. The ratio for June 1-12 Google news searches is 25,600:48 - 533:1.

I had been partly persuaded, through my own research with results presented at Talk:Depp v. Heard/reactions, of genuinely strong comments made by Tarana Burke that I had separately found. Prior to that I had been revolted by the misrepresentation of the reference that RS had made to Jennifer Freyd.

Please, the pushing and even manipulation of one sided arguments has to stop. 533:1.

Following an, I think, reasonable edit by X-Editor the Other reactions section now has an additional line, "Various opinion pieces from major news outlets were written either in support of Heard or against her, as well as on the trial's implications for the future of the #MeToo movement." This is accompanied by nine citations current citations which, in context, may be excessive though a fair representation of references is certainly warranted.

GregKaye 05:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I tried once more to write a cohesive section, with a rationale in the edit summary. I included more sources that GregKaye found and listed on the /reactions page, such as Burke's tweet, and mostly quoted notable people (the exception being Dan Novack's quote on the First Amendment). I want to avoid bludgeoning, and I'm getting incredibly tired (this really isn't the part of Wikipedia I enjoy editing). Agreed with There-being that if this keeps going, NPOVN is a good idea. Unfortunately it looks like I somewhat diffused conflict by creating the /reactions page. We'll see how long it is until I get reverted. :P Regarding GregKaye's argument that in the context of vast coverage on the topic as a whole, the relatively small proportion of those articles that in some way referenced #MeToo, that doesn't make sense. An article can cover the case without referencing #MeToo but without taking any stance. The bigger question is what percent of opinion (section subtitle, "reactions") pieces discussing the verdict (see section title, "To the verdict") mention #MeToo, in a positive or negative fashion. That proportion is not at all negligible. Ovinus (talk) 05:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

The tiredness is mutual. We work with policy, one of which is WP:Due. I didn't remove the content. We have to discuss what proportional references to put back. Several have been. GregKaye 05:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Hoping it's appropriate, I've amended X-Editor's additionsedit to move the MeToo movement#2022 (Amber Heard and Johnny Depp) link into this content with the text reading: Various opinion pieces from major news outlets were written either in support of Heard or against her, as well as on the trial's implications for #MeToo. The ratio of news reference found was 533:1. GregKaye 05:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Alright. I don't think this is going anywhere productive, so I've opened a discussion on the NPOV noticeboard here; if it attracts other editors' attention I encourage you to respond there. Ovinus (talk) 05:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)