Talk:Depp v. Heard

Witness lists

Hello! I am ... tentatively ... planning on reworking the trial section. I'm hopeful I can find a summary of the trial, particularly in a source like a law review (though trials are rarely recounted in law-review articles). It's a pet peeve of mine when articles on trials include day-by-day, witness-by-witness descriptions (as I don't think such a description comports with summary style, and, unfortunately, many high-profile trials are described in that fashion on Wikipedia—mostly because it's easy to find day-by-day reports by the media sources covering those high-profile trials. Here, somewhat surprisingly, there's ... no real description of the trial? Which should obviously change, but the trick will be summarizing it.

Anyways, before I start ... I was actually wondering whether the witness list is appropriate under WP:BLPNAME. I've generally been of the opinion that its fine to include the names of already notable witnesses, particularly relevant witnesses, and trial experts (experts are hired and voluntarily insert themselves into the event), but I'm not sure every witness's name should be included. Fact witnesses can be subpoenaed and frequently (though, to be clear, nowhere near always) not actually interested in testifying. I'm also fairly comfortable in saying that a prose description of the trial wouldn't require the names of most of these witnesses—you could say, for example, "the general manager of the Eastern Columbia Building" without identifying the person.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

The majority of people named in "coverage" are literal whos

Who wrote that part? Quoting unkown news sites? tweets? What? Usually when you want to talk about coverage you quote a juror or a profesional lawyer or an official news sites, not a tumblr blog. 2800:A4:31B2:B000:758A:57F8:99BE:FE78 (talk) 10:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Which source uses a Tumblr blog? Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 20:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Spoofs/Parodies - Start a tab?

In the new movie "Fall Guy" with Ryan Gosling and Emily Blunt, Depp and Heard's relationship was referenced in the film, which was picked up by several reliable media outlets: The Cut, Hollywood Reporter, The Independent, and People . Two characters got in a fight in a trailer and a character commented "Looks like Johnny and Amber were in here".

I noticed there's a section on this article about media coverage that are adapting this case (ex: true crime shows, podcasts covering the case, books), but there is nothing about spoofs or references in other media. Given how culturally significant this was, I wonder if it is time to add a 'Media representation' tab to specifically mention non-adaptation sources? I know SNL spoofed the case, which is not referenced in this article but shows how notable this court case was: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8R3EXXlKxg&pp=ygUQaGVhcmQgdiBkZXBwIHNubA%3D%3D

I'm sure people have other examples. Anyone have opinions on if I should add these two joke/comedy references in other media under the 'Media Coverage' tab and note that they are references/spoofs, or should a new tab be created? Squiddyonwiki (talk) 02:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

False allegations of sex crimes category and the Podcast section

I think the category False allegations of sex crimes should be added to the article, since the jury found the allegations sexual violence to be false. There's also a WP:RSUW issue with the podcast section, with allegations about Saudi-Depp conspiracy to defame Heard taken at face value based on one podcast episode. Abu Wan previously reverted shortening the podcast section by claiming that the episodes establish a clear attribution, even though the podcast host himself says that "I think it's just very, very difficult to establish attribution in cases of online manipulation. Even in cases where you're absolutely sure these bots are working in unison and working in coordination, you don't have access to the IP addresses. Even if you did, it might not show you who commissioned it... It's really tough." [1]

I think shortening the podcast section is in order, and rewording that these are not undisputed findings but allegations.

--Rusentaja (talk) 18:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Rusentaja insists that this article be added to the False allegations of sex crimes category by claiming that the jury "found the allegations [of] sexual violence to be false." But, if I may rhetorically ask, which allegations of what sex crimes (or sexual violence) exactly did the jury find false?

The only statement among the three that Depp sued Heard over that contained a reference to sexual violence was this statement:

"I spoke up against sexual violence—and faced our culture's wrath. That has to change."

What exactly is the sex crime or act of sexual violence that is alleged in this statement? None. The most relevant thing that this statement "alleges" is that the speaker (presumably Heard) spoke up against sexual violence and faced "our culture's wrath." This is the statement containing any reference to sexual violence (not even a "sex crime") that the jury, in their verdict, found to be false. Given that no sex crime is alleged in it (or in any of the other two remaining statements), it would be inaccurate and misleading to use it to move this article to False allegations of sex crimes category.

(Note: Even worse for Rusentaja is that it came out during the trial that it was actually The Washington Post staff, and not Heard, that wrote the aforementioned statement - which was actually the title of the online version of the Op-Ed in question. Depp's lawyers, who never denied the latter fact, nevertheless successfully argued to the jury that Heard should be sued for the statement for having "republished" it by tweeting the online version of the article.)

About the podcast section, Rusentaja takes issue with my having reverted their deletion of nearly all of the information and sources in the Podcast section on grounds that the reasons he gave to justify this deletion were arbitrary and unsupported. He claims that I claimed that "the episodes establish clear attribution" but this is a strawman from him since this isn't what I claimed and isn't even relevant to the question at hand. What I claimed was that:

"The claim [by Rusentaja] that 'sources say that they cannot establish any clear attribution' is simply false and it is amply clear from the [cited] sources that the primary source is the investigation presented in the stated podcast."

In short, this means that most of the sources cited in the section, contrary to Rusentaja's claim, clearly attribute their main source of information as the podcast series (Who Trolled Amber?) discussed in that section. The question of whether the findings in the podcast could be attributed to Depp or not (that is, if Depp was the one responsible for the bots and trolls discovered in the podcast series) is immaterial to this discussion because there is no claim within the entire section to the effect that Depp was the one responsible for the findings under question. Indeed, all that is presented in the section are the findings from the podcast series that are relevant to the trial, whether or not they are suggestive of Depp's involvement in online manipulation.

As such, Rusentaja's request that information be removed from this section, without giving any good reasons for it other than that Depp wasn't directly implicated in the findings, is seemingly arbitrary, unfounded, and suggestive of a pro-Depp bias on his part. This is an article about the trial, not Depp. Abu Wan (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Heard absolutely implied that Depp had sexually assaulted her, to pretend that the "I spoke up against sexual violence—and faced our culture's wrath. That has to change." article wasn't about Depp in any way is ludicrous. The category also contains several articles which touch false allegations of sex crimes indirectly, such as MenToo movement and QAnon, so I think adding that category to Depp v. Heard is justifiable since whether Depp had actually sexually assaulted Heard was very much relevant to the trial.

My issue with the podcast session are mainly WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:UNDUE policy issues. To shorten the section to acknowledge that such podcast was made and what claims were made sounds reasonable, but the way it currently stands is listing out exceptional claims uncritically as they were facts, with a source that is no better than a random Youtube video. Whether or not they explicitly list of Depp as the culprit is irrelevant as it is heavily implied that online support for Depp was inorganic and orchestrated by some nefarious party, people tend to fill in the gaps by themselves, and seeing Depp or his PR department as the mastermind behind all the alleged offenses seems the most obvious answer.

To reiterate I the false allegations of sex crimes category should be added to the article as false allegations of sex crimes were very relevant to the trial. And the podcast section should be trimmed and reworded not to give undue weight to exceptional claims made by a single podcast episode. Rusentaja (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Rusentaja: about the Podcast sub-section. This article is about the trial, not the podcast, so that level of detail is WP:UNDUE on this article. @Abu Wan: If you're determined to keep this content on-site, I'd suggest moving this sub-section to a separate article titled Who Trolled Amber?. However, I kindly suggest you rectify the WP:PRIMARYSOURCE issue raised above. The podcast itself cannot be used as a reference to support the podcast's notability, per WP:GNG. It seems the majority of prose in this section is sourced to the actual podcast. You should instead use The Daily Telegraph and GQ as your references, and only use content verifiable by those sources in the article. See WP:THIRDPARTYSOURCES. Also, there seems to be some WP:SYNTH in this section. For example, the People source from 2016 and the Financial Times article titled "US lobbyists made millions from Russian clients with Kremlin links" that's currently being used to tie Depp to Oleg Deripaska and Sergey Lavrov via Adam Waldman. The FT article makes no mention of Depp having any involvement with Deripaska or Lavrov, just that they all hired Waldman at various points. That also speaks to SYNTH, UNDUE and possible WP:OR. These issues would definitely need to be addressed before article creation. Hope this helps. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah that whole section is very problematic. Imho I agree fully that the podcast should have it's own article (if it passes GNG), right now it's taking up way too much space on this page and might be misleading.★Trekker (talk) 00:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I, of course, disagree with most of the criticisms of the Podcast section content. For one, literally every single statement in that section was sourced in accordance with WP:CS and WP:RS guidelines. I think any editor that bothered to actually read every single sentence in the section and who followed up every cited source would have seen this.

Secondly, as I'd argued before, there is not a single Wikipedia guideline or rule that specifies that the length of the section was "too long" or, as Trekker puts it, "taking up too much space." I mean, which criteria exactly - besides personal preferences and bias - are the opponents of the length of the section using to judge it as too long? Which rule or guideline exactly specifies the maximum number of words or lines or paragraphs that such a subsection should contain?

Thirdly, even if it is granted that the section is too long, I find it hasty - and to be further indicative of personal bias - that Trekker decided to erase the entire section completely from the article. This is clearly a violation of WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Trekk (and others) is free to argue that the section needs an article of its own all they want but - and especially since they do not seem prepared or willing to move it into a standalone article of its own - the best policy would have been for them to edit the section to remove whatever issues they have with it. This, I believe, is how Wikipedia works and it is what I would have expected. Removing the section entirely is quite clearly unjustified and uncalled for, especially since it contained information that is directly relevant to the media coverage that the trial got.

For these reasons, I shall proceed to undo the section's deletion and, although I disagree with the length argument, proceed to trim it to be a bit shorter than it was before for the sake of compromise. I propose that whatever issues any editor will have with the section, instead of erasing it entirely, they proceed to edit to remove the issues in accordance with Wiki's guideless. Abu Wan (talk) 10:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I would like to ask why Mostrous podcast is better and worth mentioning than others, like this one for example, https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-virginia-truth-johnny-depp-v-amber-heard/id1621295274, or Emily Baker's podcast? Why the opinion and reaction of Erin Pizzey is not cited, she is the founder of women's shelter Refuge and she knows a lot about women's abuse?

The article in its current form looks very biased towards Heard. It defies all your claims about neutrality . 2A02:A03F:C03C:7300:35CD:40D:A5CD:8A75 (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

In the “Media Coverage” portion, each section: “Film adaptation”, “Books”, “TV” merely lists the titles; why the “Podcast” has this extensive description, why not only a list like the other sections of the media coverage? This podcast section should be deleted, or it should only list the titles like the other sections.

This extensive description of the podcast should belong to a separate Wikipedia page (its own page). 2A02:8428:68C:7E01:8028:F4EA:5866:3EE4 (talk) 18:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree the podcast section has no business in here, this is supposed about the trial. 2A02:C7C:8239:E900:6C7C:3485:896:1C6B (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm unsure what you're refering to here @Abu Wan:. I did not remove the section.★Trekker (talk) 19:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Rusentaja. The category False allegations of sex crimes should be added to the article. Since an article can belong to multiple categories, adding a category to an article does not "move" it to a improper location, as Abu Wan suggests.

Heard testified in court that Depp sexually assaulted her with a bottle. The testimony was specific and detailed. If the jury had not found Heard's allegations to be false, the jury could not have ruled that the statement "I spoke up about sexual violence—and faced our culture's wrath. That has to change" was defamatory.

Additionally, Heard also testified in court that she did write the op-ed about Depp, saying "That's why I wrote the op-ed. I was speaking to that phenomenon, how many people will come out in support of him and will fall to his power."

Even if Abu Wan's interpretation of the op-ed were correct, it would not change the fact that Heard alleged Depp sexually assaulted her, since Heard made public allegations in Fairfax County Court. The question of whether or not Heard published the sexual violence statement is moot. The jury still had to determine whether the sexual violence allegations they heard in court were true or false. The jury found they were false. 71.215.76.38 (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Recent Multiple Amendments

This page looks more balanced now with the removal of the podcast imho, I think it might be a good idea to stop editing and discuss / agree further amendments before amending? A fragment of your life (talk) 07:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@abu wancan you please explain why you have changed the page again? Why is the podcast information not balanced out with the earlier Cyabra report? Why is the UK Judgement misrepresented? This article now looks biased toward Ms Heard 2A02:C7C:8239:E900:ECB1:4488:EEC5:E389 (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Request Removal of Biased Elements

The previous amendment included details about an Amazon series of programmes “Surviving Amber Heard”. This information should be re-added to provide balance to the article and the bias toward Heard. A fragment of your life (talk) 05:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The podcast element has been re-added despite various comments as to its bias and alleged uncertainty of its validity, it should be removed from this article. A fragment of your life (talk) 06:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Opening paragraph: the op Ed defamatory statements are listed, why are the non-defamatory statements not similarly listed to provide the full picture? A fragment of your life (talk) 06:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Depp and heards relationship paragraph:” she requested 50,000 per month spousal support”. she also requested 3 penthouses and a Range Rover, why are the totality of her requests not included here? A fragment of your life (talk) 06:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Depp and heards relationship paragraph should also include that she had paid 350,000 to CHLA towards her pledge of 3.5 million. A fragment of your life (talk) 06:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

General innacuracies: the open letter was about online vitriol Heard received not the conclusion of the jury, this has not been made clear.

I strongly object to the suggestion made that filing reports can lead to victims being sued for defamation, this is incorrect in law and should not be repeated here and it is harmful to victims imo.

i strongly object to the suggestions that the jury did not honor their oath, this is defamatory imo. A fragment of your life (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

If the podcast is not removed it should be reworded extensively, what have Waldman previous clients to do with this case?

it is worded in very definite terms, however no proof of the allegations made in the article has been provided here. A fragment of your life (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I don’t agree with the addition of the podcast if it is presented with all this detailed information. The other sub sections of the media coverage (Film adaptation, Books, TV) cite the titles, the release date, and the channel, that’s it. Why not the same with the podcast?

The podcast with this level of information should be deleted, it should have its own page. Quetallie (talk) 16:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@Rusentaja have just created this account, please can you help? How do we go about getting these changes made? Thank you. A fragment of your life (talk) 19:13, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @A fragment of your life! The page is semi-protected, which means it can only be edited by confirmed users. You get autoconfirmation when your account is more than 4 days old and have made at least 10 changes so I suggest you make some edits elsewhere for 4 days, and then you can edit the article. Rusentaja (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)