Talk:Depp v. Heard: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Depp v. Heard article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 14 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Depp v. Heard was copied or moved into Testimony in Depp v. Heard. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Law C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Virginia C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Popular culture (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Popular culture, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Popular cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Popular cultureTemplate:WikiProject Popular culturePopular culture articles Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 3 times. The weeks in which this happened: April 24 to 30, 2022 May 29 to June 4, 2022 June 5 to 11, 2022

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: https://variety.com/2022/film/news/johnny-depp-amber-heard-cameras-courtroom-penney-azcarate-1235280060/

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)

Should the Reactions section be present in the article (as in diff)? Please answer Yes or No and why. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging potentially interested editors: @RandomCanadian, GregKaye, Starship.paint, 173.56.203.56, There-being, TheTimesAreAChanging, TrueHeartSusie3, Gtoffoletto, GregKaye, Gtoffoletto, and X-Editor: Originalcola (talk) 22:49, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• NO, entire pointless, out of date, NOTNEWS and NOTGOSSIP content. Sure, many figures voiced some fleeting response, however this has no lasting significance. The article, instead of covering the trial, is covering these silly soundbites of responses. TikTok videos are on the net one moment and are gone the next. This article should cover the legal case, not these trivial reactions. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes and No. (I came here from the RfC notice and have not previously followed this page.) Sorry, but as asked, this RfC is not a yes-or-no matter; that diff removes a massive amount of content. I see this as: yes, some of this content belongs on the page, and no, not all of it does. I do think that it's very WP:DUE to cover the prominent online coverage, how it included misleading information, and how it may have influenced the verdict, as well as Depp's and Heard's reactions to the verdict. But a blow-by-blow account of every online bloviation is unencyclopedic. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. Whilst there are still a lot of issues with the reactions section, there doesn't seem to be a clear reason why the entire section on reactions to this trial should be removed. I did not know that this issue was contentious as, to my knowledge, only 1 editor had previously suggested it's total removal whilst there appeared to be a consensus that the reaction article needed to be improved, not removed.Originalcola (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Somewhat. I think what needs to be kept in mind is long-term significance as to what is noteworthy. Broader strokes rather than individual examples. The quotes are really good to have. A possible avenue for prose is a section on the role social media played in swaying the public. "Reactions" from the 'spectators' should be reduced to "disruptions from court spectators". Stuff about Depp and Heard should be under the 'Verdict' section. Finally, wrap up with analysis of the implications of the trial ("other reactions" should do). I know this is comment is scatterbrained, sorry. SWinxy (talk) 23:39, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, covering what secondary reliable sources deem notable is non-negotiable on Wikipedia, although over time we may want to look for more authoritative academic sources.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, many sources indicate the trial has a broader meaning. If nothing else, victims of domestic violence who don't have hard evidence might be less inclined to come forward, but so will victims who made it all up. So no more #BelieveAllWomen blindly without looking at the facts and a little more innocent until proven guilty. This is a conclusion that was reflected in multiple good sources. Since the trial had an impact on society, this should be mentioned. I'm not too fond of the "reactions" heading, which suggests it's like movie reviews. Also, considering BLP, i think that any op-eds that state Heard was the victim despite the trial outcome, should at least argue why they think so (as i also stated above). Aside from those ponts, i think the section is in a pretty good state at the moment. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 10:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Yes, ample and important coverage by reputable sources. Can be improved but should definitely be there. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC) p.s. the section is getting out of hand though. Editors are adding way too much detail and trivia. The "to the trial" section should be reduced to a few paragraphs maximum. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Not as written, though we should have something about the trial's significance in some form. That version puts far too much focus on the opinions of individual talking heads (often ones with no relevant expertise), and generally feels like it has fallen into the WP:QUOTEFARM problem where editors with different views on the topic have been trying to stuff as many opinions into it as possible to bludgeon the weight and focus of the overall section. It should have less focus on individual opinions (especially individual opinions by columnists, which I feel should get no space at all when there's already so many better sources available), and should instead focus on broad strands of high-quality coverage about the trial's significance. I also feel that retitling it to something like impact or significance would be better than just reception - this isn't a movie; we don't need people reviewing it. The trial was significant for these reasons and had this impact, cited to high-quality sources that can be used for that sort of thing in the article voice, that makes sense. But we should avoid stuff like "0/10 trial, totally awful, would not watch again" said Grindy McBigmouth, opinion columnist for Talk Magazine. --Aquillion (talk) 04:31, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes Its inclusion is due weight considering the massive amount of RS. Yet, I would support trimming it down a bit. ~ HAL333 03:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes because the reaction was as important as the trial–we know this. But it's too damn long. Trillfendi (talk) 03:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes I agree that the reactions were important. A summary of the sources, without too much detail, would good enough I think. Iraniangal777 (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes - The section should exist, as reliable sources have covered that the reactions themselves are noteworthy. I make no further comment as to the SPECIFC content of the section, how much it should include, etc... but the section should absolutely exist in general. Due to the weight reliable sources give, I'd say that a section on it is basically mandated by wikipedia policy. Fieari (talk) 05:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes so long as the reactions are notable, are supported by WP:RELIABLE, and are not gossip WP:NOTGOSSIPWritethisway (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment While not overly caring what neutral content gets used, it may be worth noting what's done in other articles such as of broadcast cases. I can't call the cases parallel as higher levels of violence were evident in regard to O. J. Simpson murder case#Media coverage with a following section on #In popular culture and Trial of Oscar Pistorius#Notable media coverage inclusive of subsection #Social media. GregKaye 10:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

and if the body content indicated is removed, the following lead content would be unsupported.

"... The livestreamed trial attracted large numbers of viewers as well as considerable social media commentary, the majority of which was sympathetic to Depp and/or critical of Heard. Large numbers of Depp's supporters gathered at the courthouse, contributing to what was widely described as a "circus-like atmosphere" and a significant public spectacle. In the United States, news articles about the case generated more social media interactions per article than all other significant news topics of that time period. Clips of the trial were widely used to create compilations and reaction videos, with multiple such videos, on platforms such as TikTok, going viral. Videos carrying the hashtag #justiceforjohnnydepp had attained over 18 billion views on TikTok by the trial's conclusion."

It depends which topics we think should be covered. GregKaye 11:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Parts that I'd say are less warranted are the first para of Potential misleading information due to containing unsubstantiated? accusation and speculation all of which might go into controversies sections of related articles. The second para may have valid criticism of social media and might be attached at the end of that subsection. The Camille Vasquez section. If wanted the content could go into her article. The Companies section ironically lacks value. GregKaye 12:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I think that the opinion poll at the end of the Other Reactions section may also be unwarranted. Originalcola (talk) 13:09, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm not entirely sure why this section has been included. There has been limited media coverage on this topic but it seems out of place on an encyclopedia and not very notable so I think it should be removed from the article or be shortened and moved to the Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd section of this article. I previously made the mistake of deleting this section without trying to gauge pre-existing consensus or seek one so I would like to recieve input from any interested parties.Originalcola (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the choice is between whether the article presents a content on differences between the trials or not. WP:Lead says "...The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. ..." There can be difficulties if editors WP:Cherrypick items to reference in the Lead without having related content in the body text. I think the choice is between the article making no comment on Differences between the trials or doing so properly as per 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." As per open talk topic above, Differences between the Depp trials, I conducted a Google news search on US UK difference depp trials and attempted, in various ways, to present an NPOV reflection on the response. GregKaye 04:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A potential solution could be to leave a sentence or two about differences in the lead and remove the other section from the article Originalcola (talk) 13:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Originalcola: I don't think this should be a standalone section. Not sure why it turned out that way... unfortunately the edit history of this article is a mess. I would keep the content but move it into some other subsection for sure. The Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd section might be ok although this is more of an analysis to te verdict and why it was so different. So the notorious "reactions" section might be more appropriate. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gtoffoletto, as per the above, it turned out that way to in relation to and support content on difference between the trials in the WP:Lead, a part of the article intended to serve as a summary its most important article contents which should covered in accordance with WP:Due. Edit summaries on the section have generally been pretty clear. GregKaye 12:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that something can be briefly summarised in the lead but not have it's own section if warranted if the information isn't significant, like a brief line mentioning differences. Originalcola (talk) 13:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show policy for that? WP:Lead is pretty clear. Also, with AknolIikiW's constructive edit, the lead reads "Differences between the US and the UK trials included the decision being made by a jury rather than a judge, and the fact that Heard was the defendant in the US trial, whereas in the UK the newspaper group was the defendant. Another difference is the cultural response to the live broadcast US trial." which, at least, presents more rounded reference. Best to follow policy but the important thing it that editors agree on WP:NPOV content compliant with WP:DUE. GregKaye 13:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in WP:LEAD does it say that every sentence in the lead should have it's own section. I'm not sure what you mean when you say that it is "pretty clear", as it doesn't say what you think it does anywhere. Also a lot of your other points are definitely not very clear... you point out several policies which seem unrelated to this discussion. I agree with Originalcola we should merge this content elsewhere. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 17:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also: that content is pretty poor sourced, gives WP:UNDUE weight and reflects the sources poorly... needs a rewrite in addition to the merge. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The content is extremely well represented in RS and was gathered by methods corresponding with WP:NPOV by working impartially through the searches adding information as it was proven notable according to Reliable Sources.

And, on top of issues previously mentioned, is the issue of WP:Balance that, "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence." and goes further even to say that "... when reputable sources both contradict one another and also are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint." There's not even a contradiction here. There's just multiple factors involved which should be relevantly presented with WP:Balance.

Then there's WP:IMPARTIAL that, "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes."

Factors involved in the outcome of the Depp v. Heard trial include:

• that Heard was the defendant in the US trial, whereas in the UK a publisher and its editor were the defendants,
• that additional witnesses came forward in the US trial and
• that courtroom discussion in the US included new information including on issues like what happened to the divorce settlement money that Heard had pledged to donate.

They were all prominent among the relevant factors. It's just not WP:Honest imply that it was just down to having a jury instead of a judge or (despite the fact that the jury was told not to engage with the media) that it was down to the trial being broadcast. WP:Due content can't be supressed. We must present relevant issues with WP:Balance. GregKaye 20:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, "can't be supressed"? In all seriousness, the factors in the outcome of the trial can simply be stated without stating them as differences; the relevant factors that led to the verdict don't need to be framed in the context of differences between the two trials. Originalcola (talk) 02:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It states on the wikipedia page on leads that "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article". The differences between the trial would probably fall under basic facts in this case. I was trying to avoid excessively quoting rules and guidelines as I felt that many editors, including myself, have been doing this too much which has hampered actual discussion on improving this article. Originalcola (talk) 02:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Was asked to comment, here's my ¢2: Before we actually have relevant sources comparing the two cases in detail, these types of sections are bound to attract serious Original Research. I think GregKaye's list above is a prime example of that. Yes, there are differences between the two cases that would be interesting to discuss (jury v. judge; tv v no tv; Heard's medical evidence, messages not being allowed v allowed; pledge/donation discussion; Stephen Deuters; changes in Depp's and Kate James' statements; the focus on Heard's credibility instead of evidence, etc.), but before there are several pieces of academic/journalistic analysis, it simply does not meet Wikipedia guidelines and just invites half-truths and opinions. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 21:10, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TrueHeartSusie3 That's a good argument which is appreciated. My research added Anti-SLAPP and freedom of speech issues into the article so it had some good outcomes whatever you may think. It was also conducted in an RS search at the time of the trial which gave a some list articles cited. But I've looked for more but haven't been able to find further substantiation. You're right about editing. I know the section has been moved around since I set it up with a move of Heard as a defendant at the in first place of the list which is substantiated to an extent by being the first item listed in the first google result in the insider listing. I've done a deeper dive and the listing type articles do dry up.

IF then we can't cover a topic properly and find a balance on all the relevant topics in an encyclopaedic way, why do we touch it at all? Why do we present content on editor chosen topics regarding the differences. Isn't that original research? Shouldn't we just state that the Virginia trial had a jury and was broadcast and be done with it? GregKaye 00:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because the primary purpose of this defamation trial was for both parties to try and protect their reputations and thus has been centered on public reactions. These reactions were even brought up in the trial and have been discussed by both parties.

Let's try to get back to the main matter at hand. Originalcola (talk) 03:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with TrueHeartSusie3 and GregKaye that virtually any attempt to comprehensively list all of the differences between the legal proceedings in the U.K. versus those in the U.S. is likely to run afoul of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH and therefore that such a direct comparison should be avoided. It is not necessary for us to directly compare or contrast the two trials, as there are separate articles on each one; readers may examine the articles/sources independently and come to their own conclusions, but I am deeply concerned that editors (on both sides) would almost inevitably turn a dedicated section on differences between the two cases into a WP:COATRACK for endless argument about how the U.K. judge and/or the U.S. jury got it wrong. My analysis might change if higher-quality academic sources become available in the future and help to clarify this topic (and if the passage of time results in a more stable editing environment), but that hardly seems imminent.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And again, TheTimesAreAChanging, In the same way that I said to Suzie "You're right about editing." I'll say to you, you are very right about coatrack and the same rules need to apply to all. The initial OR coatrack, if anything, was the initial lead comment on differences between the trials in the lead. IF it's OR to attempt produce a balanced account of differences between the trials isn't it also OR to cherrypick select examples of differences between the trials to publish? Fundamentally, on the valid argument you present, it's this OR chosen initial content that should go. We can simply talk of having live broadcast (done) and the trial having a jury (also done). As I said from my first reply: "the choice is between whether the article presents a content on differences between the trials or not." How is that not so? personal comment: While I maintain the content to be good and balanced I recognise contextual problems. I had a valid point but it could have been tackled in other ways. GregKaye 06:04, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'd prefer to remove the whole section as I stated at the beginning so if there were only the two options you stated then I would support the removal of the section and any mention of it in the lead. Originalcola (talk) 23:31, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Select comment on differences must be removed especially when not given balance such as in the lead. Going back to 10 June the 5th paragraph of that lead began with a relatively NPOV "Both parties faced challenges in the defamation case and there were legal experts that doubted whether Depp could win his case having lost a similar libel suit in the UK." From then and to now, the 5th paragraph has become written in an far less impartial way.

MOS:LEADLENGTH suggests long articles might have lead length of "three or four paragraphs" with purpose as a "summary of the topic". The Lead for Depp v. Heard has five with much of the fifth being barely represented in the body. I think the third paragraph worked both better and more neutrally with chronologically based mention of the Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd trial. In this case a fourth paragraph could neatly continue from "In the United States, news articles about the case generated more social media interactions per article than all other significant news topics of that time period." with "The trial has renewed debates on topics relating to domestic violence, as well as the #MeToo movement and women's rights." It would fit with WP:Rules. GregKaye 14:06, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GregKaye I'm sorry but you do not seem to understand what WP:NPOV means. The methods you use to ensure "your neutrality" are substantially biased and problematic. You need to base content on what reputable sources say. Not make it up. e.g. Going back to 10 June the 5th paragraph of that lead began with a relatively NPOV "Both parties faced challenges. Who said that? What does it mean? 1. It is a terrible sentence that doesn't add anything to the article. 2. Saying "both parties" does not mean NPOV... I'm sorry but I think you are making editing this article very hard for everyone. The current article lead has lost all references to the previous trial!? How the hell did that happen? What are we doing here... we are having this discussion and then you go ahead with stuff like this where you remove it all altogether? And I don't even know when all the content from the lead was removed but it is gone once again. This is tendentious and unconstructive as many other editors have pointed out above (for example here) but you keep acting like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. This is a problem. I think that either you understand the consensus on this page and how the relevant policies work or you need to stop editing here. Please restore the article with the relevant mentions of Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd.

I'll leave here the sources that we have removed form the article so they can be restored into the article:

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

- https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61673676

- https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2022/06/01/johnny-depp-libel-law-uk-us/

- https://time.com/6184072/johnny-depp-amber-heard-trial-appeal/

- https://www.insider.com/depp-head-trial-reasons-won-us-lawsuit-lost-uk-2022-6

Just the last one is not a major WP:RS and they are all saying the same. I think this definitely represents what TrueHeartSusie3 was asking: several pieces of academic/journalistic analysis. Also for reference the previously agreed upon lead is here: [1]. We should go back to this ASAP and stop degrading the text by removing reputable sources and adding WP:OR. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In my WP:Rules based edits I removed https://www.insider.com/depp-head-trial-reasons-won-us-lawsuit-lost-uk-2022-6 and https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2022/06/01/johnny-depp-libel-law-uk-us/ and four non WP:Cherrypicked citations that I had added. Also, as I stated above, "The initial OR coatrack, if anything, was the initial lead comment on differences between the trials in the lead." I don't know about other great "stuff like this" but that was one particular edit that TheTimesAreAChanging thanked me for. The improved, more chronologically based lead I developed included reference to the Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd trial. A different editor from this particular discussion decided to follow on from my edits to remove it from the lead. GregKaye 18:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your point is. We all agree that not even mentioning the previous trial in the lead is absurd, right? So whatever was done, it was done poorly at best and tendentiously at worst. No matter how many policies and guidelines we quote. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"I removed https://www.insider.com/depp-head-trial-reasons-won-us-lawsuit-lost-uk-2022-6 and https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2022/06/01/johnny-depp-libel-law-uk-us/ and four non WP:Cherrypicked citations that I had added" ...this is wrong on so many levels... you removed a Wapost article on the subject that is supported by "the Guardian",BBC,Time... why!? And what are the other "non cherrypicked" sources that you added and what do they say? Why should they disqualify other WP:RS!? That's not how Wikipedia works. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well at least you didn't quote a policy or guideline. In all seriousness, the trial's verdict should be mentioned in the lead as the verdict of the UK trial is a crucial piece of context for the US trial. Originalcola (talk) 23:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heard, at 3m23s of her Guthrie recording,[2] speaks of "another trial that dealt with the same substantive issues." I think think mention of something like "similar substantive content" could be encyclopaedic while not going far into subjective interpretation of similarity and difference. GregKaye 02:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GregKaye: this is original research. We need to restore the article content to how it was and in accordance with the sources. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 14:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Various sources speak of similarity and various sources speak of various differences. The question is what should we do to present encyclopedic content. GregKaye 05:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Gtoffoletto: - please avoid WP:RSP#Insider unless found from [3] or unless it's for an opinion. starship.paint (exalt) 13:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm confused, according to the list of frequently discussed sources there isn't a consensus for it's usage whilst for culture it is generally reliable. Is there any specific reason why it's not a reliable source in this case? Originalcola (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Starship.paint: I'm pretty sure we are talking about "culture" here. SO it should be fine. In any case, I would stick to the other sources which are definitely better (BBC, Guardian, Wapost etc.). {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 14:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "culture" is so broad that virtually anything would be "culture", isn't it? That's why I rely on a listing in [4]. starship.paint (exalt) 14:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Not sure how you do that though. You can only see the recent articles. I would just avoid the source. We don't need it. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 21:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A commentary on social media response section is kinda redundant as on an encylopedia and the general significance of these op-eds is low so it should be removed. Originalcola (talk) 03:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "Commentary on social media response" subsection is indeed redundant, but that is only a problem of organization as certain editors have repeatedly split the "Social media" section under numerous different convoluted names (e.g., "Potential misleading information", "Commentary on social media response," and "Reactions to social media content"). One must assume they were acting in good faith, but it is noteworthy that in each case the editor objected to specific content before moving that same content to a subsection which reflected his personal view that the content was merely hypothetical or "potential" or consisting of "commentary" (as opposed to the rest of the article, which is apparently strictly factual, considering that no other section is similarly labelled). It seems almost axiomatic that the "Social media" section of an article documenting one of the most viral social media topics in contemporary American society would obviously include "Commentary on social media response" or "Reactions to social media content"; however, this illogical and wholly unnecessary split has now created a pretext for selective deletion of noteworthy content. As a solution, I support merging the subsection back into the main section, rather than rewarding this behavior.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Originalcola, spot on. It's all pretty peripheral to the case. Jurors took oaths, instructions and orders; one juror stated that they followed their oaths... and Judge Azcarate referenced "evidence ... [that] all jurors followed their oaths, the court's instructions and orders"[5] (from what I remember from my two times on jury service in the UK jurors are questioned relevantly about any relevant matters. In the case where there were worries that we might be targeted for juror influence, we were all provided with 24 hour police support. I don't know if this was reported on in the news because, following my oath, I didn't look). The social media content is largely peripheral to the Depp v. Heard trial. edit GregKaye 15:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TheTimesAreAChanging The content on social media correctly presents facts first with opinion and commentary to follow. A subsection (it might be thought) might aid readers to navigate to the "Commentary on social media response" content. It would otherwise be buried beneath the 560+ words relating directly to "Social media". However, if editors want to remove what I might have thought would have been an otherwise helpful navigation, fine by me. (Also, please, if in any circumstance you want to make reference to me, please ping me. Thank-you). GregKaye 06:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it's been a while since the trial now and the notability of the commmentators can now clearly be revealed as low Originalcola (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely agree with TheTimesAreAChanging. The notability of social media coverage of the trial and subsequent analysis is absolutely crystal clear as most RS have dedicated specific articles on the topic. I made an edit that makes it clear why the topic is notable: several experts believe that social media was an influence on the final verdict by the (non sequestered) jury.

Some of the sources:

- Did Social Media Sway the Johnny Depp Jury? VICE

- How social media could influence other cases after Depp, Heard trial TODAY

- Amber Heard says social media was a factor for her defamation trial jury NPR

- Depp-Heard trial: Advocates fear chilling effect on accusers ABC

- Juror in Johnny Depp Trial Says Amber Heard's Testimony 'Didn't Add Up', Jury Believed She Was 'the Aggressor". Rolling Stone. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 17:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gtoffoletto you turned a speculation in which "Legal commentators ... believe that the social media coverage may have had an influence on the final verdict into an intitle assertion of "Effect on the jury". Please remember that the jury members also come under BLP. Please stick to MOS:INSTRUCT we "Simply present sourced facts with neutrality and allow readers to draw their own conclusions." Please don't remove citations.

your chosen sources present:

- Did ...?

- ... could ...

- ... says ... and,

- referencing "Some advocates ...", fear ... (and surely none of them could have a ~conflict of interest).

Judge Azcarate, who presumably understands her court's procedures, came in and referenced "evidence ... [that] all jurors followed their oaths, the court's instructions and orders"[6] GregKaye 19:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you have read accurately MOS:INSTRUCT. Why do you think it is relevant here? I agree with your edit adding "possible" to the heading. Thanks for fixing it. Not sure what you mean by conflict of interest and whatever the involved Judge says isn't very relevant... those are independent commentators evaluating her work. I've only removed a broken citation and a poor citation that was redundant. Let's try to keep only the best sourcing per WP:BLPSOURCES. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 20:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You seem crystal clear on mos:instruct in your agreement to the addition of "possible" to the heading.
Optional ways we could go with the content could be to present issues related to the (BLP) juror before presenting criticisms relating to their involvements or to present the person and the criticisms separately as is currently done. Another way of doing things would be to present the person in line with other related content such as the judges comments. Your "leading" editing is in need of being addressed[7].
Deadline is recognised WP:RS and the article gave good coverage of the subject which presented the views of the juror well. I'd go further and add the original source article which could better do the topic justice. GregKaye 21:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The juror's comments are not WP:DUE for the lede summary ([8]), but, if we are going to include a section documenting social media's possible impact on the jury, then we are obligated to include the juror's response in the interest of balance. WP:MANDY ([9]) is an essay, not a policy, and it does not trump WP:NPOV. With that said, the length of the "Comments by juror" section is somewhat excessive in my view. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A jury trial, or trial by jury [according to that topic's Wikipedia article], is a lawful proceeding in which a jury makes a decision or findings of fact.
Our topic is a jury trial. Our job is to present fair and balanced information to that topic.
If we are to also present potentially less relevant and peripheral information on media (something that the judge and a jury member indicated was of little relevance to the decision making of the trial) in the article then we must certainly present balancing information in the article related to the jury. If we are to touch specifically on information on media in the lead then we should also present balanced lead reference to the jury per WP:DUE. Reference to statements from the chief judge Azcarate might similarly be used to achieve balance.
Following Starship.paint's recent edits, the comments by juror section looks like this. GregKaye 17:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The juror stuff can be further improved, but I don’t have time to do it yet. Luckily there is no rush, and I am looking to improve it more in the future. The juror basically explained the verdict (according to their own view, of course), and as of now there is no better source for that. We have ample reliable source coverage of the juror’s comments. I don’t see why we shouldn’t include the juror’s comments. starship.paint (exalt) 15:13, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with TheTimesAreAChanging. The fact that the juror "went public" is probably notable here. But it should be given appropriate WP:WEIGHT. And that is not a lot as WP:MANDY (an essay but a meaningful one) obviously applies here. The mainstream view by RS (supported by various experts as reported in the article) is that social media coverage and the whole circus around the trial was an influence on this case. I don't think anyone is trying to argue that it wasn't (except the juror himself and Depp's defence). Also it should be treated as WP:PRIMARY as those are not comments from an independent source. We should always prefer independent and reliable analysis. Please don't remove such sources from the article. I would trim down the juror comments and include them in the "Potential effect on jury" section or in the "verdict" section. Definitely not in the lead or a standalone section. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 09:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gtoffoletto, even Mandy Rice-Davies was notable. Please also note thet the essay on Mandy only goes as far as to speak of "Editors [being] tempted to close these sections with self-sourced denials". The related, small proportion of #Comments by juror section relates to a personally referenced statement for the group that "Social media did not impact us". It's hardly a "he would, wouldn't he" type reference. The section is also very far from closing with it. MRD does not apply. It far from justifies your repeated attempts at complete removal of content.[10][11][12][13] There is no argument of soapbox, there's no self-promotion or advertising. There's a juror being given direct reference within an article on a jury trial, the kind of thing that happens naturally in other Wikipedia articles on jury trials where jury members have had their comments published. I don't see how primary relates to these significantly noted comments, yet there's a lot of other less noted content currently in the article to which WP:PRIMARY might more immediately apply. GregKaye 15:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reputable sources (such as the ones that were removed from the article for no reason [14] [15]) believe the jury was influenced. Can you find credible RS that believe the jury was not influenced? The juror certainly thinks he wasn't influenced... and "Well, he would, wouldn't he?" {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 17:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The only evidence before this court is that this juror and all jurors followed their oaths, the court’s instructions and orders." as per: Chief Judge Azcarate, in comments that (unlike much content in the burgeoning #Social media and #Other reactions sections) have been widely quoted.[16]
It certainly looks like they believed that. My view was of comment that I considered "hasn't aged well". We are debating similarly on your talk page matters following your raising of the same historic matters.
Your argument here again brings current misrepresentation of Mandy. The "he" she refers to is Lord Astor not herself. Your argument is that we "trim down the juror comments" (presumably keeping the "Social media did not impact us" comment but cutting back from the majority of the comments made and referenced). This misapplies an essay content to push for far reaching change in page content. GregKaye 05:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greg I don't think you have understood the point of WP:MANDY. The fact that the judge and the jurors (who are directly responsible for the verdict) are denying that they were influenced is irrelevant if every other independent observer thinks that they were. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gio, a great proportion of independent observers simply made reference to the jury trial as dealing with allegations of defamation between Depp and Heard and spoke about the case. You're stretching things. GregKaye 19:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The comments already in the article are very clear. If we don't have any other source reputably saying that the circus around the trial wasn't a huge factor then I guess we can consider this matter as settled. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 20:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The comments progressively added to the now burgeoning #Social media coverage sections are fairly irrelevant to the Depp v. Heard trial which fits in with the view of the judge and perhaps also to the majority who didn't make it an issue. Much of the extensive content in the #Other reactions is also arguably tangential to the main article topic. GregKaye 08:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant according to who? The ample coverage by WP:RS seems to indicate otherwise. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 16:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Late response but my main issue was with the fact that it could easily be included in a different section and shortened. The op-eds chosen weren't exactly the most representative or popular opinions, I think one of them was from a local arizonian news outlet. Originalcola (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree that the sections should be remerged Originalcola (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm persuaded and support. It's not the only titling that can be streamlined. GregKaye 14:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GregKaye can you explain this big indiscriminate revert?

The edits are pretty well supported by WP:RS fix a broken reference and is in total alignment with discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Depp_v._Heard/Archive_1#%22Wife_Beater%22? to which you replied absolutely agree {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 16:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. you have also purpousefully reintroduced just one of the notices I added to the page. You removed the WP:BLPPRIMARY notice. Why? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 16:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly, but most of this is explained in the edit summary. You produced a series of edits.[17] Your wife beater addition was reverted by AknolIikiW with comment: "Seriously? Defamation 2.0" which, against WP:BRD, you again added.[18] I then, with reason, rolled back your various unilateral edits.

In the wife beater talk page discussion, policy reasons, including a ref to BLP, were presented for exclusion. Another editor still thought the reference to the label was ok but I agreed with that editor that the full title should not be used.

WP:BLP says "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively" and that "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist". Remarkably, even The Sun found “wife beater” either to be non representative of the significantly time spaced alleged incidents, either that or it was too sensationalist even for The Sun.

It also fails WP:DUE on the basis that searches on Depp "News Group Newspapers" and Depp "The Sun" give few visible reference to "wife beater". Moreover, through good work on by myself and Hurricane Higgins, the sequence of events presented in the lead has been placed into chronological order. Sensationalist reference from a different trial is an inappropriate introduction to the legalities of Depp v. Heard.

The article's lead used to present a full text: [19] "Depp and Heard married in February 2015. Heard filed for divorce on May 23, 2016. Four days later, she filed and was granted a temporary restraining order against Depp, alleging that she had been physically abused by him." The current text presents: "In May 2016, at an early stage in their divorce process, Heard claimed that Depp had abused her physically, which he denied." which presents a rounded presentation of the situation. According to the Wikipedia article on the topic, "Divorce (also known as dissolution of marriage) is the process of terminating a marriage or marital union." Heard made her allegations at an early stage of this process.
The current discussion immediately above relates to the editing back of content. Editors are free to seek consensus on issues related to changing the article in talk page discussion.

I still think that some form of additional Sun reference would be appropriate. We previously gave direct reference to the article itself with reference to all titling used. Perhaps an informative use of footnotes could work. GregKaye 18:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the discussion? You are attempting to misrepresent it spectacularly. The other editor said: I think mentioning original title is fine. Can probably leave full title out of lead and just mention it in Background section which is exactly what my edit did. Reputable sources all report the original title and all mention wife beater as the reason for the trial. Your crusade against the use of the term is a WP:POVPUSH

- "Johnny Depp loses libel case over Sun 'wife beater' claim" BBC [20]

- "UK court rejects Depp bid to appeal ‘wife beater’ ruling" AP news [21]

- "Johnny Depp speaks of Hollywood 'boycott' after losing 'wife beater' libel trial against The Sun newspaper" SKY news [22]

- "Johnny Depp and Amber Heard's testimony in 'wife beater' libel trial" Reuters [23]

- The list goes on (of course)...

Reuters, AP News, the BBC... that's the gold standard. So the use of "wife beater" is not "too sensationalist" at all. Also it is definitely not "sensationalist" to report the title of the article in question as published in the body of the article. It would be extremely odd to change it actually.

Also: your "technique" of basing your WP:DUE considerations on raw Google Search Results is not how Due works. Only viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources are relevant. Not the general results in Google Search (which is often full of bullshit).

Finally your comments regarding the definition of a divorce are misleadingly pedantic. Depp and Heard started dating in early 2012, after meeting on the set of The Rum Diary a few years earlier. By 2015, they were married. But just 15 months after they made it official, it was over. Heard filed for a divorce and a restraining order, appearing in a Los Angeles court with a bruised cheek.[24] is what the BBC states. Totally in line with the proposed text. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You keep WP:Cherrypicking away. Searches on Depp "News Group Newspapers" and Depp "The Sun" give few visible reference to "wife beater". It's easy to check the publishers and see which articles are from RS. GregKaye 20:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already pointed out several times... WP:DUE states explicitly: Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.. I don't think you can keep editing in this area unless you acknowledge this important policy. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 14:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And that's your response to your WP:Cherrypicking of articles to support use of a sensationalist take (that even The Sun rejected) to use it in introductory, lead content on an article on a different topic. On your: "I've already pointed out several times... WP:DUE states explicitly: Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources", while, sure, it's all great policy, where did you do this? On: the "prevalence in reliable sources", as found by picking out RS references from search results, rarely presents "wife beater" with prominence if at all. WP:DUE also states, "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery" and "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." It's policy, in full, that I assert.
Giving that "minor aspect" some perspective, Nicol states "79 I have already noted that neither party sought to distinguish between the articles. The notable difference was that the original online article in its headline referred to the Claimant as a 'wife beater'. The amended online article and the print version instead referred to the 'assault claim'. However, as I have said, neither party treated the differences as material."[25] In his previous notes Nicol also referenced the rapidity with which the online article was changed. You're again fighting over content that the judge of the trial did not view as relevant - or is another judge wrong?
As I've already pointed out several times... WP:BLP says "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively" and that "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist". (Of course, I could follow your breaking of WP:TPG by saying, "I don't think you can keep editing in BLP unless you acknowledge this important policy". I request your acknowledgement). GregKaye 05:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gtoffoletto your examples of articles using the complete original title are wrong. They mention the words "wife beater" but don't state the whole article title. I feel like you're pushing your opinion here, constantly reverting edits. I don't understand why you're so adamant on using an obviously defaming title, when even judge Nicol acknowledged that is was defamatory. AknolIikiW (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]