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.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Law 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Virginia 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 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 United States 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 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/ https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/20/opinion/roe-heard-feminism-backlash.html

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)[reply]

Beverley Leonard is incorrectly listed as being an employee of the airport, however she was the arresting officer A fragment of your life (talk) 11:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Apologies. I wrongly assumed that you'd done so. It seems like it was part of the recent disruptive changes being made by suspicious-looking new accounts that seem very deliberate in their intent to transform this article into a "Justice for Johnny Depp" article. Abu Wan (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

This article is about the Depp v. Heard trial.

This trial was a civil - not criminal - trial in which Depp had to prove whether or not Heard had defamed him with exactly three statements that she wrote in a 2018 Op-Ed. And, as I already argued:

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."

Despite all the theatrics of the trial and despite all that was claimed or not claimed in court, what the jury's verdict ultimately found false was this (and the other two) statement(s) and nothing more. And there is not a single thing in this statement that entails Heard alleging any form of sexual violence, let alone a sexual crime. As I earlier wrote:

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 the False allegations of sex crimes category.

A lot of irrelevant and immaterial claims were made by both Depp and Heard during the trial. The verdict largely siding with Depp does not, in any way, imply that every single claim that Depp made during the trial was proven true (e.g. the verdict says nothing at all about Depp's claim that Heard abused him). Nor does it imply that every single claim that Heard made was proven false. The verdict implies only that the three statements that Depp sued Heard over were proven false. And not one of them has Heard alleging any sex crime against Depp.

Besides all these, it is also worth remembering 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. Abu Wan (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the testimony given by ms heard consisted of a false allegation of sex crime (upheld by the jury) and would agree that should be readded. A fragment of your life (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Per Abu Wan's response above, I've gone ahead and removed all primary references and all content derived from them, and also rectified any synth issues. Abu Wan, the section as it is now is the prose you need to expand upon if you plan on creating the podcast's own article. No primary references, no synth, and a WP:NPOV. There are 5 sources for you to work from here. I hope you find this helpful. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Homeostasis07Thank you very much for your recent edition work on the Podcast.

I still would like to understand why this Podcast subsection does not have the same format/model as the other subsections of the media coverage (Film adaptation, Books, TV).

I’ve noticed that the content of each work cited in the prior subsections (Film adaptation, Books, TV) is barely described. A few examples:

Books

Journalist Nick Wallis's book, Depp v Heard: The Unreal Story,[191] about the trials in both the UK and the US and his experiences reporting from court was published in May 2023.

**The content of the book is barely described.

TV

-Discovery+ released the documentary Johnny vs Amber: The US Trial in September 2022, which was added to Max on May 23, 2023.

**The content of this documentary is not described.

-Another documentary was released by the French national television broadcaster France Télévisions in February 2023.[192] The documentary, titled "Affaire Johnny Depp/Amber Heard", was released as the fifth episode of the third season of the La Fabrique du Mensonge docuseries broadcast by the network.[192][193]

**The content of this documentary is not described.

-Channel 4 aired the three-part docuseries Depp v. Heard[194] in May 2023 based on transcripts of the US defamation trial. Netflix released the docuseries outside the UK on August 16, 2023.[195]

**The content of this documentary is barely described.

These subsections seem to simply inform about the release of a work (book, docu, movie) and do not focus on describing the content. Why is the same logic not applied to the podcast subsection?

By applying this same logic to the podcast, we should have something along these lines:

“A podcast series titled Who Trolled Amber? was released in 2024 by Tortoise Media.” That’s it, the content description that follows should not be there.

What do you think? Quetallie (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the comment above.

Why is “Who Trolled Amber” the only one with a focus on the content description?

This content description should be removed, in my opinion. 2A02:8428:68C:7E01:98EA:89E5:1D0B:587C (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping your suggestions in mind Homeostasis07, I re-edited the section to re-insert the original content but removed any material and references relying solely on the primary source. I kept the sources that you left but added an extra one to support some unsupported content.

As the section exists now, I believe that every single piece of information in it is supported by the sources provided. Of course, any editor is welcome to remove any unsupported content in there. Abu Wan (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you removed my amendment of what was (factually) requested by ms heard in addition to the 50,000? You amendments are clearly biased. I am reverting your change and request you talk to me before removing it again. A fragment of your life (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly ignoring the many comments about the podcast element - why? A fragment of your life (talk) 18:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also notice you have removed many other edits I made, why is that? A fragment of your life (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As noted by a number of people here, this section is overly long and is not in keeping with the other media sources mentioned. Please revert back to previous. A fragment of your life (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also note it appears to assert information as fact and still mentions (for some reason) Waldman previous clients. This whole section is problematic and should be reverted or removed completely. A fragment of your life (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This current version of the podcast subsection is back with an extensive level of information. Judging by the comments, a separate page would be more appropriate.

It should be deleted, or replaced by a version in harmony with the other subsections (no focus on the content) or reverted to the previous version by @Homeostasis07. Quetallie (talk) 20:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the podcast section to the @Homeostasis07 version as it is the least contested. If there are any further issues with the section please discuss it here before making any drastic changes. Rusentaja (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Homeostasis07 or any other editor. I request that you look at the version Rusentaja reverted the Podcast section to (Homeostasis07's latest version) and compare it to the [latest version] that I had written (which incorporated all the concerns Homeostasis07 had raised) and be sincere about which version is better in terms of:

1. Being better sourced i.e. each single statement backed up by a citation that passes verification. Of note, the present version just places all citations at the end of the paragraph, with no clarity as to which citation supports what claim in the paragraph.

2. Being more accurate in communicating to the reader the source of the information being presented e.g. in the present version, it says that the information merely comes from a podcast, which gives the mistaken impression that it derives from people just saying stuff in a podcast conversation. In contrast, in my latest version, it points out that the information derives from an investigation whose results were presented to said podcast by the British journalist Alexi Mostrous.

3. Being thorough and grammatically clearer in its presentation of said information.

While I'm tempted to make revisions to the section to correct what I perceive as problems within it, I will refrain from making any more changes to it and hope that editors that see those problems make the necessary changes. Abu Wan (talk) 13:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to your specific points:

1. Every sentence in the section can now be cited to The Independent source alone. Considering this, there may actually be a WP:REFOVERKILL issue.

2. Alexi Mostrous is the presenter and lead investigative journalist of the podcast. Mostrous, his work, and his interviews with other people are evidently used throughout the entire podcast, and are clearly an integral part throughout. The podcast was later distributed by Tortoise Media. As such, his work can be viewed as synonymous with the actual podcast, so the distinction between his work and the distribution company is moot.

3. This version is written from a neutral point of view, and is referenced to the best-available sources.

The section is mostly fine as it is now. Keep in mind that patience within the community is clearly running thin at this point. Further disruption, edit-warring, article ownership, original research, synthesis, or any such behavior will likely result in blocks or even topic bans. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, there are a number of inaccuracies/vague statements in the Article that require amendment imo. I will detail below, if anyone has concerns please reply by date shown in individual statements - if no response I will assume you are happy with my proposals and amend - does that sound OK? A fragment of your life (talk) 08:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. The jury verdict was handed down on 1 June and formally entered into the record on 27 June, therefore the trial ended in June and not July (will amend after 1 Oct if no queries raised). — Preceding unsigned comment added by A fragment of your life (talk • contribs) 12:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2. Under Civil Action the statement that Heard sued over an harassment campaign in addition to the Waldman statements is incorrect. An alleged harassment campaign did not form any part of the trial and I propose removing that statement (responses by 1 Oct please) — Preceding unsigned comment added by A fragment of your life (talk • contribs) 12:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3. Unsure why the Amazon Prime series “Surviving Amber Heard” is not listed under the TV element, planning to add - any problems please reply by 1 October. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A fragment of your life (talk • contribs) 22:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4. The 50,000 spousal support was denied - intend to update statement to reflect, comments by 10 Oct please if you have any issues with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A fragment of your life (talk • contribs) 09:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

5. The pre trial developments does not mention the calif court case concerning CHLA, will update to reflect if no concerns raised by 10 Oct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A fragment of your life (talk • contribs) 09:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6. “ Heard later confirmed in the 2022 Virginia trial, with the support of the organizations she donated to, that she was scheduled to pay the entire pledged donation within 10 years and that she was behind her payment schedule because of Depp's suits against her.”.

This statement has many errors, there was no support from CHLA re delayed payment as there was no contact from heard to them, there was no scheduled 10 year plan as shown in evidence, the full monies was received 13 months before court case as revealed at trial. Intend to update on 15 October if no concerns raised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A fragment of your life (talk • contribs) 09:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

7. 3. In addition to the money paid to ACLU, Ms Heard also paid 350,000 to CHLA as at 2022, will update to reflect after 10 October if no concerns raised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A fragment of your life (talk • contribs) 09:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]