Talk:Amber Heard/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Lying about charity

Many articles have been published of Heard lying about donating half of her settlement to charity. Heard claimed that she donated seven million dollars to American Civil Liberties Union and Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, however the children's hospital has claimed to have only received seventy-four thousand dollars. This may erode her case, along with abuse allegations from former relationships. Could this be a worthwhile edition to this page? Traptor12 (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I wanted to put it here recently too, but it was removed again by the user TrueHeartSusie3 (long-term site watcher and probably her lawyer), who doesn't believe it. In any case, in January 2021, it became apparent that she had contributed only max. $ 100,000 of that amount.1,2 TrueHeartSusie3 refers to not-too-trusted sources, but if she do not believe that, then we can wait (I don't think Heard can hide it for long). IMO, she is a liar and this is no surprise. Jirka.h23 (talk) 05:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The other problem is that the sourcing is not blue chip. WP:BLPSOURCES says "The material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism". It all seems to trace back to this article in the Daily Mail, which isn't a suitable source. The other news sources are simply recycling what is in the DM article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Seconding what ianmacm says above. In addition, let me just remind everyone again that the UK High Court found that there was overwhelming evidence that Depp was abusive in this relationship. His ex-lawyer (thrown off the Virginia case by the judge) and Svengali Adam Waldman continues to wage a campaign against her in the tabloids with anything they can get to destroy her career and deflect attention from Depp's abuse and addiction/mental health disorders. This is part of it and for anyone who has followed this case and has any degree of media literacy it should be blatantly clear. This in itself is a continuation of the abuse, and sadly, they are being quite successful in destroying Heard's career and most likely also depleting whatever money she has earned with these ongoing court cases. Wikipedia should be mindful of this and stay out of it. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

You are wrong, Heard is completely destroying Depp's career (for example Pirates of the Caribbean), his past ex-wife stands behind him and most of people who know him, he would never beat any woman, and he never admitted this, unlike her who admitted it, she beat him and threw things at him (and has been accused of this in the past by her past partner). Even her former lawyer withdraw from it because she don't believe her. Second thing, what you say about spending money she earned on courts is absurd, she did not pay any expenses in this regard. Jirka.h23 (talk) 10:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you provide sources for any of these defamatory claims?

Depp's career is not being destroyed by Heard. His projects have been failing since circa Lone Ranger, see for example this Variety piece from 2016. Had he done what most stars do when facing controversy, and just laid low for a while, he could have repaired his reputation after the divorce, but instead he chooses to continue hounding Heard and making bad PR decisions. Also, the fact that he has a severe, longstanding addiction disorder (which he admits to; see trial transcripts) and has caused issues on set doesn't really endear him to studios, especially if he is no longer delivering the box office returns we saw in the 2000s. See for example these following articles from reliable, quality publications for more on the reasons why Depp's career is ending:

• The Rolling Stone profile from 2018. Remember, RS used to be a very favorable publication for Depp.
• Hollywood Reporter piece from 2017, about another lawsuit –this time against his business managers– that Depp chose to start and with information about how he behaved on the set of the latest Pirates film, which also did not make bank in the same way as the previous installments
• Hollywood Reporter article from a couple of weeks ago, detailing again how he is the only one to blame for his downfall
• The Guardian analysis
• ITV News' piece where two PR experts weigh in on why Depp's reputation is in tatters
• This article on him being sued by a crew member for assault

Finally of course you really should read the High Court judgment and the trial transcripts (e.g. on BBC reporter Nick Wallis's website), you can find both from the Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd article. You can find plenty of material there where Depp both admits to abuse (in text messages and on tape) and that he often blacks out (i.e. has no memory of what has happened) when on drugs / alcohol (admitted in court under cross examination). To argue that Depp was not abusive means dismissing texts from him to others, texts by his team to others, witness statements from people who have no reason to lie, video, photographs, audio clips ... It's absolutely possible for two people to be mutually abusive, but so far Depp has not really delivered evidence that Heard has been abusive (and no, a clip from a therapy discussion where we don't know the context is not evidence). Heard has admitted since the divorce deposition to having hit him in self-defense, and the only evidence Depp's team was able to present in court of any violence on her part stems from this incident. That's why they have to bring up the dog poo in bed, the alleged extramarital affairs, and the charity pledge, none of which have any link to domestic abuse — this case is about making sure Heard has no career after this, about mudslinging. In the process, Depp is destroying the remains of his own career.

I would also encourage you to actually read this Wikipedia article as well, because if you had, you would know that Depp sued Heard in 2019, and the trial is going to be in a couple of months in Virginia. No, Heard did not pay her own expenses directly related to the NGN trial, but that's not the only way in which Depp is continuing to hound her. Who is the ex that you say Heard beat up? If it's Tasya Van Ree, please read her statements from this article and from the UK trial transcripts, she categorically denies this.

As for her lawyer, you probably mean Roberta A. Kaplan, who is no longer representing Heard in the Virginia/WaPo case? She left the case because they lost their bid to get the trial moved from Virginia to California, and COVID-19 makes travelling between states very difficult. Therefore it makes more sense for Heard to be represented by a VA lawyer (law in the US is very different depending on the state you're in). It seems to have first been reported by The Blast, admittedly not the best source, but it also includes a statement from Kaplan and her team and explains why the change happened. Kaplan and her firm are still definitely on Heard's side, see for example this Twitter message she wrote this summer after the trial in London. Of course, if you choose to blindly believe what Adam Waldman says, then I can't help you. Please do read these two articles about him though.

Ok, this is enough for now. My point with all these links (and the time it took the compile this list!) is that there's a lot of misinformation floating around Twitter, Reddit etc. on this case. Given how often people try to add misinformation to this article, it's worth to also provide these links. I have no doubt these same claims will be made here ad infinitum, but maybe I can in the future refer to this message instead of having to write the same arguments over and over again. Please let's all move on to something more productive. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Look, this debate doesn't make sense here, I do not agree with you on any point. "No, Heard did not pay her own expenses related to the trial, but that's not the only way in which Depp is continuing to hound her." - so my objection was correct that she had no expenses, but I really don't understand how Depp could deliberately pursue her with this, if it was she who wrongfully labeled him wifebeater. He lost Pirates of the Caribbean immediately after the trial, his career was fine before this relationship. Tasya van Ree didn't want to mess with it anymore and took it back. Heard beat him and threw things at him, as she admitted in the tape, also once she threw a bottle of vodka at him, he had to perform surgery with his finger (bad for someone who plays guitar). And about the "dog poo" in his bed, so big sh*t really can't be from a dog. There's no point in arguing with you here. I know that there will be another trial in Virginia and I hope she will finally gets what she deserves. Anyway, this paragraph is about her (probable) lies about charity. Why would hospital claimed to have only received a fraction of that amount? It will soon come out anyway and don't say you still believe she paid it all..? Jirka.h23 (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct in that this debate is not going anywhere. I wrote that she didn't pay her expenses for the NGN (=The Sun trial in London this summer) trial. Please re-read carefully. I've presented you several good sources above that could help you get the facts on this case, but you are choosing not to read them, which is fine, you do you. The point is, there's been plenty of mudslinging in this case. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and it's credibility has been previously already damaged by editors editing with other interests than factuality in mind. Once this is discussed widely by RS mainstream sources and/or the WaPo trial has taken place, with presumably this also discussed, we can much more confidently return to this topic. Now have a good day/morning/evening/night/whatever time it is where you are. Let's see if others will weigh in on this, we've both made our points I think. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Her own lawyer Elaine Bredehoft has released damage control statements admitting she has not fulfilled her charity pledges as of 2021, and blaming Depp's legal action for the "delay", eg in this statement to Deadline Hollywood. Not sure how it's appropriate for this article to have an unequivocal statement claiming she donated $7m in light of this.PerditionsEnd (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

It's clear that she didn't send the money and will try to blame it on Depp. I agree that the article does not correspond to reality and should change. What do you say TrueHeartSusie3 ? Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

TrueHeartSusie3? Jirka.h23 (talk) 12:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

We should not add a mention about this at this stage because Wikipedia is not a tabloid or a newssource and because this article needs to adhere to WP:BLP. Furthermore, the consensus with this article has been to keep the details at minimum and stick to the main facts reported by major news organisations. It definitely does appear to be so that Heard has not been able to honour the pledge she has made in full, given that the divorce settlements are typically not paid immediately following the finalisation of a divorce and due to the ongoing and very expensive litigation that began shortly after that in 2018. However, thus far this is not something that has been widely reported/discussed by either the top RS news sources (e.g. NYTimes, The Guardian, BBC...) or by the top entertainment industry sources (e.g. The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, Rolling Stone...). I would also like to refer to my earlier messages on this Talk page re:smear campaigns and material being leaked by Depp's former lawyer Adam Waldman (who is a 'former' lawyer due to being thrown off the Virginia case by the judge after leaking confidential material to the press). Once again, this has originated from Waldman, been leaked to tabloids like Daily Mail and then been reported by online sources (like Deadline) who are more reactive to celebrity news in general. This case (or rather, these cases) are ongoing, and Wikipedia therefore needs to err on the side of caution, and continue to honour the WP:NOTNEWS principle.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Please answer one more question (I don't know that much about the reliability of sources): is the Deadline Hollywood a tabloid? What about other sources, for example: 1, 2, 3, 4. Are you saying that these sources must not be used in Wikipedia? Now the article contradicts NPOV, describes with certainty a thing that did not happen, as her own lawyer confirmed that her promise had not been fulfilled. At least some adjustment must be made here. Jirka.h23 (talk) 13:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Happy to! First off, The Daily Mail is a big no-no. DM is notoriously unreliable, the quintessential British trash tabloid that frequently publishes wrong information and clickbait articles that are completely misleading (for this it has received the nickname 'The Daily Fail'). It has a very wide readership though, which is why people often try to use it as a source on WP. Nevertheless, there's clear consensus on that it's not an appropriate source. IB Times is a content farm, not journalism, you can read more about them from the link. Now, Deadline, ET and Cinemablend are kind-of-ok sources AFAIK, depending on the case. However, they are online entertainment media, and as such produce lots of articles, much of them reiterations of material from other media. Their threshold to publishing celebrity news is also much lower than the more established, high-quality entertainment media (e.g. Variety, The Hollywood Reporter,Rolling Stone) or 'serious' news media (e.g. BBC, The Guardian, NYTimes). If you want to learn more about sources, Wikipedia has quite good articles on that, search for example WP: Reliable sources.

To come back to this case that we are debating –whether or not to include the bit about the charity pledge–, I am *not* questioning that Heard has not fulfilled it in full yet, or that the statement from her lawyer wouldn't be genuine. The problem is, the question about the charity donations originates from court docs leaked by Adam Waldman, Depp's former lawyer who was thrown off the case because he kept leaking confidential documents from the case to the media in order to smear Heard. In other words, instead of waiting for the case proceed to actual court, he is using the so-called "court of public opinion", in a way that is very unethical for a member of his profession. Due to this, Heard's lawyers have given a short answer, but the whole thing is still unresolved. If you look at the sources currently in the article for the donations, they are from the organisations to whom she has pledged to make these donations stating they have received donations from her, not just a pledge. At this stage, it's therefore unclear how much exactly has been donated, and what the agreements between Heard, CHLA and ACLU are regarding the schedule of donating the money. My hunch is that there will be more clarity to this once the appeal in the UK proceeds to court (March) or the VA case goes to court (May). Currently, we just don't have enough information.

Oh and btw, do you know what is Waldman's motive for this? The judge in the UK case used the donations as just one example of why Depp's characterization of Heard as a gold-digger is wrong. They are currently appealing the case, i.e. they are using the media to help their case. Edit: It actually clearly even states this in the Deadline article.

Had this been reported widely by the media I have mentioned above, I would not question adding it. Most likely, we would also have more information. But so far, it has only been reported by unreliable media or the kind of low-threshold entertainment news sites like Deadline. However, as it stands, adding it breaks not just WP:NOTNEWS, but risks WP:AVOIDVICTIM. In the worst case scenario, adding this would mean that instead of trying to remain neutral, WP is becoming one party's mouthpiece.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

This would not be against NOTNEWS in any way - the mention of charity is already present, but wrong, and not specifying that could really risk AVOIDVICTIM, by damaging Depp and making Heard a benefactor who donated all of Depp's money to charity. Biographies should be neutral and not present her in too good or bad light, just real. Thank you for clarifying the sources, it's good that you don't consider all of them as tabloids or untrustworthy, even if you do not consider them to be the highest quality. I therefore propose the following two solutions, which could solve it: Add sentence However, in January 2021, it has been reported in some media, that Heard's attorney confirmed her client has not yet donated the full $7 million. It could be sourced for instance, by the three websites (Deadline, ET and Cinemablend). After that, I would no longer had objections to the factual inaccuracy of the article. The second option could be to add the word allegedly to the previous sentence, sourced it would be the same. Jirka.h23 (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

But the thing is, this is not something that has been widely discussed in reputable media, and even those media that do report it (e.g. Deadline), state that bringing this up is part of Depp's strategy of trying to make her seem unreliable. We also don't know the details – such as what the agreement between Heard and ACLU and CHLA is with regard to the schedule of the donations, or when Heard had received all of the divorce settlement money in the first place (in my understanding, large divorce settlements are paid in installments over sometimes even several years, esp. in the case of someone with known financial issues like Depp). Please also note that neither CHLA nor ACLU has released a statement about this. There's just way too much that is not clear and that is known to be part of one party's smear campaign strategy. I do agree that the sentence needs to be amended once we have more information (which I presume will be later this spring when the second libel case goes to trial). TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Okay, I understand your position, you want to wait for the response from CHLA and ACLU. I think they've already received an order and will have to respond in this spring. From what you wrote, I deduce that you do not agree with the words "in some media", but why? After all, you also agree that the sentence should be "amended". We don't have to wait for anything, if it's sourced by the servers that are not banned here. And what do you write about details that we don't know, we are not investigators, this is not essential for us, the details will be added later, the truthfulness of the site is essential, which is, however, now disturbed. Also, if you're wondering when Heard got the money from Depp, so she got them a long time ago, it has already been proven, I can find it if you want. Otherwise, if we do not agree on this, we will have to wait for the opinions of other editors interested in the matter. Jirka.h23 (talk) 08:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

'In some media' is weasel-y, please see the Wikipedia Manual of Style (specifically MOS:WEASEL). In a factual text, we have to be precise. Given how there is not much clarity on this issue at the moment, and how this is a known part of a smear campaign, we need to wait for better sources and more complete information to become available. Please also note that WP is not a news source. That's why we can wait. I agree, let's wait for more information from reliable sources to emerge and for experienced editors to weigh in.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 08:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2021

She did not donate the divorce settlement to charity despite courting PR to the contrary and stating under oath that she did. , 92.237.149.145 (talk) 11:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done: I've added a sentence about it going off what is said in this Deadline Hollywood article. Volteer1 (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2021 (2)i

Amber Heard is NOT an activist against domestic violence. She is a documented abuser not only from Johnny Depp but also from previous relationships as well. Numerous men have come out against her. She gives activism a bad name. Being a survivor of domestic rape (my ex husband raped me) it’s revolting that you’re allowing the lies to be spread. It’s come out that she didn’t even start becoming an activist until Johnny Depp went public 97.119.249.102 (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Reliable sources describe her as an activist, there's no reason to remove the section we have on her activism. If you have something you wanted added, and a reliable source to accompany it, feel free to re-open this request and someone will try to make those changes for you. Volteer1 (talk) 05:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Spouse(s)

The info box lists one spouse, Johnny Depp. The BBC article, Inside the Johnny Depp court case (02 Nov 2020), describing the meeting of Heard and Depp, says “Heard's wife at the time was the artist Tasya Van Ree.” These two accounts are self-evidently contradictory: was Van Ree was ever officially married to Heard? Perhaps somebody with certain knowledge, and citations to support that knowledge, could pronounce. JDAWiseman (talk) 21:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Amber Heard wrote an op-ed in 2019 where she refers to Tasya van Ree as her "former wife". (https://www.teenvogue.com/story/amber-heard-supreme-court-lgbtq-cases). Same sex marriage was not legal in the US at the time they were together, but I'm not sure where Wikipedia stands on this. Calliejacobs (talk) 10:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

She could be put as partner or maybe even spouse. An similar case if of Mick Jagger and Jerry Hall. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

fixing referencing errors

I've again reverted a change that deletes the definition of a reference named "independent". While this representative seems completely viable to me, if the decision is made to delete it, then it should be replaced with a {{cite}} tag, Removing the reference definition without attending to the other uses of this reference causes the article to render with a visible error about the missing reference. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2021

The section about “The Stand” refers to Stephen King’s “eponymous” novel - this is not what eponymous means. It should state “novel of the same name” or something similar. Manpam (talk) 02:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Yeah, if the novel was eponymous then it would be called "Stephen King", not "The Stand". Volteer1 (talk) 04:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Amber

Why didn’t she leave johnnys home ? 2600:1700:81A1:32D0:8CF5:97C7:8722:8003 (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this question is appropriate, much less for a Talk Page on the status/quality of a Wikipedia article. Afddiary (talk) 12:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Lede

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More lede

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

The last para could be trimmed to

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ambiguity

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2022

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

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

The page is biased in favor Heard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What now?

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2022

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

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

Amber

Hella fake news bud 2600:1010:B148:DE33:68B8:B16F:E65F:7C8E (talk) 23:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Why is the change.org petition in the lead?

this is scarcely a notable enough detail to be in the article at all — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.248.223 (talk) 09:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2022

JohnFisher2 (talk) 11:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I would like to review and change any inoformation wrote by the Johnny depp fans

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 12:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2022 (2)

Spouse to : Tasya Van Ree (2008-2012) Schneck11 (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This has been discussed in the past, with no consensus to include. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Disputed: The disorders Amber is alleged to have

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with THS3 that we should remove the content for now. It's perhaps impossible to neutrally present the dispute without overweighting this recentist content relative to the rest of Heard's biography. I gave it a shot, but keeping the content short meant leaving out important qualifiers like Heard's actual treatment team not making the diagnoses. Post-trial, we'll have more summary coverage in RS to indicate what bits are or are not worthy of mention. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Retxnihps pointed me to a page about preserving. It states, "As long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), Verifiability, and No original research." We don't have that yet here. Okay for the trial article, but not here. Thinnyshivers (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I 100% agree with this stance, especially with you begging the question of "why this piece of testimony should be included [in Heard's article] and not others." Statements like those strongly call into question the neutrality/bias of the article in my opinion. Personality disorders are very sensitive and personal topics (especially Borderline and Histrionic), and it seems highly inappropriate for Wikipedia to include something that a psychologist hired by Depp's team alleged in an unfinished trial - especially given the context of the allegation. Both diagnoses were a result of Dr. Curry helping to bolster Depp's team's argument in court.

It seems inappropriate to include that information at all, much less before a verdict has even been reached, especially given that several other psychologists disagree with the diagnoses. It is also worth noting that the validity of the diagnoses was heavily questioned in court as well, given the circumstances of Dr. Curry's hiring, the disagreement of other psychologists, and the short amount of time that Dr. Curry spent examining Heard before reaching either diagnosis.

I guess in summary, please consider the context of these diagnoses, as well as Heard's team's refutations. The Depp v. Heard article seems like a much more appropriate place to bring them up. Including them on this article seems very inappropriate. Afddiary (talk) 01:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• WP:PRESERVE does not normally apply to BLP-sensitive statements; there, per WP:NOCON, the default when consensus is unclear is to remove. And I think this is obviously a BLP-sensitive statement. More generally I would oppose including blow-by-blow evidence from an ongoing trial in a biographical article unless it there is truly overwhelming levels of coverage (which I am not seeing here) - every event in a high-profile trial will attract at least some coverage, but for this to be a significant aspect of Heard's biography rather than just a sentence or two in Depp v. Heard, there needs to be more indication that this particular day of court arguments played a significant role in her life. --Aquillion (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Testimony given by witnesses, hired by the opposition, who only interviewed her briefly, is really not appropriate for labelling someone with a "diagnosis". If it's to be mentioned, yes, it has to be contextualized as the opinion of Depp's hired witness. Also agreed it goes in the trial article, not here. Am removing it. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I guess we can consider the issue settled against including the BPD and HPD diagnoses (unless the verdict pronounces on those, which is unlikely), so I will remove the disputed warning on top, since I was the one who added it (Firefangledfeathers is the one who changed it from factual accuracy dispute to NPOV dispute, which I agree with). Anyone feel free to add it back if you feel that there are other NPOV issues on the page, but I don't see any at the moment. Retxnihps (talk) 18:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

New changes following the court ruling

Regardless of whether or not the court rules in favor of Heard, we should know that court rulings are not representative of the truth. And since there are many (many) news articles that report on Depp's evidence of Heard's wrongdoing this article should be allowed to detail said wrongdoings even if she wins the case.

This is the same way that pages like Emmett Till, Killing of Trayvon Martin, O. J. Simpson murder case, and Kenosha unrest shooting are handled. Despite the court ruling the perpetrator of all these crimes being ruled innocent, there is plenty of evidence of wrongdoing by said perpetrators that were invalidated by evidence in support of them. Some would say these perps are comically evil, and the rulings are a miscarriage of justice, and these articles reflect that opinion since it was a strong and reasonable one. So the view of Depp being the abuse victim, and Heard being an abuser, regardless of the ruling, should exist. June Parker (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

You do understand that this is a civil suit and not a criminal one, right? PRAXIDICAE💕 20:28, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Praxidicae, I don't understand what this has to do with what I said. Court rulings do not reflect the truth and all the cases I mentioned in relation to this one illiustrate that.

I would like to note that you appear to have shadowed [5][6][7] three edits I made right before replying to me, which had not much to do with this conversation whilst accusing me of "Changing facts" when I merely added a category and copy-edited from an existing article. June Parker (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

All of those were on my watchlist, as was this and after seeing your extremely dubious and untrue edits, I read this and responded. If you'd like to bring this up elsewhere, I'll gladly chime in about your less than truthful edits to other articles which are also under DS/GS. PRAXIDICAE💕 20:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

"after seeing your extremely dubious and untrue edits"

@Praxidicae: What is this supposed to mean? I will bring this up in the future, because you're just up and accusing me of nonsense.

First, as we discussed n my talk page, all I did was copy edit an image + its description and add a category. You are accusing me of changing facts. To boot, I don't believe that these pages are on your watchlist. Two of the three only have one edit coming from you, which is the most recent revert and accusation [8][9]. Do not change the subject to previous edits of mine.

What do you have to say about what I actually brought up though, about rulings vs truth? Any lurkers feel free to contribute. June Parker (talk) 22:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree with June Parker on discussing wrongdoing independently of court ruling. Retxnihps (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

June Parker, the difference that I can see with those articles, except for Emmett Till, is that they're case articles. Wikipedia, it appears, decided Till didn't need a case article because the whole topic is just him. There's a case article for Johnny and Amber. Thinnyshivers (talk) 19:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

George Zimmerman and OJ Simpson still have their wrongdoings listed in their articles despite being ruled innocent, because their obvious, moral guilt is reported on by reliable sources. The same should apply to Heard and Depp, because the former's wrongdoings are reported on by reliable sources. June Parker (talk) 22:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Charity donations

It appears to me that this article is becoming inundated with minute details about Heard’s donations to the CHLA and ACLU. I would instead suggest summarizing the content and if the details (e.g. where did each part of the donated money come from) are needed, they should be moved to a footnote. In general, I think that adding content from this ongoing trial to either Depp’s or Heard’s articles is very unwise. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 07:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Newsweek source dispute

@ScottishFinnishRadish, TrueHeartSusie3, and GregKaye:

Everyone drop your two cents here.

I was told, based off an interaction I've have with a similar "Unreliable" source (The Plain Dealer) that if RSP doensn't list a source as unreliable then it can be used if it serves the context correctly. Newseek not only fits this, but her prejury investigation is also being reported on by other sources. If Plain Dealer can stay I don't see why Newseek can't.

https://www.newsweek.com/amber-heard-perjury-investigation-continues-australia-amid-johnny-depp-trial-1705603

https://www.marca.com/en/lifestyle/celebrities/2022/05/11/627be68622601dad508b4621.html

https://okmagazine.com/p/amber-heard-investigation-perjury-dog-smuggling/

https://www.eonline.com/news/1307851/amber-heard-under-investigation-for-perjury-in-2015-dog-smuggling-case (From oct 2021)

June Parker (talk) 04:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

If true this is hot news.

The newsweek article says "a spokesperson for Australia's Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment (DAWE) told Newsweek on Wednesday that investigations are ongoing over allegations that Heard lied under oath."

When my edit was undone I got to wondering who was the spokesperson, why weren't they named and whether all other news organisations were picking up their phones to contact the DAWE to confirm the story. The story is feasibly true but I'm wondering about its veracity. GregKaye 04:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Unless it's picked up by better sources than celeb gossip rags, I'd rather wait until it's more than "investigating allegations of perjury by Ms. Heard." If high quality sources pick up that she's being investigated it may be due, but as it stands it seems like unencyclopedic information with little import. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:51, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Seconding ScottishFinnishRadish. I’ve not seen top RS sources write about this at all; even this update that’s currently in the article is based on info from sources generally not considered to be good for contested info. Furthermore, it should be noted that this investigation is based on claims made by Depp’s employee Kevin Murphy, and that the judge in the UK case rejected them. You can read the full details from the UK judgment (linked in the case’s article), but essentially there was no actual evidence other than his claim, plus actually one of the dogs was Depp’s, but Heard volunteered to take the blame so that Depp wouldn’t lose his working visa. So while it’s probably true that Australian officials are investigating (as they need to do for any claim), the whole claim is quite dodgy to begin with and most likely only made it to any media sources because Depp’s team/ Adam Waldman leaked it.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. I find the situation interesting because it displays entitled approaches and hardline, uncompromising Australian responses. It's all potentially instructive but we've also got to balance with brevity. GregKaye 19:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

• It's an obviously BLP-sensitive claim, so we have to wait until it's picked up by higher-quality sources than these. I definitely don't think Newsweek can be used for BLP-sensitive claims, and whoever told you it is acceptable as long as it serves the context correctly is wrong (how would you even determine that without a better source?) My assumption is that you misunderstood what they were saying and that that was in the context of something unexceptional and not BLP-sensitive. --Aquillion (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Raspberry picking

I've previously removed a within body text reference to Heard's Golden raspberry and recently ScottishFinnishRadish has done similarly.

I tried to add some only appears on the editing screen text to say (with hopefully better functioning formatting): <!! PLEASE DO NOT add reference here of Heard's golden raspberry nomination. This is already covered in the section on "Awards and nominations". If you feel reference should be added, by all means raise it on the talk page if you like but this could mean that other of her awards may similarly need to be added to the text. THANK-YOU!>

Prob was that the text was still very visible on preview which kind of defeated the purpose. grrr. Anyone got thoughts, advice? GregKaye 13:13, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I honestly don’t understand the removal of the GR mention. It’s standard to mention notable awards nominations within the article body even if they are also listed in the awards section. Razzies are a major award, though of course no one wants to be nominated for one. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Lead reference to charitable pledge

@TrueHeartSusie3:

Another call for anyone's two cents.

At the time many headlines that referenced the JD/AH divorce mentioned the AH pledge to charity per Depp Heard divorce in news from 13 Aug 2016 – 24 Aug 2016. It wasn't in the news while the divorce was being worked out but that changed.

I think that reference to the pledge in the lead is relevant. The Depp vs. News UK case declared the AH allegations to be 'substantially true' but this was in a context where other things that AH had said by the time of the case were definitively false. It's notable content and was noted both at the time and thereafter.[10].

GregKaye 16:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I’m not saying the pledge was not noted by the media at the time Heard made it in Aug 2016, but the media ’frenzy’ was due to the fact that she alleged domestic violence. After the coverage in Aug ’16 and the finalisation of the divorce in Jan 2017, the pledge was not widely in the headlines until 2019/2020, when Depp started his lawsuit against her. So yes, stating that it’s one of the main reasons for the media coverage in 2016 is revisionist and simply not true. Furthermore, if you’ve read the judgment or the appeal denial, or summaries from RS sources, you’d know that the judge in the UK case did not evaluate whether Depp or Heard was more credible, but looked at all the 14 incidents and the evidence that both sides presented for them. The evidence (ie other witness statements, messages, photos, medical records…) made it more likely that Heard’s account was true, although the judge did not accept all of her claims. Depp brought up the delayed donation in the appeal, and failed because Heard’s character had nothing to do with how the verdict was reached. The judgment is 129 pages and explains in detail how the verdict was reached. The fact that you’re implying that we should cover the delayed pledge in such minute detail and overemphasize it so much as to have it in the lead because it supposedly shows that Heard is untrustworthy (rather than that she is actually delayed because she has been tied up in expensive litigation since 2019 as she says) is a clear reason for not doing so. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

The final terms of the divorce were agreed in January 2017. She had $7 million in her hands and had made a pledge to give it to charity. As far as the notability that Heard gained from the divorce in all her publicity was all about the massive charitable gift that she repeatedly reported that she had made. That's the thing that she referred back to. What happened in 2019 had nothing to do with it. She repeatedly lied. Heard's character had everything to do with it. The evidence was largely based on her claims in context of taped evidence of Depp being the one having things thrown at him and being hit and potentially getting into wrestling situations on the interpretation of wanting to reduce damage. A lot of it was one person's word against another. If systems had been transparent and Heard's lies such as those relating to claimed payments had been discovered, other arguments could have been presented in the UK case. BTW, I think they're both variously untrustworthy but that's my personal POV. GregKaye 17:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I’m not sure that this discussion is going anywhere, but what I’m trying to say is that in WP we go by facts that can be demonstrated. Heard filed for divorce in May 2016 and applied for a restraining order, citing abuse. This made the case a scandal that summer, not the pledge, which was not made until the end of August. Again, I’m not saying there wasn’t media coverage on it, but it quite simply was not the reason why the divorce made so many headlines to begin with. You need to have some excellent sources to prove otherwise, especially since the pledge came 3 months after the intense media attention started.

As for your other claims, I would again suggest that you familiarize yourself with the judgment and appeal, they are easily accessible. How you are representing them is simply incorrect. Further, you may want to also look at the court docs by Depp’s accountant on how Depp paid the settlement - in installments over a year since Jan 2017, not in a lump sum. All I’m saying is that as an encyclopedia, edits need to be based on facts, not impressions or social media rumours.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

The settlement of $7 million was not a social media rumour. Fine, the amount was paid to AH over a year to so as to be in her full possession by Jan 2018. It's not a social media rumour she repeatedly claimed to have given all the money to charity. It's all correct. Someone who says "money played no role for me personally and never has," gets $7 million and gives perhaps 10% of it to charity while getting multimillions of dollars in film roles and then cites money trouble after a couple of years even while saying she gave the lot.

One option, instead of just presenting one side of the story in the lead, we could take out the reference of the judgement from the lead to let people work though the article to find their own way to a full view of the content. Otherwise I think there's value in presenting evidence from both sides. GregKaye 18:59, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Balance is definitely one of the most important standards to follow in writing a WP article. However, balance does not mean that we should be comparing well-sourced facts with fringe/conspiracy theories. The facts that the ACLU rep testified to are definitely facts, and since 2019/2020 there has been sustained media attention on this issue. However, it does not change the fact that the pledge or the subsequent delays in fulfilling it are not why their divorce drew so much media attention in 2016. If you disagree, then you need to find good RS sources to back your statement. Part of balance is also to not overemphasize things, especially not if they are current news and/or part of contested allegations in an ongoing lawsuit. (Will be going mostly offline for the weekend, but I doubt there’s much more for me to add to this discussion.) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:54, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

You insinuate basing on impressions or social media rumours and fringe/conspiracy theories while asserting that she is actually delayed because she has been tied up in expensive litigation since 2019 as she says despite Heard having been in full receipt of the money since Jan 2018. GregKaye 06:18, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Helping to see the violence as inherrent into our system

[11] I'm wondering how reference might be added of the histories of violence of Depp and perhaps Heard as well.

In the lead of the Johnny Depp page I've previously added a text into the lead to say "Depp has been [[#Legal_issues|arrested and/or sued four times]] in relation to acts of physical violence and has struggled with alcoholism and addiction for much of his life." Can similar references be added into the AH article and, if so, how would be best done?

Perhaps the hatnote to the Amber_Heard#Relationship_with_Johnny_Depp section could be modified to read:

See also: Johnny Depp § Amber Heard, Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd, Depp v. Heard, and Johnny Depp § Legal issues

Perhaps a linked text might be added directly into the section or even the lead. Perhaps a foot note could be used.

What do you guys think?

Personally I think that all such references provide a public service for people in the various faction Echo Chambers who are fed arguments on just one side of the issue but not the other.

GregKaye 14:13, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Depp's history of "Violence" belongs on the Johnny Depp article. It does not belong on Amber Heard's article, only Heard's violence does. The only thing from Depp that belongs to her article are any truthful, verifyable instances of violence she may have suffered that are not hearsy, and everything Depp has accused her of, regardless if it's true or false. June Parker (talk) 16:08, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Blaming Depp, providing context

The article currently quotes Heard's attorney in saying that "...she had been "delayed" in extending the donations, blaming Depp's 2019 lawsuit against her."

However this fails to acknowledge the fact that the end of the payment schedule had already been reached by the end of December 2017 per ther Reuters article: Actors Johnny Depp, Amber Heard finalize bitter divorce which says that "Film star Johnny Depp’s tumultuous divorce from actress Amber Heard was finalized on Friday" (ie January 13, 2017) and that "Depp ... will pay the rest over the course of the year". I think there's a real POV problem when Wikipedia quotes accusations without getting them in context.

Perhaps the easiest thing to do would be to add a sentence subsequent to mention of the attorney's apportioning of blame to say something like:

The terms of the divorce were finalised in January 2017 with Depp required to make payments over the course of the year.

Alternatively this sentence could be placed earlier in the paragraph with currently reads:

In August 2016, Heard pledged to donate her $7 million divorce settlement with Johnny Depp to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Children's Hospital Los Angeles (CHLA) saying, "As described in the restraining order and divorce settlement, money played no role for me personally and never has, except to the extent that I could donate it to charity and, in doing so, hopefully help those less able to defend themselves". After Heard made the pledge, she was appointed an ACLU ambassador for women's rights. In 2021, a 2019 letter from CHLA to Heard was published, which asked if Heard's pledge would be fulfilled. Heard's attorney said that she had been "delayed" in extending the donations, blaming Depp's 2019 lawsuit against her.

The reason it would be more straight forward to place reference to the payment details at the end of the paragraph is that no date is provided for "After Heard made the pledge, she was appointed an ACLU ambassador for women's rights". Heard personally announced the appointment on December 19, 2018 (verified on a twitter search on "ACLU ambassador (from:realamberheard)") with the ACLU responding to Heard's announcement on the same day and also mentioning Heard in a list of appointees on December 24, 2018 (verified on a twitter search on "Amber Heard (from:ACLU)").

In this light perhaps the mid way sentences could read something like:

The terms of the divorce were finalised in January 2017 with Depp required to make payments over the course of the year. In context of her pledge, Heard has been appointed an ACLU ambassador for women's rights.

What do other editors think would work best?

GregKaye 16:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Added with payments made over the course of the year as I think that's not really a contentious addition and is relevant material. I don't think it has the implication you suggest, though, or that it clarifies any POV issues or ambiguities. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

To add, I think what you're trying to say (in shorter words) is: 'Heard had the money and didn't pay it, and the article should say this'. If this should be included (on which I have no position at this time) you don't need to beat around the bush, the current source in article (Deadline) says it directly, so a direct statement could be made attributed to them. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank-you ProcrastinatingReader, things like this have been objected too like mad. GregKaye 23:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Coverage of the settlement of the Depp-Heard divorce

The Depp-Heard divorce was notably bitter [12] [13] and ugly [14] [15] with numerous claims and counter claims, demands and counter demands being. These became known not just by court reporting but also by public statements being made. It is fair to represent the complication that was involved in the divorce within the article.

I developed the section Divorce settlement, charity and activism inclusive of the sentence below in italics to read:

In August 2016, Heard pledged to donate her $7 million divorce settlement with Johnny Depp to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Children's Hospital Los Angeles (CHLA) saying, "As described in the restraining order and divorce settlement, money played no role for me personally and never has, except to the extent that I could donate it to charity and, in doing so, hopefully help those less able to defend themselves". Heard's team made a statement rejecting a plan by which Depp would make payments directly to the charities saying, "if Johnny wishes to change the settlement agreement, we must insist that he honor the full amount by donating $14M to charity, which, after accounting for his tax deduction, is equal to his $7M payment obligation to Amber. We would also insist that the full amount be paid immediately and not drawn out over many years." The final terms of the settlement were agreed in January 2017.

This text both reveals Depp's choice not to donate twice as much money to the charities and Heard's expectation for money to be paid immediately all of which is instructive of the approaches of the participants but has been deleted.

Can this information be included in the article?

GregKaye 10:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support The divorce was an ongoing and complexed affair this can be covered in a way such as the one proposed. The content is notable and is of significant relevance to the participants' approaches. GregKaye 10:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
• Even if we should include this content, we don't need long quotations or italics etc. I think it can be summarised in a couple of sentences, describing the quotes and their clearer descriptions present in the sources. That said, while I'm not strongly opposed, I don't really think this adds much to the article. We provide a high level WP:10YEARTEST summary, not the minutae. I also think that, as-worded, the prose is slightly more confusing. And it is especially unhelpful since the "final terms" aren't described, so I don't think the implications you intend the text to have are really that clear. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
• That proposal is excessive, and it isn't clear it'd add anything worthwhile. Even a proposal for a small version would only be a little better. Thinnyshivers (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Minutes in Aquaman 2

Should the article mention that Heard's role in Aquaman 2 has been reduced to ten minutes? Grace Randolph, a film reporter, tweeted to say that had happened. Unreliable sources, including the New York Post, the Daily Mail, and TMZ, have republished the claim. One possibly reliable source, this Indy500 piece, also did so. Given the unreliability of the reports and the scarcity or reliable source coverage, I urge exclusion of this essentially WP:GOSSIP material. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:52, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

According to those articles the screentime was not reduced. It was merely revealed at the wrong time. I don't understand how this got through but reliable sources that grant neutrality and nuance on her claims of abuse by Johnny Depp got rejected. June Parker (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Heard's comments of continued inclusion in the movie come in context that one official Teaser Trailer Concept that is voiced in its majority by AH and shows Mera as a pivotal figure. Having said this, Grace Randolph, who made the comment I hear #AmberHeard has less than 10 min of screentime in #Aquaman2 is herself contested to have otherwise been an unreliable source.

A producer has also made comment on retaining AH in the film which may provide more informative content. GregKaye 06:52, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I've edited to say: The film's co-producer, Peter Safran, has commented “We felt that if it’s James Wan, and Jason Momoa, it should be Amber Heard. That’s really what it was.”. GregKaye 07:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@GregKaye: I like the replacement line, but I worry it's misleading based on where you've put it. Readers will assume Safran was responding to the 2022 petition, when he was responding to an earlier wave of the campaign in mid-2021. We could move it earlier in the paragraph and expand a bit on pre-petition social media efforts, but I'd rather not get too into it in the Career section. Any ideas? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers Something like that could be one positive option which I'm thinking might require a slightly larger workaround. The petition mentioned is the oldest of several and was started on 22 Mar 2019 (with knowledge of this timing perhaps being OR - learned by going to change.org and searching on Amber Heard).

This petition is just one of aspect of efforts by Depp supporters and Heard detractors that relate across her work and advocacy involvements.

Our article places a time reference to the petition with the text reading:

As of May 4, 2022, an online petition on Change.org to "Remove Amber Heard From Aquaman 2" has reached over 3.5 million signatures, exploding in popularity since the Depp v. Heard trial. Heard confirmed her involvement in the film and described efforts to remove her as "paid rumours and paid campaigns on social media". When asked generally whether the social media campaign for Heard’s removal ever had any influence on the production and their casting decisions.

A simple change to the following sentence might read:

Within an interview on July 29, the film's co-producer, Peter Safran, made comment on the casting of the film, "We felt that if it's James Wan, and Jason Momoa, it should be Amber Heard. That's really what it was."

GregKaye 14:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

What is the meaning of the cross by the film credits and the highlighted remark of Aquaman 2? Placing crosses on wikis have often been associated with death. USN1977 (talk) 14:05, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

it’s explained on top of the list. Btw, Heard confirmed in her testimony that her part has been reduced, possibly even completely cut. Don’t have time to add this right now, but for example ’’Variety’’ is reporting on it. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Undue weight regarding Depp in the lead

This article's lead is ridiculous. By wordcount, 80 percent of it is on her relationship (or lack thereof) with Depp. That's some heavy undue weight. It's not neutral, misrepresents the article's content, and is recentist. For contrast, only a single paragraph of Depp's lead covers their relationship. It really needs to be fixed. ~ HAL333 02:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

How does this sound?

“ Heard was married to actor Johnny Depp from 2015 to 2017. Their divorce drew media attention due to Heard's allegation that Depp had been abusive throughout their relationship. Heard was a witness in Depp's defamation lawsuit against British tabloid The Sun's publisher, during which the judge ruled that the printed article, which alleged that Depp had abused Heard, was substantially true. In 2019, Depp sued Heard for defamation in regard to Heard's op-ed in The Washington Post; Heard countersued the following year. The 2022 Depp v. Heard trial ended with the jury ruling that Heard had defamed Depp on all three counts of Depp's suit and that Depp's lawyer had defamed Heard on one count of Heard's suit. The jury awarded Depp compensatory and punitive damages from Heard, while Heard was awarded compensatory damages and no punitive damages from Depp. ”

KyleJoan^talk 15:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I think the lead needs to talk more about her career. 3 out of 4 paragraphs are about her relationship with Depp and the lawsuits. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

That proposed paragraph looks great. I think three paragraphs on her career and one for Depp is a good balance. ~ HAL333 16:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

The part that the jury ruling that Heard had defamed Depp on all three counts of Depp's suit and that Depp's lawyer had defamed Heard on one count of Heard's suit fails to explain how she defamed Depp, particular in light of the earlier statements that Heard's allegation that Depp had been abusive throughout their relationship and the judge ruled that the printed article, which alleged that Depp had abused Heard, was substantially true. What is sorely needed is mention that Heard had defamed Depp with the op-ed's allegations of "sexual violence" and "domestic abuse", and that Waldman's allegations of Heard's "sexual violence hoax" and "abuse hoax" against Depp were not defamatory. Naturally, as a balance, we would explain what she won: Waldman defamed Heard when alleging she "roughed up" a penthouse as a "hoax" against Depp. starship.paint (exalt) 01:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)