Talk:Andrew Nicol (judge)
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Tristario in topic Another Controversial case
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Andrew Nicol (judge) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Another Controversial case edit
Enthralled by Amber Heard
The legally perverse and patently absurd judgement for Amber Heard again Johnny Depp show that he was besotted by the Halo Effect of Amber Heard.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/depp-v-news-group-judgment180520.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.188.53 (talk) 09:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Can we get something added about how during the Johnny Depp trial, this judge's son was working for Rupert Murdoch, the owner of THE SUN, which was being sued? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.10.224.236 (talk) 12:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Per wikipedia's policy on living persons, WP:BLP, contentious claims like this need to be strongly sourced with reliable sources Tristario (talk) 12:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- The current article states that Nicol "wrongly" ruled against Depp, citing a source that has nothing to do with the UK trial (it's a BBC article about the US trial). The "wrongly" adverb should be removed immediately, as it's an unsubstantiated opinion that has no place on Wikipedia. Kumagoro-42 (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)