Talk:Amber Heard

Edit Request on 12 December 23
The penultimate sentence in the second paragraph of section Personal Life reads "... adding that Heard and her 'shared 5 wonderful years together and remain close to this day.'" This is clunky and grammatically improper. I recommend replacing "Heard and her" with "she and Heard". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Appropriately Jaded (talk • contribs) 22:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2023
The introduction to the bio reads as if this person did not abuse another person. She was found publicly guilty in a government court of law. Please amend the page bio/intro to Red as such. Sincerely, survivors of abuse. 2600:1700:37B2:F500:4494:D685:FCEC:671A (talk) 03:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. also see WP:DUE Cannolis (talk) 03:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2023
Clarifying as 'bad' actress inside of just actress under her listings. 96.45.151.118 (talk) 23:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. M.Bitton (talk) 01:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Grammar
Sentence under Personal Life reads: A statement was then issued by Heard's publicist in which van Ree said that Heard had been "wrongfully" accused and that the incident had been "misinterpreted and over-sensationalized", while also recalling "hints of misogynistic attitudes toward us which later appeared to be homophobic when they found out we were domestic partners and not just 'friends'" and adding that Heard and her "shared 5 wonderful years together and remain close to this day."

Suggest that ’Heard and she’ should replace ‘Heard and her’ in last portion of the sentence 98.114.148.47 (talk) 11:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2024
Remove "The female officer who conducted the arrest—herself a lesbian—subsequently posted on Facebook to say, "I am so not homophobic or misogynistic! The arrest was made because an assault occurred (I witnessed it)."[133]"

This information came from a false Facebook post. It turns out that this female officer was only an airport security officer who arrived much after the arrest. The arrest was made by two male cops who later dropped the false charges.

Here's the actually reference: https://variety.com/2016/biz/news/amber-heard-domestic-violence-ex-girlfriend-responds-1201791500/ 2600:1702:28D0:2720:CECB:3BB1:30E0:FA95 (talk) 03:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The reference isn't very reliable, which I understand because it would be pretty impossible to get any good source for this. The source already here is fairly equal in quality, however; but the date it was pusblished is more recent than the date on the one your provided, so that's what makes it a little better for me. Coulomb1 (talk) 22:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Concerning a past claim about the settlement between Depp & Heard not invalidating Depp's lawsuit...
So, according to a posting on an archived page for this talk page, the claim was made that the jury's verdict against Amber Heard, brought on by Johnny Depp's defamation suit, still stands despite the recent settlement between the two; said settlement which states: Amber doesn't have to admit guilt, she's not bound by a gag order/NDA, and that Depp would receive a payment of $1M from Amber's homeowner's insurer, Travelers.

Now, the claim was made that, according to experienced lawyer David Pardue (iplitigate on Twitter/X, David Pardue: Trade Secrets, Business and Employment Litigation Partner at Parker Poe on LinkedIn; partner at multiple law firms over the years), [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FzbQIwWWIAAQYSo?format=png&name=small defamation with malice is not covered by insurance, meaning that, for Travelers to make payment of $1M to Depp as agreed by the settlement, Travelers would insist that Depp acknowledge no malice in exchange for the $1M payout. So, that would then mean, if there's no malice], then there's no grounds for Depp's lawsuit. And, no grounds would then imply a nullification/invalidation.

And, in fact, during New York Marine And General's lawsuit against Amber, even they acknowledge that the settlement reached between Depp & Heard resulted in the dismissal of an underlying action (the underlying action being Depp's lawsuit against Heard). In fact, as pointed out by users on Twitter for a similar legal situation, "A settlement during the appellate process terminates the litigation, just as a pre-trial settlement does. Normally, the case is simply dismissed...".

So, taking all that into consideration, that would then mean the statement by Depp lawyer Camille Vasquez & her law firm, Brown Rudnick, where the claim is made that the jury's verdict still stands, is technically & legally incorrect, as recognized by New York Marine And General.

Oh, and as far as links to two court documents referencing payments of $10.5M & $2M, the individual who posted those apparently isn't aware of the settlement stipulating a $1M payout to Depp from Amber's insurer, Travelers.

And so, for the articles for Amber Heard, Johnny Depp, and Depp's defamation lawsuit against Heard to state otherwise about the verdict & settlement would therefore render those articles currently incorrect/untrue. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, there are so many Points wrong with this Comment:
 * 1. This constitues Wikipedia:OR which you shouldn't do.
 * 2. Even though this is a Lawyer he is speculating about what happenedwhich could only be added in the form of:"A legal Expert speculated about..." if it should be added at all because He is a primary Source for his Opinion and also constitutes Wikipedia:OR.
 * 3. Appart from Encyclopediac reasons your legal reasoning is also pretty bad:
 * a. New York Marine talking about a underlying case in the legal theory of Heards legal team and them naming the underlying case in this legal battle does not mean that they are meaning the same case. They are also talking about the argument in general...
 * b. Only a court can change a verdict, that means there would be some kind of legal document (court order) to make it public that the verdict has changed. For a Settlement to vacate a Verdict The parties would have to file a Vacatur
 * c. I hate people who only provide misleading Information. I present the full Text of the Hastings Law Journal about Settlement Agreements on page 21 the following line can be found "But sometimes the parties ask the court to do more: to vacate the subordinate court's judgment in the case." The Appeal and the Court case of the lower court are 2 distinct cases and a settlement like written before only stopps the ongoing court case. If you copy arguments from twitter at least check if they are correct...
 * Also please if you want to argue about hot topics please stay on twitter or provide Wikipedia:RS that actually express the opinion which you want to include. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.220.90.128 (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * OK then.
 * Will you take the word of Johnny Depp supporter, YouTube law channel operator (a.k.a. LawTuber), & lawyer Nick Rekieta (Rekieta Law on YouTube), who actually came right out and stated the settlement "invalidates the jury verdict, legally speaking.
 * He then goes on to state that if in the settlement agreement she never made any admissions or concessions and if there is no gag order (she confirmed these in her IG post), then, legally, "Amber Heard did not defame Johnny Depp."
 * And then, further going on to say he rejects the idea that the verdict stands and that the $1 million was for settling only the appeal.
 * So, from the looks of it, I don't see how I'm engaging in OR; I'm simply, in a sense, repeating not just what experienced lawyers (who apparently have LOTS of knowledge about law in this situation) are saying about the case, but also what Amber's own insurance company legally declared about what the settlement entails during their (failed) legal action against her. And, to top it off, pointing out how other legal situations are even implying that a post-trial settlement very much has the power to nullify/invalidate a jury's verdict, much like how a pre-trial settlement does the same.
 * Or, is it that, even with Depp supporter & LawTuber Rekieta essentially conceding that what Depp's side is saying about the settlement is actually wholly wrong & completely inaccurate, you'll still (apparently falsely) claim the settlement only cover the appeals & the verdict still stands? I don't get how a lawyer isn't considered a reliable source when it come to matters pertaining to the law.
 * In fact, did some research through Google, and came upon some very interesting information: Through posttrial actions, trial courts can reduce awards, completely overturn juries' decisions, or grant a new trial. (emphasis placed is my own).
 * So, at this point, I suppose you're still sticking to your guns, despite mounting "evidence" (if you will) that the post-trial settlement between Johnny Depp & Amber Heard does indeed invalidate/nullify the jury's verdict against Amber Heard, besides the fact of Depp receiving $1M from Travelers in exchange for his agreement of having to declare Amber did not defame him, thereby completely & legally striking his lawsuit from the legal record books?
 * Turns out, seems like I'm not the one putting forth misleading information; plus, I'm not the one ignoring legally-declared law coming from an insurance company. And, I'm not the one putting a blind eye to the fact that the law states a trial court can indeed overturn a jury's verdict based on post trial action, like a settlement between parties involved. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 14:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * To prove that you are not doing Wikipedia:OR you provide further primary sources... like i said "Only a court can change a verdict" your google research actually supports that but you emphasised the wrong part: Through posttrial actions, trial courts can reduce awards, completely overturn juries' decisions, or grant a new trial...
 * Is Nick Rekieta a court and has he put out a court order? No and even if he were he would not be the appropriate one (that would be the Fairfax County Circuit Court or the Virginia Court of Appeals). Is He a Reliable source or publish it in one? No. Please get better Sources. For Example a court document saying whatever you want to include, or a reputable Newspaper reporting on it.
 * Your mounting "evidence" is People on the Internet saying things (yes even Lawyers are People and they can be wrong). Someone has to verify that Information and no that can't be you...
 * You were the one with the Picture from Twitter showing only a part of an article which showed the opposite when read in full. Also are you a legal expert since you seem to think that your Interpretation of legal writing is worth anything?
 * Please read Wikipedia:OR, Wikipedia:RS or Wikipedia:Verifiability  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.220.68.176 (talk)
 * So, in other words, it's EXACTLY what I said in the 4th-to-last section of my previous comment. It's sad when there are people not wanting to admit they're wrong even when all the evidence available is calling them a liar.
 * Honestly, I remember a friend of mine dealing with someone like you when it came to not just the article for the Star Television Network, but American Broadcasting Companies as well. In both situations, the person like you didn't want to admit they were wrong about the information being presented.
 * But, after a long enough time, the person like you realized they weren't at all in the right. By that point, they no longer wanted to show their face for the articles, which allowed my friend to finally put the right information in those articles.
 * So far, two lawyers have admitted, based on the terms (Amber doesn't have to admit guilt; she's not bound by gag order/NDA; & Depp gets $1M from Travelers in exchange for admitting malice doesn't exist) of the settlement between Depp & Heard, that the settlement does indeed nullify/invalidate Depp's lawsuit. One of the two insurance companies covering Amber, through paperwork for the failed lawsuit they filed against her, has stated through said paperwork that the settlement essentially dismissed his lawsuit. A statement from a case not related to Depp & Heard, though similar in legal circumstances, has stated that, very much like a pre-trial settlement, a post-trial settlement can also terminate a lawsuit.
 * For you saying that lawyers can be wrong, it would very much seem like that's EXACTLY the situation with Depp lawyer Camille Vasquez, the same woman who, during the trial, said that Amber never thought she'd have to face her abuser. In fact, other legal experts have even pointed out that Azcarate has committed judicial malpractice by even allowing the trial to take place in her courtroom, as neither Depp nor Heard have ANY jurisdictional relation to Virginia.
 * At this point, maybe I'm just better off following in the footsteps of my friend & waiting for when a reliable news outlet reports on the truth of the details of the settlement. When that happens, & it turns out Vasquez & Brown Rudnick are completely WRONG about what the settlement implies, and when you end up no longer wanting to show your face for this article, it will allow me to be the one to insert the report by that news outlet into the article, thereby showing everyone that Depp indeed willingly dropped his lawsuit in return for that $1M from Travelers, while also proving that Amber did indeed finally win the feud against Depp.
 * So yeah; for now, as hard, as tough, as unbearable as it may be, I'm just better off (to use a sports analogy) getting off the court & waiting on the sidelines for my sports team's star athlete to make the big move, to pull off the big maneuver, that sets up the opportunity for me to pull off the shot that will clinch the big, game-ending victory for my team, resulting in the pro-Amber side ending up in the winner's circle & ending the careers of Depp, Vasquez, & Azcarate while also convincing the pro-Depp side to never show their faces in public ever again.
 * Enjoy eventually coming to terms with the fact that the pro-Depp camp is going to face the same global humiliation that Depp wanted to put Amber through. I'm gone for now, but like karma, I'll be back when you least expect it just in time to see you go away & never return so that people know the truth, not just about Johnny Depp, but also his eventual failure of a defamation lawsuit. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 07:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that Amber Heard should not have lost that trial, and that Depp, his legal team, and his supporters have engaged in dishonest and harmful discourse around it. I wholeheartedly support Amber. But, in the kindest way possible, a Wikipedia talk page is not the place to have those discussions.
 * Wikipedia talk pages are not forums to discuss subjects; they're places to exclusively discuss the improvement of an article.
 * Just letting you know for the future, and I hope you don't take offense to this because I'm approaching as someone who agrees with you, but not with the forum of discussion.
 * I'll also add that I'm not 100% clear about what changes you want to make to the article, but if (and only if) you have any reputable sources for those additions and some clarity re: what you want to change, I'd love to help put them into place. Have a lovely day <3 :) Afddiary (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Please take your unsubstantiated opinions and your OR and publish them on a blog or twitter or shout them into the ether. Wikipedia has rules for a reason. If you can cite reliable sources (and no Lawyers "admitting" to things they don't really know about don't count) it will be included until then, don't try. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.220.88.83 (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2024
Eenchantedd (talk) 04:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC) Allegations that Amber Heard abused Elon Musk in their relationship are not mentioned, although they gained widespread media attention when Musk's biography was published. In that biography, several of his family members testified that Heard was abusive to him during their relationship. https://metro.co.uk/2023/09/12/elon-musk-biography-relationship-amber-heard-brutal-19488551/
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 04:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)


 * https://metro.co.uk/2023/09/12/elon-musk-biography-relationship-amber-heard-brutal-19488551/
 * https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12509267/Amber-Heard-despised-Elon-Musks-family-drew-Tesla-founder-dark-vortex-book-reveals.html
 * https://pagesix.com/2023/09/12/elon-musks-brother-grimes-friends-hated-amber-heard-bio/
 * https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/elon-musk-amber-heard-friends-dating-reaction-b2409694.html
 * https://nypost.com/2023/09/12/elon-musks-friends-hated-amber-heard-new-bio/
 * https://www.geo.tv/latest/511896-amber-heard-toxic-and-abusive-to-elon-musk-a-nightmare
 * https://www.skynews.com.au/lifestyle/celebrity-life/elon-musks-friends-and-brother-hated-his-toxic-ex-amber-heard/video/b3bcc06a30e82f4e097506cea11b815f
 * https://www.eonline.com/news/1385474/elon-musk-reflects-on-brutal-relationship-with-amber-heard-in-new-biography
 * https://radaronline.com/p/elon-musk-friends-family-hated-ex-amber-heard/ Eenchantedd (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of those are celebrity gossip magazines that frequently report falsehoods and baseless rumors rather than facts. I'm not sure any of those should be used to include the information you want to see added to the article.
 * I also suggest you read up on Wikipedia's blacklisted and debatable sources; it will help with ensuring you're using reputable and verifiable sources for your information (which I linked as resources below). At least one of those sources (the Daily Mail) is included in that list.
 * WP:RSP (especially Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Sources)
 * Afddiary (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2024
It should say that Amber Heard had the money Depp gave to her for 13 months, uncontested. Jimsty19880 (talk) 18:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. Jamedeus (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)