Talk:Amber Heard/Archive 2

Language skills trivial?
Replying to the comment left by User:Flyer22 Reborn. It's fairly rare/impressive for someone with English as first language and no education beyond GED to be fluent in two other languages. Furthermore, I think it falls into the category of "important to mention if known, but no reason to elaborate further", just like her religious affiliation (or lack of it). TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * Regarding this, I do think it borders on WP:DIARY and that we need to be mindful of WP:DIARY. To some people, ambidexterity is impressive enough to mention in a Wikipedia biography while others would state that it's trivial unless there has been significant commentary on it. Anyway, I'm not looking to remove the languages bit. Otherwise, I would have brought the matter to this talk page. On a side note: Since this talk page is on my watchlist, I prefer not to be pinged to it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Weasel words in abuse claims
The current taped call speculation aside, I find the following sentences in the Relationship with Johnn Depp section betray a POV (bolding mine):

''"In early 2019, Depp sued Heard for US$50 million for defamation over an op-ed she wrote for The Washington Post in December 2018, which "depended on the central premise that Ms. Heard was a domestic abuse victim and that Mr. Depp perpetrated domestic violence against her,"[90][91] despite it not mentioning Depp or any of the alleged incidences of violence perpetrated by him.[84]" ''

The use of 'despite' here is very weasly and implies a preffered POV. In addition, the claim that the op-ed did not reference "any of the alleged incidences" is actually contradicted by the supplied source [84], which states: ''"Heard penned an op-ed for the Washington Post in 2018 and described her abuse, but never mentioned Depp. The actor filed a $50 defamation lawsuit for claims that his ex-wife insinuated he was the abuser and called her allegations a hoax." ''

I am not overly familiar with the Depp/Heard saga so for all I know the claim in the article is correct, but it is not backed up by the provided source. I suggest the following change to the paragraph:

''"In early 2019, Depp sued Heard for US$50 million for defamation over an op-ed she wrote for The Washington Post in December 2018, which "depended on the central premise that Ms. Heard was a domestic abuse victim and that Mr. Depp perpetrated domestic violence against her."[90][91] The fact that the piece did not specifically mention Depp by name is not disputed by either party.[84]" ''

This has a more neutral feel to it and does not contradict the supplied reference. If no one objects, I will probably make the change later tonight. Qarnos (talk) 00:50, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's because the WaPo column did not mention any incidents of violence, rather it focused on the aftermath of having gone public about it. Unfortunately I cannot double-check this as WaPo has gone behind a paywall. Perhaps we could find a secondary source that mentions this as well? The 'both agree' wording that you suggest is also fine. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * I haven't even read the WaPo article because of the paywall, this is why I say I am not overly familiar! But the WaPo article isn't really the point - it's more the wording. Using the word despite implies the WaPo is some kind of paragon of universal truth rather than a journal which presented the facts as best as they were known at the time. I will go ahead and change the text for now as I feel it best represents what the sources say without biasing to either party. If anyone want's to change it back, fine. I don't feel like edit-warring over it. Thanks for your input, especially as you seem to be one of the "custodians" of this article. Qarnos (talk) 10:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Bisexual categorization redux
I just reverted these edits by per the  discussion from years ago and how that was resolved. If, in the source that MannyPC added, it had Heard identifying as bisexual, MannyPC's edit would be fine. But once again, it is instead the source calling Heard bisexual. In cases like these, we follow WP:BLPCAT; we go by self-identity. In a similar case, with regard to Jodie Foster, per WP:BLPCAT, we also don't call Foster a lesbian or categorize her that way. This was decided after much discussion. But we do note that many media outlets described Foster as lesbian or gay after her 2013 speech at the 70th Golden Globe Awards. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

And I just reverted MannyPC on this and warned MannyPC. Pinging Asarelah, who started the previous bisexual discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Note: This matter has been recently discussed at Teahouse. To repeat what I just [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=935185634#How_can_I_get_this_person_to_stop_editing_me_out? stated] there, we can see in this HuffPost source and this Us Weekly source that Heard was reported as having come out as a lesbian in 2010. This was because she revealed her romantic relationship with Tasya van Ree. Media sources labeled her lesbian even though she didn't state "I'm a lesbian." In the AfterEllen interview the sources are referring to, she doesn't state that she's a lesbian. And in a 2011 interview, she clearly states, "I don't label myself one way or another—I have had successful relationships with men and now a woman. I love who I love; it's the person that matters." In this 2017 People magazine source that reports her as having come out as bisexual, she's quoted as stating, "I saw I was attached to a label ... I never have myself defined by the person I'm with. I never saw myself defined as one particular thing or not. So, I watched as I quickly became not actress Amber Heard, but out lesbian Amber Heard." The "never have myself defined by the person I'm with" aspect is also noted in the aforementioned The Independent source, which also says she came out as bisexual. Any time Heard says she's dated men and women or has implied that she's open to dating men and women, a source labels her bisexual, just like sources initially labeled her lesbian because of her relationship with Tasya van Ree. So regarding MannyPC stating, "And why Amber Heard hasn't sue each and every publication last year calling her bisexual or ask the publication to edit this out? She dated both men and women.", I'm sure Heard understands that bisexual is the term people are going to use for her. But this obviously doesn't mean that she has to use the term for herself. I think it's best to be on the safe side and not state in Wikipedia's voice that she's bisexual or categorize her that way. Maybe we should state in her article the following: "Heard publicly came out at GLAAD's 25th anniversary event in 2010. Although media outlets have labeled her lesbian or bisexual, she has stated, "I don't label myself one way or another—I have had successful relationships with men and now a woman. I love who I love; it's the person that matters." This would replace the beginning of the second paragraph in the "Personal life" section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I really like the attribution of the labels to media observers paired with her direct quote on the matter. Schazjmd   (talk)  22:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The person must publicly self-identify with the label in question according to BLP. If she doesn't identify as bisexual, that's that. Asarelah (talk) 15:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Only mention parts of responses that are relevant
Following the recent discussion which involved a lot of WP:NPOV talk, I felt it was worth mentioning that I believe the line Her lawyer further stated that Depp is attempting to "gaslight the world" and "silence" her. to not be relevant to the article, given the amount of claims of similar nature made by both sides. That line is from this edit, which argues that the inclusion of "attempting to secure..." and "hoax" validate it; I believe those should be removed too, in cases where they are not the primary response (Heard said that Depp's claims are not true is ok since it is central to Heard's response, Depp is attempting to "gaslight the world" is not, and vice versa for Depp's side).

My suggestion for edits is (with deletions and insertions highlighted):


 * There's absolutely no reason to delete the fact that Depp first accused Heard of having financial motivations. This was central to his defense against the abuse allegations during the divorce case. It's not 'additional/unnecessary information' any more than his now blaming Heard of allegedly abusing him is. To further clarify: if it's removed, there is central context missing for the joint statement they issued when settling the divorce (i.e."Neither party has made false accusations for financial gain."). TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * To further clarify: if it's removed, there is central context missing for the joint statement they issued when settling the divorce - that's a good point. I agree with reinstating it.
 * [Edit] I've edited it back in. Are we in agreement on the edit otherwise? Birjolaxew (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Otherwise I'm fine, but I'd re-add the bit about gaslighting. It's not going to be the hill I'm going to die on, but it is relevant as gaslighting is in itself abuse, and AFAIK Heard's team is not just accusing Depp of lying but of trying to twist facts through media tactics. It would be great to get an admin or an experienced editor with experience in gender-related WP disputes to weigh in on here. But yeah, as I said, I'm weary of this article and am reasonably ok with the current version. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 00:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * I don't see why the gaslighting part needs to be removed to maintain NPOV. Being neutral on Wikipedia does not mean what being neutral means in common discourse. But if arguing the tit for tat approach, what Heard's lawyer has stated should be included if what Depp's lawyers stated is to be included. Unless, of course, it's undue. While one could argue that it's their lawyers' opinions and the lawyers are not representing something they believe, the fact that it's their lawyers stating it and they haven't contradicted their lawyers' viewpoints indicates that they feel this way as well. In both cases -- Heard's and Depp's -- it's their lawyers arguing what the other side is attempting to do. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:17, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * My argument is that, for a hypothetical case unrelated to the Depp/Heard one, saying She claimed that he was abusive. In response his lawyers called her a "liar" and said that she "was only doing this to [affect the ongoing custody battle/get media attention/damage his career/...]" might be factually correct, but unless the last part is important to the case, it isn't much different than describing any of the other mud-slinging that happens in such cases.
 * I do agree that including only one side's mud-slinging is suboptimal. If the consensus is to revert the edit entirely, then I am happy to abide by that. Birjolaxew (talk) 04:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

NPOV tag
This article is nearly written from a fan's perspective, ignoring every controversy about her and over-amplifying the "activism" she's done. There's ample usage of weasel words, promotional content, and cherry-picking of sources. I'm going to do a slight re-formatting, but unfortunately I don't have the time at the moment to rewrite the article, which I believe is necessary. Vermont (talk) 02:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Although I've been with this article for years, I've written very little of this article and I'm not a Heard fan. But as for the article being written from a fan perspective? I do not see that the article falls under WP:FANCRUFT in any way. You do know how celebrity BLP articles are written, don't you? Look at Leonardo DiCaprio, for example. They are not written to include every perceived controversy about a person unless WP:Due. See the WP:CSECTION essay. It's an essay, but it aligns with how BLP articles are written conservatively unless we have valid reason to add something like a "Controversies" section. For example, if the person is a controversial figure. Heard is not a controversial figure, regardless of some Depp fans being angry with her. She is not like Kanye West. We go by what WP:Reliable sources state and with WP:Due weight. If reliable sources call a matter a controversy, then so do we. But that does not automatically mean that it gets its own section or that it's included under a "Controversy" heading. And besides the Depp stuff, what controversies are you talking about with regard to Heard? I reverted you on this because, per Template:POV, "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor. The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to 'warn' readers about the article. This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public." I also reverted because, per WP:Lead, the lead should typically be no longer than four paragraphs and reformatting the lead needs discussion. As for weasel words, WP:Weasel words is clear that the words listed there are not automatically weasel words. Also, such words are not banned. What weasel words are you referring to?


 * If you feel that you have a strong case for this article violating WP:NPOV, then make your points here on the talk page and try to achieve WP:Consensus on that matter and/or take the matter to the WP:Neutral noticeboard. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that she is not a controversial figure, and understand your opposition to adding a NPOV tag. I do believe that a lot of this article could be rewritten/rephrased to be more neutral, though looking at some other celebrity pages they all appear to be like this, and there's very little possibility of changing that. In regard to the lead, reformatting it to the extent that I want to does not need discussion. It is blatantly biased to have her activisim immediately in front of controversy about her. There are also some odd phrasing/grammar choices in that paragraph which I would like to fix, both in the lead and in the Personal life section. In the Personal life section, primarily by identifying that she "came out" as bisexual rather than just stating that she "came out" and changing "allegations and evidence" in the last paragraph of the bit about her and Depp's relationship to "alleged evidence". In the lead, doing something to separate the activism from the controversy. I'd also change "after she discussed being a victim domestic violence in the media" to "after she published an article discussing being a victim of domestic violence", and slightly rephrase the second half of that sentence to be more clear. Regards, Vermont (talk) 03:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


 * We avoid stating that she came out as bisexual and labeling her as bisexual in a category, per WP:BLP and WP:BLPCAT. For the most recent discussion about that, see the section above if you haven't already. She has been clear about not being labeled as either lesbian or bisexual. Per BLP, I did propose that we go with the following wording: "Heard publicly came out at GLAAD's 25th anniversary event in 2010. Although media outlets have labeled her lesbian or bisexual, she has stated, 'I don't label myself one way or another—I have had successful relationships with men and now a woman. I love who I love; it's the person that matters.'" We can go with that per BLP. A similar case is the Jodie Foster case, and you can see all of the debate that went on with that at Talk:Jodie Foster/Archive 4. The "lesbian or bisexual" BLP stuff is why I got involved with the Heard article years ago. I was concerned about BLPCAT violations at that time and saw some people being categorized as gay, lesbian or bisexual when it wasn't clear that the people identified that way. In Heard's case, there were even conflicting reports because some sources were calling her lesbian. Editors can argue that sources call someone gay, lesbian or bisexual all they want to, but Wikipedia strongly prefers self-identification in a case like this.


 * As for the other stuff, I'm pinging TrueHeartSusie3, Davey2010, Jip Orlando, Schazjmd, DIYeditor and UpdateNerd for their thoughts. UpdateNerd and DIYeditor have barely edited the article, but the others have been more involved and DIYeditor and UpdateNerd often have solid commentary. Others are free to ping others who have been involved with the article, of course. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Correction: UpdateNerd has been heavily involved with the article as well. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan, I've only been involved with this article as a pending changes reviewer and I'm only vaguely aware of who she is. But reading it from a genuinely indifferent perspective, I'm not seeing fancruft or lack of WP:NPOV. There's some bits that should be cut (her best friend died in high school...so? and maybe a few of the direct quotes), but what I read appears to be balanced – it mentions flops as well as successes, pans and praise. Maybe there are negative aspects not covered that I'm not aware of. The article could be tighter, I just don't see any glaring concerns with it. Schazjmd   (talk)  17:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * My only real contributions have been making sure the content regarding Johnny Depp doesn't go beyond what reliable sources say. Other than that, I advise others to edit boldly when they think something can be improved, especially if it feels like something unencyclopedic/written from a fan's perspective. But also don't edit war if someone reverts you and discussing on the talk page can resolve an issue. UpdateNerd (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm probably the person who has been the most active on this article, but not out of fandom. I don't really care about Heard, but I am interested in the ongoing intimate partner violence saga, and what it says about our culture and the general understanding of IPV. However, I have also edited (mainly copyediting) the rest of the article as well. I first began editing the article in 2016, specifically to remove wrong information and bias related to the IPV allegations; little did I know that I'd still be here four years later! Anyway, my point is this: Vermont, please feel free to be bold and edit the weasel words etc. away! :) However, it's probably for the best to discuss any alterations to the bisexual/lesbian categories and the Johnny Depp case on the talk page first, for reasons explained already above. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * Responding to ping- I agree with Schazjmd, there is not much fancruft of lack of NPOV. A couple of unsourced statements, like Heard's friend dying in a traffic accident and I think some in her activism section, but nothing that flies in the face of NPOV.  All things considered, this article is reasonably well-written and the sourcing, while some of the sources are eh, it's nothing awful for a pop culture figure.  Her filmography and awards are unsourced as well, but I'm sure this information can easily be found for such a high-profile figure.  Most importantly, here, is to ensure we remain neutral and adhere to BLP standards.  There is extensive tabloid coverage of her and Johnny Depp's failed relationship.  There was a kerfuffle a couple of months ago where someone wanted to insert salacious material about the subject's controversy.  Bottom line, the article is neutral from my perspective, no tag needed.  Jip Orlando (talk) 13:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2020
change picture Win20201 (talk) 06:53, 27 April 2020 (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. Cannolis (talk) 07:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Current court case
Why no mention of the current court case in England? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.80.121 (talk) 20:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Johnny Depp abuse
Someone needs to update the page since Heard is no longer the victim as new evidence has come to light on the audio tapes. Mattdr90 (talk) 06:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Erm, no that's not what the tape does. It's an edited tape released by Depp's team, in which Heard appears to admit to having hit him and thrown items at him during an argument. Most of the tape is just them arguing about other things, about their marriage and their fighting (i.e. arguing, not physically fighting). It's completely possible she indeed did hit him, but it does not mean that Depp also did not perpetuate the violence Heard has accused him of. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3


 * At the very least the page should be updated to include this new information. As it stands right now, the only mention of Heard's abuse on Depp is that she denies it; something that is obviously disproven by the audio recording. Birjolaxew (talk) 13:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * If you'd listened to the tape, no amount of editing could alter the truth of the matter. She made it clear that she STARTED fights, that SHE got violent with him. That she made no promises that               she would not be violent again in the future. The only reason this page has not yet been edited is because of blatant misandry (TrueHeartSusie3 being quite obvious guilty of such) and the bias against male victims of domestic violence. Even if you choose to alter the information later for updated information, there has been far too much of an outcry for in NOT to be noted. Refusing to edit the page is an obvious attempt to provide Amber Heard with a level of protection, a level of protection she does not deserve, simply because she is a woman. "To spread misogyny and red pill/incel ideology"? If that doesn't make a misandrist bias extremely clear, I don't know what else would. Amber Heard's own attorney's made a public statement and did not deny the validity of the audio or claim that it had been edited. That speaks for itself. The article should be edited. Period. Unless Wikipedia wants to appear to only support female victims of domestic violence...23.24.191.238 (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

It is clear that she admitted to IPV (intimate partner violence), whether it be mutual or not. It is also clear that this violence was at least in some respect not in response to any threat and that it was initiated by Heard against Depp. It is appropriate to include reference to this tape, including the admissions of intimate partner violence at the very least. It is in line with typical female violence against men and seems plausible given the other content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenotype (talk • contribs) 12:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The thing is, I've not seen any reliable sources cover this, and we have no guarantees the audio is even real or not edited to death. The full audio seems to be only available on YT channels whose specific purpose is to spread misogyny and the red pill/incel ideology. This is why I think we really need to hold our horses and wait to see the full response to this. Otherwise we risk Wikipedia becoming a gossip rag, and risk violating BLP rules. Furthermore, if we want to include this tape in detail, then we should also detail the evidence that Heard's team has submitted to the court, incl. text messages, video, testimonies from other people... It is absolutely possible that this tape is real (personally I think it is, although out of context), and that the situation was complex and mutually abusive. In no shape or form does the tape absolve Depp, as many of the fly-bys seem to think (incl. the one opening this discussion). This is an issue that attracts a lot of people (as you can see from this discussion) to WP who otherwise do not edit, they just participate in the #JusticeforDepp campaigns. There is a huge risk here that WP would become their mouthpiece. Wikipedia should stick to its principles here and wait for reliable sources to react, for Heard's team to respond etc, and then edit the article accordingly. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3


 * Another editor just added the claim, citing Newsweek. Please note that Newsweek post-2013 is considered generally not reliable. And even the Newsweek article hedges its bets with "appears to reveal", "an alleged audio recording", "appears to lend credence". We need reliable sources. Schazjmd   (talk)  17:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The audio recording originates at Daily Mail, which also isn't considered generally reliable. If it was simply an article written by them, I would be very skeptical, but the release of the audio recording adds considerable reliability. Reading the transcript, the only "alleged" part is whether it is Amber Heard that is heard; if it is her, there is little doubt that she was abusive towards Depp. Birjolaxew (talk) 13:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Audio is easily edited (and is a primary source). Schazjmd   (talk)  18:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the reasonable thing is to wait until Heard's team has responded to this / the trial has played out. This page should not become a gossip rag. If we include mention of this tape, then I think it would be fair to also discuss the evidence Heard has submitted against Depp in more detail. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3


 * I disagree. I see no way to argue that this new development is not important enough to include, while something like her lawyer stating that Depp is attempting to "gaslight the world" and similar are kept on the page. This is not just a new piece of evidence; this is a primary source giving serious credibility to Heard being abusive, which is a major move in the Heard v Depp case, and I have a hard time seeing any reason to leave it out of the description of the case other than bias. Once new information becomes available (e.g. Heard's response) then that should obviously be added to the page too. Birjolaxew (talk) 16:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it's not important enough to include, just that we should wait for better sources to become available and not take sides. Please see my comment above to Greenotype.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * Here is USA Today saying "The audio, shared by the Daily Mail and confirmed to USA TODAY by Depp's lawyer Adam Waldman as a real recording from 2015 [...]". USA Today is on Wikipedia's Reliable Sources list as generally reliable. Can it be added to the article now? Birjolaxew (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Once again, let's wait for this to play out. In the case of living people, it is very important to not just add this type of controversial material, especially when it is for the main part people with no previous WP experience or any interest in this article who want it added. This has literally just come out this weekend; why are you in such a hurry to add it?TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * As a user I expect Wikipedia to have up to date information; not covering a major part of the situation like this seems atypical to me. I still don't see much of a reason to leave out important information from well regarded reliable sources like USA Today. That being said, the bigger and more pressing issue (and the reason I bothered participating in the discussion for once) is that the apparent bias and lack of critical information about the accusations against Heard can (and is) being used to further the red pill community's divide from the rest of us, strengthening their echo chamber. I was hoping to get ahead of that, but y'know, it is what it is now. Birjolaxew (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh, and to add, about primary sources: WP is not a source for them. In fact, this would fall under 'original research' (please read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research). So, once again, let's wait. This does not mean this tape is not going to be mentioned. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3


 * Comment Don't delete information because it's become available. If this is deleted, delete the whole passage. It's all speculation? CaffeinAddict (talk) 03:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Paulisdead, regarding this, it doesn't matter that you cited the Daily Mail for context. The point is that, per WP:DAILY MAIL, it shouldn't be cited for BLPs. And per above, we are erring on the side of caution regardless. This is per the WP:BLP policy. If this type of editing continues, I will take this matter to the WP:BLP noticeboard if no one beats me to it. No need to ping me if you reply since this article is on my watchlist. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

International Business Times are now reporting that Johnny Depp has submitted over 87 pieces of video evidence that Amber has been abusing him. It is time that we stop "white knighting" Amber and accept that women can abuse men too. OnsceneBoos (talk) 13:53, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 1.) IB Times is not a reputable source AFAIK; 2.) Depp's team has been talking about their 87 video tapes since this court case began in 2018. They can absolutely say that or make any other claims in the media, but AFAIK they haven't leaked them (unless the grainy elevator footage is that) nor have they been evaluated by a court. As I've said below, I've followed this case very closely since it began. Women for sure can and do at times abuse men, and abusive relationships can also be abusive both ways. But that's not the question here. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

I find the adding/deleting of information on this tape topic more strange if anything. The tape authenticity has been confirmed by Depp’s lawyers as reported in USA Today (which I also cited). Regardless of the source being The Daily Mail and what some editors on Wikipedia think of it (and personally, I’m not a fan of the Mail), isn’t it possible that even a “gossip rag” can get it right sometimes? And doesn’t it make sense to refer in some way to the origin of the leak?? You don’t need to post anything bias/political or whatever sad agenda the internet needs to justify it. Just a simple report that a tape has leaked. I don’t see what the big deal is. Plenty of articles report these kinds of things within hours of them happening. What are people afraid of? Heard’s legal team or is this another case of not wanting left and right wing undergraduates argue amongst themselves (which I’m picking up on judging by some of these comments). Paulisdead (talk) 14:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel like I am repeating myself like a broken record here, but here we go. If we mention the tape, then we should also discuss the evidence Heard has leaked during the last four years; I've been following this case closely for the entire time (incl. reading the actual legal filings etc. documents), so I have a fairly good grasp of what's been leaked by both parties so far, and what the media's role (esp. sites like The Daily Mail and TMZ) is in this. A lot of this case has been fought through the media, and there is no reason to think that this is an exception. When it comes to BLPs, we must be very careful about what is written in the article, no matter how much something is discussed in the media. The fact that the majority of people who so desperately want it included are people who normally don't edit WP at all / have shown no interest in the article so far is also not in favor of inclusion. When it comes to something that is this murky (in terms of the role of the media, the court case being ongoing) and polarized, we must err on the side of caution. WP should not be anybody's news source, especially not when it comes to celebrities. Hence, let's wait out until we know what the significance of these leaks is in the context of the entire case. (FYI, Heard did already state in her deposition in 2016 that she had acted violently in self-defense (the clip was presumably leaked by Depp's team), so it's not like this is news as such.)


 * IMHO, after having listened to snippets of the tape (as no full recording has been released) and the follow-up (again published by DM), I'd say there's a high likelihood that the tapes, while authentic, have been purposely released in only snippets so that it's easier to make it murky what the context is and, coupled with sensationalised writing from DM, spin it the way Depp's legal team wants it to look like. It's very common for abusers to justify their actions by saying things like "but you started it!" (the victim may indeed have started the fight) and to claim that violent self-defense is a sign that they were abused as well. It may be that the tapes are in fact evidence of that, but given that no complete tapes are available, who knows what the truth is? It's certainly not WP's purpose to take sides, which is what we would be doing when adding information about it at this very early point, while excluding all the evidence from Heard's side. All we have is snippets of recorded conversations that Depp's team claims are evidence of Depp being abused. It's stated in the article that Depp has since 2018 alleged that he was abused by Heard, so it's not like we're not covering it. I think also the fact that most major news sources apart from DM seem to have stayed silent on these tapes is interesting. Yes, I know Newsweek and USA Today have had some coverage, but this case has been covered by pretty much all major news medias before, including such reputable sources that usually only publish celebrity news when it's extremely important.


 * So once again, let's wait. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3


 * I can certainly understand not wanting to be biased. The problem is that the article *already* describes some of Heard's evidence, while mentions of Depp's evidence is repeatedly removed. If "Heard testified about the abuse under oath at a divorce court deposition. Evidence of the alleged abuse from her court filings was also published in the media." is relevant, then I don't see why a similar mention of Depp's evidence isn't worth adding. If you are not satisfied with the wording that has been used (I certainly ain't), please reword it instead of removing it. Birjolaxew (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * How is mentioning that she gave a deposition as part of the divorce court proceedings or simply mentioning in a roundabout way that the press published material from the case in any way same as including Depp's current, very specific leak? None of the specific material submitted as evidence is discussed. If you're wondering why there is no mention there of Depp's leaked evidence, it's because during the divorce case, there was none. All of it is from post-2018, ie from this defamation case.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3


 * It's not, but I also didn't imply that. As mentioned, I don't see why a *similar* mention of Depp's evidence isn't relevant. I don't believe that such a mention has been added as an edit, but as I said: the move would be to reword it to an acceptable mention (e.g. "Evidence of Depp's claim was published in the media [cite USA Today]"), not remove it entirely. Birjolaxew (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You implied exactly that with "The problem is that the article *already* describes some of Heard's evidence, while mentions of Depp's evidence is repeatedly removed." We're going around in circles here. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * I don't think you're really addressing my point here (and I'm sorry if that is because my wording was confusing). As I've mentioned several times, I agree that all of the edits so far have been biased, and shouldn't be kept. What I disagree with is removing that instead of rewording it to an acceptable wording. Would you be ok with my suggestion of something along the lines of "Evidence of Depp's claim was later published in the media [cite USA Today]"? Birjolaxew (talk) 14:53, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'm still leaning on 'let's wait'. In theory, I think it is fine that in some *very* neutral way the article would spell out that Depp has accompanied his allegations with what his team claims to be evidence. But right now, when this is so fresh and it seems to be mainly editors with no prior WP background or prior interest in the article who are so interested in its inclusion, I think it's very, very risky to start making any changes. Just as an aside, certain of these fly-bys have now started leaving nasty, borderline threatening messages on my talk page, which is making their agenda even clearer. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 21:04, 9 February 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * I wouldn't doubt it. Politically polarized people aren't exactly known for their friendliness. My hope is that a mention of the evidence, in a neutral way that's appropriate for Wikipedia, could help quell the biased edits. Birjolaxew (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought we had come to an agreement that a neutral addition, similar to the existing ones for Heard's evidence, would be the way to go. You apparently disagree. Could you 1) explain the reason for that, and 2) come up with an alternate wording that you would support? It is getting quite tiresome to have a single person veto all edits, regardless of their neutrality, while not offering any solutions themselves. Birjolaxew (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you tell me where any agreement on this was reached? I've clearly said that my opinion is that we should now wait for a bit. For my reasoning in general, I've explained it quite a few times in this discussion, please re-read. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * This is what I am referring to: "In theory, I think it is fine that in some *very* neutral way the article would spell out that Depp has accompanied his allegations with what his team claims to be evidence." I am sorry if I misunderstood you.
 * As you are probably aware, waiting is not the consensus either. I personally disagree with both waiting (which seems biased, considering that stuff like Depp's defamation suit against her was added within a day, and Heard and her team has already responded) and most of the edits that have been suggested so far (because they are obviously biased in the other direction).
 * Nonetheless, it appears that we are making no progress towards a consensus here. I have opened an entry on the BLP notice board for the sake of getting third party opinions. Birjolaxew (talk) 23:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You keep cherry-picking my responses. I preceded the sentence you are quoting with "Honestly, I'm still leaning on 'let's wait'." I.e. let's wait until we see where these leaks fit in the context of the case (so that we are not making WP a gossip rag or being biased), and the fly-by interest ends or at least lessens. I've also given a host of other arguments in this discussion, which I'm not going to repeat here as I have an off-wiki life as well and don't want to spend it repeating my arguments time and time again. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * I don't think it's too far out there to interpret "I lean towards X" followed by "I think it is fine to do Y" as an acceptance of Y.
 * If the only acceptable solution for you is to wait, then there really isn't much point in this discussion; waiting isn't an acceptable solution for me (or many other people). I have attempted to suggest compromises, but since you seem unwilling to work on reaching a mutually agreeable solution it looks like we won't reach a consensus. Birjolaxew (talk) 14:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, you're leaving out the "in theory". You're for some reason refusing to consider my responses in their entirety, and twisting what I'm saying in the process. Also, have you not read what I wrote in the Noticeboard? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * How long do we have to wait? How long is acceptable to you? OnsceneBoos (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Can someone explain why all mentions of the tape that Johnny Depp released are removed? Should not the tapes, which Depp alleges prove Heard's abuse of him, at least be mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OnsceneBoos (talk • contribs) 12:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * First let's let the WP:BLP/N discussion get some traction. That is where to get outside points of view and make some arguments about this. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Once again SJW culture wins. I expected wikipedia to be a neutral place reporting important new information yet it's just another site expouting misandrist and man hating views by protecting an abuser. Hpdh4 08:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4 (talk • contribs)
 * TrueHeartSusie3 suggested to wait, I'd say we waited long enough. Nothing has changed since then and there is no reason to remove this well sourced content. The mention of the tape has been returned. Jirka.h23 (talk) 04:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * See the discussion below. The Sun trial is on hold, the Virginia trial won't be until later in the year, there's been no change to the situation, other than that Depp has released material which seems to corroborate the fact that his team is trying to use tabloid media (The Daily Mail in particular) to their advantage, in which they seem to be succeeding since many people don't read beyond clickbait titles. Furthermore, why specifically single out Depp's 'evidence' to be included in the article, with no mention of Heard's, or her team's responses? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 08:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * You demanded to wait, until it is clear "the audio is even real or not edited" and if its purpose was not "to spread misogyny and the red pill/incel ideology", you demanded to see the full response to this. It was not announced only in tabloids, but also on USA Today. Nothing has changed since then. There is no rejection of the tape from lawyers or allegations of editing the tape, unless you prove otherwise. There is no reason to mention this important confession and will be returned. Jirka.h23 (talk) 09:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

She literally shat in the bed and we have wikipedia writers white knighting.197.245.66.244 (talk) 12:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Some Wikipedia editors are just SJW nazi in disguise with their claims that citations are not reputable enough yet same citations is good enough for other people. Definitely an agenda.You expect to see these agendas in leftism and right politics as well as clickbait media, why should Wiki be any different. Proof doesn't matter in todays "believeOnlyWoman" culture. Amber is an abuser, get real and get with the times. Hpdh4 00:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4 (talk • contribs)

More on "leaked" recordings
on reflection my recent edit summary came across as blunt. Tone is hard to express in online communication. The problem with adding links to allegedly "leaked" audio recordings or youtube clips is that their authenticity is not verified. All content needs a reliable secondary source, particularly contentious material in biographies of living people. Allegedly leaked recordings do seem to be a feature in this court case, and there are plenty of reliable sources which refer to them, like this one. So it's not as if there can be no mention of such things in any context but the very first port of call is proper sourcing.

And, alas, even with proper sourcing there are two more things to consider. First, whether any addition of this kind was giving undue weight to some random plot twist in a legal proceeding. This is supposed to be an article on the entire life of Amber Heard. Is one allegedly leaked, allegedly genuine, recording worth several sentences in proportion to what we have on the rest of her life? Undue weight is a bit subjective, but it's at the least a point to consider.

And second (plus probably most important): the reality that this is an encyclopedia, not a media outlet. There is no need to give up-to-the-minute accounts of court proceedings, and a strong policy disincentive to do so given the legal risks involved, and the presumption of innocence that is a necessary part of proceedings prior to any verdict. Presumptions of guilt or innocence in our edits will quickly get all of us in legal trouble if they later turn out to be wrong. So, the short version: Court proceedings are ongoing; no one has been found guilty or innocent, and in most cases we can await the outcome before including too much about it in Wikipedia articles. There's more on most of the above at WP:BLP, including a fairly strong opposition to primary sourcing on contentious subjects.

Hope that explains the revert. Happy to discuss further here if required. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Kate James

 * In March 2020, Heard's former assistant Kate James alleged Heard to have been physically and verbally abusive towards her over the course of her employment.

My question is whether these allegations going forward should have their own section, whether the "Relationship with Johnny Depp" section should be split into that and an "Abuse allegations" section, or whether these allegations should also be mentioned in the "Relationship with Johnny Depp" section, given James mentions Depp in her statements? Vokafone (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Vokafone, regarding this, do not continue to add that information, especially to the lead, without WP:Consensus. If you continue to do so, you will very likely be WP:Blocked. You need to stop WP:Edit warring on this. Per WP:BLP, Wikipedia takes biographies of living persons very seriously and takes a conservative route on matters like these. Furthermore, per WP:Lead, material like that should not be in the lead unless covered lower first. If you must, take the matter to the WP:BLP noticeboard. But do not keep edit warring on this. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

___

If these accusations were about a man People wouldn't hesitate to put it on Damn wikipedia "conservative" route. It should be added Some Editors failed at vilifying Jk Rowling where content that purposely misinterprets her stance on gender politics were removed. Can't wait when this happens again. Hpdh4 12:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Zack Snyder's Justice League?
I read that she is set to do additional filming as Mera for the Snyder Cut. Should it be added to her filmography? PinpointJoker57 (talk) 10:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Depp vs NGN ruling
As most of us following this case will know by now, the verdict on the libel case that Depp had brought against The Sun is out. Depp has now not only lost his libel case but the judge rules that “I have found that the great majority of alleged assaults of Ms Heard by Mr Depp [12 out 14 incidents] have been proved to the civil standard.” The case should have been mentioned here even if Depp had won, as the trial attracted worldwide media interest for three weeks this summer; in fact it has been called the most significant libel trial in 21st c. English legal history.

In other words, there needs to be some additions made to this page. Given how contested this issue has been, I wanted to bring this up here before proceeding with the edits. I propose that the following paragraph be added to the 'Personal life' section:

"Depp also brought a libel lawsuit in the UK against News Group Newspapers, the company publishing The Sun, which had called him a "wifebeater" in a 2018 article. Heard was a key witness for NGN during the highly-publicized trial in London in July 2020. On November 2, 2020, the High Court of Justice ruled that Depp had lost his claim and that "the great majority of alleged assaults of Ms Heard by Mr Depp [12 out 14] have been proved to the civil standard."  The verdict also found that Heard's career and activism had been negatively affected by Depp's accusations.  Depp plans to appeal the case. "

I also propose that the bit in the lede about this ruling be altered so that it's clear that this is a separate libel case. I've used The Guardian and the BBC as sources, given their good reputation as reliable British sources and the fact that neither is behind a paywall.--TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * Pinging and .TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Refs look reliable. This is also covered in Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd, as well as Depp's article. Schazjmd   (talk)  01:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I've reverted this pending further discussion. I'm fine with the edits proposed by TrueHeartSusie3. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding! I'm going to be bold and add it now, it doesn't seem that this is attracting much discussion.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

---

Allegations of domestic abuse
There seems to be no mention of allegations of domestic abuse perpretated by the subject of the article, as discussed in this link https://www.geo.tv/latest/230905. Is this intentional? The page is semi-protected due to persistant vandalism but the edit history has been deleted (I didn't even know that was possible) so we editors cannot make this judgement ourselves. Are the reverted edits concerning this matter? RobbieM13 (talk) 08:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Geo TV is a "Pakistani pay television channel", so we should probably wait until more reputable sources report on this. However, I do find it a bit bizarre that ALL recent page revisions were deleted, as I can only assume that at least some of them were serious edits. Soronast (talk) 11:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have found some other sources: https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/celebrities/johnny-depp-sues-ex-wife-for-50-million-in-defamation-suit/2019/03/02/4dc41ce4-3d2e-11e9-b10b-f05a22e75865_story.html?utm_term=.65eca136b5da https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3741910/Photo-Johnny-Depp-s-ghastly-finger-cut-tip-fit-rage-wrote-blood-wall-Amber-Heard-affair-Billy-Bob-Thornton.html and https://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/johnny-depp-cut-fingertip-rampage-amber-heard-claims-article-1.2752121Nuitdepapillon (talk) 12:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The Daily Mail and NYDN sources both reference TMZ as a source. I'm not sure TMZ is considered a reputable source for Wikipedia purposes. -- MidnightSoldier (talk) 05:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There should at least be some kind of mention that Depp has accused her. It's a pretty clear case of bias if her allegations get to take up several sections on Depp's and Heard's page but his won't even get mentioned. Wikipedia is supposed to be objective, this isn't even the first time allegations against her have been made.★Trekker (talk) 13:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Are the accusations in the media or in the actual lawsuit? Because Adam Waldman (Depp's lawyer) has been making quite a few claims in the media lately, but at least I'm not sure what's actually contained in the lawsuit. I'm under the impression (but could be wrong) that Depp's actual case hinges on the claim that Heard hasn't got proof of the abuse (in which case we should also discuss the types of proof that Heard has provided in both her divorce case, deposition and her pretty extensive response to this lawsuit) and/or that it's all a huge, elaborate hoax against Depp. I'd say we stick to what's stated in the court documents and wait until there's a decision and/more credible information. Otherwise these personal life sections are gonna be very, very bloated soon.


 * As for your claim that "this isn't the first time that allegations against her have been made", source please? Unless you mean the Tasya Van Ree case, which I believe was thrown out and which Van Ree herself has publicly stated was misunderstood by the police.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * Found the court doc! So yes indeed it appears that Depp is claiming (contrary to 2016) that Heard is not just breaking their NDA but that she was the abuser and he the victim. Perhaps we should add this, and also list the main types of evidence that each has provided? At least we should then mention Heard's response, so  as not to turn this into an incel convention. Otherwise, I'd wait for this to play out.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * Incel mention alone should get you removed from this site, this is not a place to spread your personal believes and ideologies but to provide facts. Also it's been a year and you're still reverting edits, are we to wait indefinitely until you reach your predetermined conclusion not to edit the page mentioning new facts?Anetherion (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, you just mentioned it too, so when will you be leaving? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.191.251.51 (talk) 13:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Why is this page locked down with Heard's side of the abuse story but not Depp's? She is on tape admitting to abusing him. Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7947733/Amber-Heard-admits-hitting-ex-husband-Johnny-Depp-pelting-pots-pans-tape.html

I guess even wikipedia is protecting known abusers like heard and falling prey to the gender argument.Pity Hpdh4 09:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4 (talk • contribs)

I usually don't take part in discussions about Wikipedia articles, but I would like to add that the German, French, Italian and Danish versions of this article already include those informations (so do most of the other languages I'd assume). The French page for example mentions how none of the policeman who came to her house that night noticed those severe bruises she later claimed to have. The English version finally got updated a few days ago as well, but still seems incredibly biased. Her allegations to Depp take up 2 paragraphs while the allegations against herself are only mentioned in 2 sentences. It says that Depp's team published "alleged evidence" against her, while her evidence against him is just called "evidence". No mention of the abuse allegations from former lovers and assistants, no mention of the audiotapes, the cut-off finger, the police reports and how the lies she told under oath that are already proven to be lies. Also, what kind of weak argument is that her violence is discussed only in short sections of the recordings? It IS discussed, that's the important thing. That's like saying someone is not an abuser because he is violent only for 5 minutes a day. And no, I'm neither an Incel nor a Johnny Depp fangirl, but I'm disturbed about how everyone was talking about her allegations against him, how she got to write articles for some of the most important US-newspapers and became a spokesperson for abuse victims, and now that there is overwhelming evidence against her, the media is just not touching the subject. The only ones who will profit from that are right-wing-populists who now got another reason to shame the press. 84.150.141.215 (talk) 07:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to present the reliable sources that demonstrate the claims you make. Thus far, there's tabloid (The Daily Mail being chief with their multiple 'exclusive' articles) articles with sensational, clickbaity headlines and very little substance behind the claims. I'm sad to hear such unreliable material has gotten into other language versions, but this is once again demonstrating how a lot of editors lack basic skills in media literacy and source criticism.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Good on those editors of those alternate versions for including information that is backed by evidence and not agendas like rest of most of wikipedia editors Unreliable more like don't like so don't include. Might as well turn this into WikiSJW were agendas masked as unreliable/reliable is more important than truth. Hpdh4 00:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4 (talk • contribs)

Deleting mention of the tape OR adding material on the other tapes, texts etc.
Since the last time that this was discussed, the Depp v NGN trial and the verdict have cleared quite a few things up and added new evidence to the case:
 * The famous 'Amber Heard admits to abusing Depp' tape has been shown to be a snippet of a discussion of an incident in March 2015, where Heard attacked Depp after he had threatened her sister. Heard has admitted to this attack ever since filing for divorce (she even discussed it in the divorce deposition), and the judge found her version credible and considers it to have been in defense. As has been noted in the case, it is common for domestic abusers to claim self-defense to be abuse.
 * The judge did not find any other incidents of violence perpetuated by Heard on Depp, and a lot of the leaked 'evidence' was found to not be credible. For example, an image of him with a black eye was again from this same incident (as shown by metadata on the image), but Depp's team tried to claim it was from a year later.
 * In fact, Depp's team didn't really seem to present any new evidence, and could not for example produce the multitude of videos which they claimed earlier this year to have.
 * Depp's team attempted to hide his text message exchanges, which include a several messages discussing his violent acts (and violent thoughts, e.g. the Paul Bettany texts) towards Heard.
 * Heard's team also presented a tape in which Depp admits to for example headbutting her. He claimed in court that this was accidental, but the judge did not find this credible. There were also other new (as in, new to the media and the general public) tapes and images which quite clearly showed Depp in various stages of intoxication and rage.
 * The LAPD officers who visited Heard and Depp's property were shown by time stamps to have spent only about 15 min at the property.
 * Depp's US lawyer, Adam Waldman (also the lawyer of oligarch Oleg Deripaska, linked to Trump's shady dealings with Russians...), has been thrown off the Virginia case by its judge due to Waldman leaking confidential material to the press. As you may remember, Waldman was the source of all these 'leaks' early this year and the one who made claims about further material (which has not, pun not intended, materialized in the UK libel trial, where it would have been sorely needed). As stated in the article, Heard has now sued Depp for conducting an online campaign against her, involving Twitter bots, fake news websites (e.g. IFOD), and planting articles to IB Times, a content farm also familiar to many Wikipedians.

I could go on, but in short: anyone who has read the publicly available trial transcripts, skeleton arguments and the verdict, or the coverage of this case from reliable sources, knows that Depp's case against NGN (and Heard, even if she wasn't the one sued) didn't have a leg to stand on when it came to presenting actual evidence or facts. If you don't believe me, please, go read these documents. The judge ruled that on 12 of the 14 incidents, Depp was proven to have been abusive. The two incidents that he did not find to be proven were an incident where he could not see that any abuse had taken place, and another which had good evidence to back it up, but for which Depp was not cross-examined. Contrary to what Reddit and other places online would suggest, the verdict also isn't based on Heard's testimony alone, but corroborating testimony from various individuals, tapes, photos, Depp and his team's text and email messages, and both Depp and Heard's medical records.

Ok, thank you for reading this far. The question is: should we delete the mention of the tape, or add a clarification as to the origins of the tape, and more about the other evidence in the case? As it stands, the article is presenting information that was framed by Depp's team to give a false impression of what happened to the public. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Petitions to be fired from Aquaman
Should we mention the petitions asking for her to be fired from Aquaman? Sources include this. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: The source talks of 1 petition. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Tags placed by Emir of Wikipedia
Also,, could you please explain your reasoning behind all the tags you've added to the article? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * , which 1? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * All of them, your reasoning is unclear. The rules quite clearly say that once tagged, these issues should be discussed. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * Make a section for the one you want to discuss first. It is not easy for people to separate issues when they are squished together into one section. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If you find it confusing, then you go an write separate sections. You're the one who is tagging the article, deleting some bits and inserting non-RS material. I would like to hear for starters:


 * What should be done with the lede and why in your opinion? What should the lede look like? Feel free to present a draft here, as you seem to have an idea.
 * Why shouldn't we mention Aquaman's box office success? Box Office Mojo is used as the source for these records here on WP, so the source shouldn't be the issue. Please see the article on 2018's box office records.
 * Why is ACLU's own declaration that Heard is their ambassador not enough?
 * Why are you disputing her divorce?
 * Oh, and feel free to start separate sections on these, if you so wish. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * What non-RS material have I inserted? You were the one deleting bits, don't project your action onto me. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The bit about Depp's allegations that Heard was unfaithful, it's pure gossip. But could you please focus now on explaining your reasoning behind all the tags? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * What do you mean can I focus? You are not the WP:OWNER of this article. I am not the only one who has to explain my reasoning, you do too. Stop trying to hide by attacking me if you can't defend your edits. If you want me to further explain something that you can understand please let me know and I will try to do so. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Is this some sort of a prank? I've just listed questions and my reasoning both above and on your Talk page, and in my edit summaries when I have reverted your changes. Now, please answer these, because it's unclear what you meant with these tags, what exactly should be done to improve the article? :
 * Why shouldn't we mention Aquaman's box office success? Box Office Mojo is used as the source for these records here on WP, so the source shouldn't be the issue. Please see the article on 2018's box office records.
 * Why is ACLU's own declaration that Heard is their ambassador not enough?
 * Why are you disputing her divorce? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * And you are accusing me of a prank. Wow. I think that is the first time that someone has ever said that to me on Wikipedia. If I was pulling a prank we would be laughing so hard. If one of my tags is unclear then please say which one and I will try to explain it more clearly. Would it not be reasonable though for you to explain you deleting some bits though, if I have to gets my edits approved by you? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please just answer the questions above, those are the questions based on the tags you placed. You have not provided reasoning, e.g. what is the problem with the ACLU and Box Office Mojo sources? I absolutely can discuss further why I think for example adding the bit about Heard allegedly being unfaithful should not be added, and already have, in my edit summaries. It's hearsay, based on gossip and claims made by an abusive ex-husband. It's not widely discussed by RS sources. Also, this is a BLP. For starters, those are my reasons. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * What question is you want me to answer? Why is it that I have to answer myself to you, but you do not have to answer yourself to me? You are not the WP:OWNER of this article. I will explain the one tag that you want me to explain if you do not understand it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not the owner, but I am a volunteer who genuinely would like to improve the article if it does not meet WP standards. You have placed several tags in places where you think it doesn't, and now I am asking for more information on how to improve those parts. As for not explaining, I just did explain why I removed the content you added? Please feel free to ask more questions? I'm not sure how to ask those questions in any other way, but let's try this then: "She has been named an American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) ambassador for women's rights with a focus on gender-based violence since December 2018,[61][third-party source needed][62][better source needed] " These are some of the tags you added. Can you explain why ACLU's own statement about their own action is not enough, why is a 3rd party source needed? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * I too am a volunteer who would like to improve the article. I apologise if we got off on the wrong foot and my actions gave you the wrong impression. What part do you want more information to improve? The reason I am asking for one tag at time is because I have seen people try to have discussions about separate issues and it gets difficult when they are squished together in one section. We can discuss the content you deleted in a separate section, I understand you what did was not in retaliation to my edit, and as I have said I think separate sections for each discussion can work best. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

ACLU ambassador sourcing
As discussed above, let's go section-by-section :) So first, there was a concern that better and/or third party sources would be needed for this sentence in the section on Heard's activism: "She has been named an American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) ambassador for women's rights with a focus on gender-based violence since December 2018". The current sources are this on ACLU's website (you need to scroll down a bit to get to Heard's profile), and this statement from Heard's IG to give the ambassador appointment a date. Admittedly, IG is probably not the best source, perhaps we can remove the time from this section altogether? And moreover, I would like to learn why there's a need for 3rd party sources, I was under the impression that ACLU's own declaration would be enough in this case? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * I am not saying that it is not true. What I am asking for is for third party coverage that it is a notable aspect for her to be an ambassador of an organisation she is reported to have given millions to. This might sound a bit weird after asking to go in sections, but if this has been established then we have to establish if is due in the lead. To me saying that Heard was given a title after giving millions to ACLU is hardly what she will be most known for in 10 years or even now. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh ok, now I get what you mean! That makes a lot more sense. It's a good point. I'd still say she's definitely noted for her activism, as in it gets mentioned in the articles about her, you could say it's part of her brand. The ACLU ambassadorship also definitely does get a lot of mentions when you Google her and ACLU. Some publicity that discusses her activism, found by googling Amber Heard + interview (given that she's not really A-list as an actor, it's actually fairly difficult to find articles that focus on her outside the Depp court cases):
 * CBS bio, talks about her activism, including the ACLU gig
 * this Hollywood Reporter article, note that her activism is already lifted to the title.
 * Refinery 29 on politics
 * Wonderland, mentions ACLU
 * Glamour: Amber Heard Is Fighting for Social Justice in Red Lipstick
 * As for the lede, let's discuss that in another section :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * I would be happy to use those sources in article the over the ACLU or Instagram ones. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Extramarital affair claims
Ok, as requested, second section. In the sentence "Following her divorce[disputed – discuss] from actor Johnny Depp, Heard dated tech entrepreneur Elon Musk for one year, until early 2018.", User:Emir of Wikipedia has added the "Disputed" tag. Previously, they had added "She denied that the relationship begun when she was still married to Depp, which would have been an affair, and has claimed to have taken place as per Depp's lawyers.  ." to the article. I don't think this is something that should go into the article, because:
 * It's hearsay from the Sun trial of this summer. Lots of claims were made, and the judge chose not to state anything about these affair claims as they had nothing to do with the actual subject of the trial. Depp did lose however and many of his witnesses were found not to be credible by the judge.
 * Given how contested this article is, the compromise has been to refrain from adding any specific claims, at least unless they have been ruled to be credible (i.e. in court). As said, many, many claims have been made in this case, if we start adding them, it's going to flood the article.
 * This is a BLP, which means we have to be extra careful with what material is added.
 * Furthermore it should be noted that both parties are currently engaged in defamation lawsuits against each other. One of Depp's US lawyers, Adam Waldman, has also been thrown off one of these cases by its judge because he leaked confidential material to the media (e.g. The Daily Mail) to basically engage in mudslinging. After a brief pause, he has continued his trial-by-media through Twitter and other outlets, and much of the claims about Heard in the media originate from him. My point here is, we have to be very careful not to get Wikipedia involved in this.

Emir, could you please share why you think this material should be added? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * It's another WP:BLPSOURCES problem. You could float a boat with all of the claims and counterclaims made by Depp and Heard, but they are unsuitable unless they have proper sourcing and verification.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I might have gone a bit far with the phrase and has claimed to have taken place as per Depp's lawyers, but I think her denial cant be excluded on the same grounds . We are not saying that it did happen, just that Heard denied it. I do think your point of it being too specific is a good one though. Feel free to take out the tag for the time being, and we'll see if me or anyone else can come up with an alternative. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Amber Heard's disposition of settlement fund from Johnny Depp
In the article, in the section on "Relationship with Johnny Depp," in the last sentence of the second paragraph, it says that, "Depp paid Heard a settlement of US$7 million, which she allegedly [citation needed] donated to the ACLU[88] and the Children's Hospital Los Angeles."

I wish to provide a source for that request for references for said claim. I don't know how to edit so I wanted to just share it here if someone can help with the article itself.

Thank you kindly. Cory

https://www.aclu.org/blog/womens-rights/violence-against-women/actress-amber-heard-donates-millions-support-aclu-and-its — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoryKent7 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , that citation was specifically referring to the allegations not the donation. As no source was provided I removed it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)