Talk:DARVO

Depp v. Heard as an example of DARVO
I've read the prior discussions on this talk page re: removing Depp v. Heard (2022) as an example of a real-world application of DARVO. I respectfully disagree.

Several scholars, including the person who coined the term DARVO, have agreed that it is a textbook example of DARVO. I also don't agree that treating the Virginia case verdict as  'the final word'  is the right move here; treating the US jury verdict as  'the final word' requires ignoring the diametrically opposed verdict and evidence in the UK two years prior, which found the complete opposite (that 12 allegations of abuse perpetrated against Amber Heard by Johnny Depp were "substantially true") after several weeks of testimony and a months-long review of evidence. This decision was also upheld on appeal by two separate justices in the UK.

Some of these are opinion pieces and should not be used as citations, and some take concrete sides and some do not, but they are all legitimate discussions of DARVO circling around this case. One of these is even a journal article, and a few were written before the Virginia verdict, so it's weird to insinuate that the discussion of DARVO around this case only started as a reaction to last year's verdict.


 * 1) https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15299732.2022.2111510
 * 2) https://www.brethertons.co.uk/site/blog/depp-vs-heard-what-is-darvo
 * 3) https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-johnny-depp-amber-heard-trial-is-not-as-complicated-as-you-may-think
 * 4) https://www.pajiba.com/celebrities_are_better_than_you/johnny-depps-case-against-amber-heard-was-textbook-darvo.php
 * 5) https://dynamic.uoregon.edu/jjf/defineDARVO.html

(I also disagree with the notion that The Guardian cannot be used as a citation for a topic like this. While I personally strongly disagree with their stances on a lot of issues, including the trans/LGBTQ+ community, they are very frequently used as acceptable sources all over Wikipedia, and it would be strange and inappropriate to omit their coverage ONLY in Depp v. Heard. Look at any article about any British topic, and Guardian articles are all over the References section. I wholeheartedly agree with Grorp's analysis of it, that "Guardian is a traditional news organisation, with a full editorial review board. Freyd is only referenced in an editorial quote Reliable independent secondary source, not used to back up a WP:BLP claim.")

If the preexisting examples of DARVO in the article are appropriate, then this one certainly should be as well, especially given the UK verdict. It would not be libelous at all to write that the Depp v. Heard case has been cited by several analysts as an example of DARVO.

I'm not going to add it back to the article because I don't want to get into or spark an editing dispute, or invite even more harassment from familiar users who I have disagreed with in the past... but I do think it should be added back as an example – if, for no other reason, it would be due to the amount of DARVO-related discussion generated by the trial in 2022. Afddiary (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Amber Heard is an example of someone that used DARVO. The fact that a lot of media sided with her doesn't change that fact. 109.231.24.232 (talk) 09:06, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Afddiary Why was it removed? Having it in this article is probably better than the example of Donald Trump, which may act as a political POV issue. — Panamitsu (talk) 09:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Article bias? It describes anyone using DARVO tactics as a predator.
The article currently describes anyone using DARVO tactics as a predator. But if falsely accused, it is often natural for someone to deny the accusation (first prong), and possibly in the heat of denial, attack the source (second prong). Of course if one is falsely accused, that person is going to claim that they are the victim and that their false accuser is attacking them (which is the third prong of DARVO).

The article never discusses situations in which DARVO tactics are used by people who are innocent -- only situations in which they are used by people who are "perpetrators", "sexual offenders", or "psychological abusers". All three of those terms occur in the lede paragraph, while no descriptions of DARVO use by innocent parties are anywhere in the article.

This leads me to believe that the article is biased. The term need not be biased, when discussing a tactic for dealing with a dispute, but Wikipedia's coverage of it so far is one-sided.

Several of the cited sources about Depp v. Heard say things like, "Experts Can't Agree on Who's the True DARVO Victim in Depp v. Heard" (Newsweek headline) and includes "Depp and heard both claim to have been abused by the other and subsequently painted as the abuser. So is this an example of DARVO in action, and who is doing the DARVO-ing here? Who is the victim and who is the abuser?" Even that minimal level of subtlety is not reflected in the Wikipedia article. (A higher level of subtlety would occur by citing situations where it was ultimately concluded that the originally accused person was completely innocent, rather than one in which both were abusive.) Gnuish (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The article would only be considered biassed if it does not accurately represent coverage of this topic. Do you have any sources which have represent a different view? —Panamitsu (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Contentious example removed
I agree with 's removal of a highly contentious example added just previously. This article can already get people's hackles up as it is, without getting anywhere near dragging the Israel–Palestine conflict into it, especially when the claim is thinly supported. Unless backed by a mountain of reliable sources, I'd say that example belongs in the "tiny minority" territory defined by WP:DUEWEIGHT, which means it cannot appear in the article at all. (Note that I have no dog in this race: I argued for the opposite result, i.e., keeping well-sourced examples in the article in the previous bold-edit/revert cycle just before that.) If consensus comes out in favor of keeping the content Panamitsu removed (gawd, I hope not), then get ready for this article to have a Discretionary sanctions template slapped on it with warnings and reversion and WP:ECF editing restrictions added. Do we want that? No, but more importantly, the majority of sources don't justify its inclusion. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)


 * For the examples I've just removed the salon.com source due to WP:SALON.COM. I realise that these are just the opinions of journalists as mentioned by a preceding sentence, but I think we should strive to have more neutral sources as we aren't giving attributions. There are three sources left so I don't think it is much of an issue. —Panamitsu (talk) 02:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Examples section
I've been seeing the addition/removal of the examples section so I think we should discuss it instead of just going back and forwards.

The examples section is listed as. I think it is a dangerous way to list them without attribution as journalists can say whatever they want, it doesn't mean it is true. This functions as a weasel and violates our BLP standards.

I've noticed that a few of these appear to be politicised, such as having Bill Clinton and Donald Trump. We'd have to be careful that the examples section does not become a dumping ground to push ideology, which is quite easy in its current weasel state.

Further, I personally do not believe that these examples add much. If the article explains DARVO, we don't really need examples to help explain it as this topic is very easy to understand. —Panamitsu (talk) 01:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)