Talk:DARVO/Archive 1

White genocide conspiracy theory
Why is it included here? Can someone elaborate on why it follows the DARVO scheme? --132.180.69.85 (talk) 12:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I removed it, as it was recently added but without any explanation or source. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 12:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Kafka Trap
We don't need "alleged examples" under "Examples". That's the first sleight of hand, but there are more.

Especially those that have an obvious political agenda, especially when they are in response to what are often considered false allegations of their own. Daisy chaining allegations then baselessly choosing one allegation over another allegation is extreme bias.

One cannot, in good faith, frame defense against unproven allegations as alleged DARVO, that is highly biased nonsense. It provides an avenue for writing off all classical defense, aka "Guilty until Proven Innocent". May as well have a wiki page for how people are guilty upon accusation.

That is a sort of Kafka trap(When the denial of accusation being irrationally considered as evidence of guilt, not for any real reason other than guilt was pre-determined so all reactions amount to guilt in the minds of the judging party). As far as that goes, Kafka Trap, if it has a page, should certainly be in the "See also" section.

Ironically, it comes off as its own "Attack" stage of DARVO itself.

This is the kind of thing that makes wikipedia look utterly terrible.

It is not only clearly biased, it misinforms people(or possibly is disinformation), by clouding justified defense against false accusation as if it is just as bad and manipulative as DARVO.

The "sources" for Trump and Kavanaugh entries are glorified opinion pieces. Do wiki editors not understand the difference between a reliable source and the kangaroo court of political propaganda? That's rhetorical, of course people do, they do this sort of thing anyways.

These two people may be bad people, but they really shouldn't be shoe-horned in as examples of DARVO. No cases of mere accusation should be included. We can't rationally assume guilt with trial and evidence in complete absentia.

A different example that could be included: Jussie Smollett and other actually convicted criminals that bizarrely lash out meeting all the criteria of DARVO.

DARVO is pretty clearly defined. It should be easy to find examples of it, or to leave out the examples section entirely. 98.159.186.191 (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)


 * @98.159.186.191: The citations call out Trump's use of DARVO. No Wikipedia editor invented it. Each example in the section is cited to a source which ties a certain person’s behavior to DARVO, including the South Park instance. Grorp (talk) 00:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Allegations about allegations from opinion pieces aren't really proper citations. We're venturing into possible speculative fiction here.
 * For example, since you seem to not understand:
 * I hereby allege that you rape goats and minor children. Any denial you put up is DARVO, just like Trump.  The only way for it to not be DARVO is to admit you do these things.
 * Do you really not see the flaw in taking that as gospel?
 * "No Wikipedia editor invented it."
 * No, but wikipedia editors did put it on the page. It didn't just magically appear there.  My point is that these do not belong on the page.
 * "BuT ThErE Is A CiTaTiOn"
 * I can find "citations" for all sorts of things that are misleading, misinformation, disinformation, blatant lies, etc etc.
 * If that is really your only support of retaining these "alleged examples", you're part of what is wrong with wikipedia.
 * The page is supposed to be about DARVO, not unproven allegations/speculation about contemporary political figures(hell, a shorter list would be politicians that don't have things alleged about them).
 * I will try a totally different angle.
 * Read the very first sentence of the page again:
 * DARVO (an acronym for "deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender") is a reaction that perpetrators of wrongdoing, such as sexual offenders may display in response to being held accountable for their behavior.
 * perpetrators of wrongdoing
 * If all you have are allegations, that is not the same thing as being "perpetrators of wrongdoing". This is why I brought up the very important difference between being "alleged" and "guilty".
 * This is not rocket science. If you can't fathom the reasoning here, you probably shouldn't be an editor at all. 98.159.186.191 (talk) 03:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Grorp (talk) 04:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Nothing says "I have no counter argument, and I can't handle someone being correct!" better than running to Admin.
 * I guess we'll see if admin have any intellectual integrity. 98.159.186.191 (talk) 05:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

no evidence in source for trump example
there is no evidence in the source for the trump example AbleistSL (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The article is literally about Trump being an expert user of DARVO; so there is. Idell (talk) 08:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Does a single Boston Globe opinion piece rise to the level of NPOV? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.139.85.145 (talk) 14:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The Trump section needs to be removed. That article is not only incorrect, it's intentionally misrepresenting past incidents and details. Of specific note, Trump was correct in his claim of innocence on harassment allegations from Stormy Daniels (exonerated when she was |required to repay all his court costs for her frivolous lawsuits). He was also correct on his statement that the Clinton campaign paid for a fabricated intelligence "report" or "dossier" claiming numerous connections between his companies and entities in Russia. |The FEC just fined the Clinton campaign for paying for this dossier without disclosing. I'm removing this reference. The "article" sourced is a political hit piece, not an objective piece of journalism. Not only that, but the Goldwater rule in American politics makes it clear that diagnosing politicians with psychological problems is absolutely inappropriate in any setting. ClairelyClaire (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

It does seem a bit 'off' to cite the person who created the acronym as an authority on application of the acronym to someone else. A bit auto-incestuous. Almost original research. --142.163.195.221 (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This is the exact opposite of original research. She is Professor Emerit of Psychology at the University of Oregon and has published multiple, peer reviewed articles on the subject. Ifnord (talk) 01:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There is some confusion above, in the use of the term original research. What was meant by IP, was undoubtedly Wikipedia's sense of the term, namely, WP:Original research. However, the OR guideline applies not to valid, reliable sources, but to Wikipedia editors who make assertions based on their own understanding of a term, rather than what the reliable sources have to say about it. User:Ifnord uses the term in its common, English meaning, in which "original research" is highly to be desired in academia, and in fact is a requirement, for example, in the awarding of a Ph.D. With respect to the Boston Globe article, non-WP:INDEPENDENT is a bigger problem than NPOV, as Freyd is a co-author.
 * The issue of "Original research" is a red herring here. IP 142 attempted to identify a problem in this article, but misidentified it as WP:OR. The actual problem is the overuse of WP:PRIMARY and non-independent sources, that is to say, the article is about DARVO and the sources are either primary sources credited to the original articles about the term, or Freyd is involved as an author. The NYT site never mentions it; NAR seems to be a blog or website run by an individual; Harsey (2016) is a primary source; the rest are all by Freyd as author or co-author, except for the Chicago Tribune article which seems to be a fully independent and secondary source; there needs to be more like that one. Mathglot (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * A couple more sources that might be useful here: . I'll add them to the article. Generalrelative (talk) 22:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * An article that only quotes Freyd within a larger body of an edited piece of work (such as with the Guardian citation or the Stanford University citation) is a secondary source. Quoting Freyd in an editorial context does not turn a secondary source into a primary source.
 * Freyd's Boston Globe piece qualifies as a reputable publication, because it was published by a traditional news organisation, by a subject matter expert, and refers to peer-reviewed non-original research to justify claims made within her editorial piece.
 * There may be claims of conflict of interest e.g. if Freyd applied DARVO in an inappropriate context, but that is a WP:COISOURCE issue. It is not a WP:PRIMARY-source issue, nor an WP:OR issue.
 * I am concerned that the WP:PRIMARY template was abused in this article. It describes an issue that's more of a WP:COISOURCE issue, itself no longer relevant because of the additional citations.
 * This article does reference living people, so a higher citation standard does apply here (in particular WP:BLPSELFPUB). However, citation reliability issues are moot here, because all BLP cases have since been cited with reliable independent secondary sources. --Oshah (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Removing WP:PRIMARY banner
I am removing the WP:PRIMARY banner on this page, because I believe the banner no longer accurately describes the issue with the sources used by the article.

1. There are 13 sources used in this article.

2. There is no talk topic dedicated to discussing the issues with the sources used in this article. The template seems to be related to the Trump discussion above. However, I have concerns that the WP:PRIMARY source guideline was mistook for a WP:COISOURCE issue (for which no guideline exists).

3. My assessment of the 13 sources indicates that only 5 of them can be considered "primary" (hardly what I call excessive). More importantly, all of those citations are used in allowed WP:PRIMARY contexts (two of them are used to verify simple facts, and the others are used to bolster claims made by reliable secondary sources).

4. Because none of the WP:PRIMARY sources are inappropriately used, and are bolstered with secondary sources, I no longer of the opinion that this article relies too excessively on primary sources.

Here is my assessment of the 13 sources used in this article.

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. This is a review article appearing in a peer-reviewed journal. However, Freyd may have an conflict of interest with the topic. Secondary source, from a subject matter expert, with a potential conflict of interest, not used to justify a WP:BLP claim, no WP:OR This is a peer-reviewed research article, where Freyd is listed as a co-author. Reliable Secondary source, authored by a subject matter expert, with a potential conflict of interest, not used to justify a WP:BLP claim This is a self published blog article, written by an independent author. Freyd is only referenced through a citation. Non-reliable self published primary source. Only used to back up an earlier claim, no WP:BLP context. Feminism & psychology was where Freyd first published the term "darvo". This citation credits Freyd as the originator of that term. Reputably published primary source, from a subject matter expert, with a potential conflict of interest, used to verify a simple fact CBC is a traditional news organisation, with a full editorial review board. Freyd is only quoted in an editorial context. Reliable independent secondary source, used to back up a WP:BLP claim. Chicago Tribune is a traditional news organisation, with a full editorial review board. Freyd is only quoted in an editorial context. Reliable independent secondary source, used to back up a WP:BLP claim Boston Globe is a traditional news media organisation, with a full editorial board. However, Freyd is listed as a coauthor of this piece. Reliable secondary source, albeit published by a subject matter expert. May constitute a WP:SELFPUB violation, but only if not confirmed with other reliable sources. This Freyd's personal site, published by University of Oregon. Reputably published primary source, from a subject matter expert with a potential conflict of interest. May constitute a WP:SELFPUB violation if not confirmed by other independent sources Clayman institute is university faculty. Freyd is only used in citations. Reputably published primary source, with only partial conflict of interest concern. Used to justify a WP:BLP claim. Additional reliable independent source may be required to allay any WP:SELFPUB concerns Salon is an online magazine publication, with a full editorial process. The sources quoted are subject matter experts and have no conflict of interest issues. Reliable independent secondary source, with no WP:SELFPUB issues. Used to justify a WP:BLP claim International public history is a peer revieweed journal. The article is by an author with no conflict of interest issues. Reliable independent secondary source, used to justify a non-WP:BLP claim. Note, DARVO is not mentioned in the article This is a primary source. However, it is used in an appropriate context, used to verify a simple fact in a popular culture section. Not used to verify a WP:BLP claim.

--Oshah (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I support the motion to remove the Template:Primary sources. Grorp (talk) 05:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

The banner is now removed. Probably didn't need to wait a week to make this change (we're removing a banner, not nominating a "Good article"). Although, the original editor(s) involved never responded, they have been active elsewhere on the site, so I guess they have no opinion on this matter.

There is always the option to put back the banner if anyone thinks this article still (or once again) relies excessively on primary sources. -- Oshah (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)]

Depp-Heard
I removed the sentence mentioning Depp-Heard 2022, whose only sources are articles written post-trial by apparent Heard supporters. These articles clearly accuse Depp of being a physical and sexual abuser who utilised the DARVO technique against his "victim". This is a problematic addition.

The jury ultimately found Heard's claims of physical and sexual abuse to be uncredible, and made with an intention to harm Depp's reputation and career. The court heard audio recordings where Heard admitted to physically abusing Depp, and also where she taunted Depp saying nobody would believe she'd abused him. As such, the conduct of Depp's legal team is not an example of DARVO; Heard is in the court record admitting to being a domestic abuser, with Depp the victim. This situation actually looks like DARVO - but with Heard the abuser. The court's verdict would support this perspective, but I've yet to see any reputable sources put forward this claim.

As such, please do not re-add a mention to Depp-Heard unless you can provide sources which do not:

1) Falsely label Depp a domestic and sexual abuser.

2) Falsely label Heard a victim of domestic and sexual abuse at the hands of Depp.

3) Ignore how Heard admitted she had physically abused Depp and taunted him saying nobody would believe him.

4) Ignore Heard's previous arrest for domestic violence against a now-former girlfriend. Kronix1986 (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * By what criterion would yours not be an unsourced OR, in short an encyclopedically irrelevant personal opinion? --82.84.18.254 (talk) 04:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * > 1) Falsely label Depp a domestic and sexual abuser.
 * > 2) Falsely label Heard a victim of domestic and sexual abuse at the hands of Depp.
 * I get that you have strong opinions about this, but these are not actually false labels, depending on where you are. These allegations were considered substantially true by a UK court. So it's basically a matter of opinion whether the UK (non-jury) trial process was flawed, or the US (jury) trial was. 37.4.251.165 (talk) 09:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Heard was not a party in the UK trial, only the journal The Sun and Depp were, hence the considerations that Depp could be labelled a domestic violence perpetrator was a germaine issue only partially investigated to resolve the main issue whether The Sun's publication was defamation or free speech. To put it simply, the UK trial had to answer the question of whether The Sun had enough credible information to publish their story in honesty (ie, not whether the story was true, but whether The Sun could genuinely believe it was true), whereas the US trial investigated whether the parties (the authors) themselves defamed the other one (ie, whether the statements were actually true). In any case, the main issue here that should concern us is that opinion pieces are not usually considered reliable sources, especially when they state claims that are totally counter to court proceedings which have a higher reliability weight, but even then an analysis published by lawyers in a reputable expert journal or magazine (ie, specialized in law) would be preferable. --2001:861:5100:5C60:E385:DE8D:9AC1:1D9F (talk) 00:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This is incorrect. The opening statements by both parties in that trial recognise that it was about proving whether Depp assaulted Heard and the Sun proved he did 12 times, including 1 sexual assault. Whether or not Heard was a party to the suit is immaterial--it was brought over the label "wifebeater" and she was the wife he was proven to have beaten. 96.58.9.61 (talk) 13:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This is incorrect. The judge in the UK did not agree on the sexual assault. Furthermore, it was absolutely about whether or not The Sun believed it to be true at the time of writing the article. Evidence submitted in the UK wasnt tested for authenticity. The US was tested. Heard wasnt a part of the UK trial. 2600:1008:B08D:9B37:54EC:E29F:AF31:6530 (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a total misrepresentation of the UK trial and judgment. The claims by The Sun had to be considered at a Chase level 2, meaning that the defence could not build their case on the idea that what they wrote was something they merely believed or suspected to be true. The only way The Sun could win the case was by proving the claims to be true. This was clearly stated in the judgment which can be read in full online (§38-44, §77-81).
 * In the same judgment, no less than 14 pages were devoted to the assessment of Heard's credibility. The claimant was allowed to bring forward any evidence that would challenge it, which were all taken into careful consideration (§109-186).
 * Futhermore, for every alleged incident there had to be enough witness statements and corroborating evidence in order to meet the standard of proof. For 12 out of 14 incidents, there was. If all evidence was accepted without verification as you claim, it would follow that all 14 incidents would have been accepted.
 * I suggest reading the full judgment to get a proper understanding of the meaning of this case. 2A02:A459:4D53:1:7006:8243:FFE3:7DF3 (talk) 19:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I stronlgy disagree with the reasons for exclusion of the Depp v Heard trial as an example of DARVO. Depp winning a defamation case is not evidence to the contrary. Perpetrators can win lawsuits against their victims, precisely because they use DARVO.
 * What matters in this case is that there are many experts in the field of domestic violence that have said that Depp is guilty of using DARVO tactics. Among them Dr Jennifer Freyd, the person who invented the term DARVO! Even if you don't agree with it, how is that not something worth mentioning? 2A02:A459:4D53:1:7006:8243:FFE3:7DF3 (talk) 19:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This is mostly all correct, but it was Chase Level 1, not Chase Level 2. “At Chase Level 1, the claimant is seen as being guilty or liable for the alleged act. This is the most severe level, as the claimant is viewed as having committed the act with certainty.” Source 2600:1700:8460:BCE0:A8AF:4F73:4FE6:EA71 (talk) 21:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hahaha.. I’m sorry.. you clearly have no idea how any of this works… the S*n only had to prove that it may have happened.. and there is the ‘victim’ saying it did, so it’s fit to print… and in Virginia they had to prove he abused her.. and it fell so comically flat… bruises don’t heal enough to walk a red carpet or do live tv after 24 hours, audio clearly shows she is the abuser, and of course the jury knew the world didn’t believe amber… Elaine and amber told them every 5 minutes…  but hold on to your fan fiction.. 122.111.120.206 (talk) 01:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * YOU clearly have no idea how any of this works. Read the judgment and educate yourself about UK law. The judgment says unambiguously that Depp abused Heard. Not that the Sun "believed" he did. Not that Amber "claimed" he did. All of the claims were scrutinised in detail.
 * And please, you don't get to start an argument by cherry-picking moments from the trial. There are mountains of evidence and a very well-documented timeline of facts. There is also a lot of evidence that was left out or decontextualised in the VA trial.
 * But NONE of this should even really matter for the inclusion of this case in the article. The fact is that people, experts of DV, experts of DARVO, have named Depp as an example. That is a fact worth documenting. 2A02:A459:4D53:1:F991:2731:A8E5:F360 (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't have a personal opinion and haven't looked into the issue thoroughly, but at the trial article, specifically at Depp v. Heard, there are multiple references supporting claims that DARVO was involved. Surprisingly, I don't see discussion explicitly about this specific question on the case talk page, though I just did a brief scan. --BDD (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * This incorrect statement still appears on this page as an example of DARVO: "The behavior of Johnny Depp after his ex-wife Amber Heard published an op-ed mentioning the consequences of speaking up against domestic abuse." This opinion should be removed, as it is an opinion and not a fact, and is overly biased to the point that it does not teach people about the subject this page is supposed to be on. Labeling people as perpetrators of DARVO also does not seem appropriate for a wikipedia page, as this is a topic where the victim is just as likely to be labeled as the abuser. If the victim is incorrectly labeled here instead of the abuser, it can further be used as a way to abuse the victim and makes wikipedia a less reliable source.
 * An entire jury of her peers in the US unanimously found her to be maliciously lying about being a victim of DV and SV, and the UK trial should not be treated as a more reliable source when she wasn't a party to it. This is also not a clear example of DARVO, as only Johnny Depp has hospitalization records showing that he experienced abuse. All of the hospitalization records Amber Heard claims to have are mental health records and were self reported and never confirmed by a medical doctor. Also, he started making these statements in 2015 when he cut his finger and told Dr. Kipper that Amber Heard did it, and not after she published the op-ed as this statement implies. This is proven in audio recordings between Dr. Kipper and one of his nurses.
 * Please remove this overly-biased opinion as it does not belong on wikipedia. 172.58.43.255 (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The only one who is biased there is you. Depp admited that he cut his own finger on tape and text message. Most of victims dont have medical record but Depp admited beating and abusing her on tape. Amber Heard never admited abusing Johnny Depp on tape she admited hiting him after he slammed a door on her toes. The Uk jugement concluded that Depp abused Amber Heard at 12 incidents, none of the defamatory statement at the Uk trial was « i was abused by Johnny Depp phsyically and sexually » in fact the accusation of sexual violence wasnt public by the time the OP was published. A juror said on interview post trial that most of them believed they abused each other. Finnaly lot of experts in DV believe Amber Heard and even the creator of Darvo said that Depp used that tactic 90.125.81.160 (talk) 12:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I am confused as to what could be a better example of DARVO, since Jennifer Freyd, the person who literally coined the term, recognized it in the Depp V Heard case. 2600:1700:8460:BCE0:A8AF:4F73:4FE6:EA71 (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

The presence of the line about Depp is a gigantic violation of WP:NPOV and means the article is essentially defamation. He successfully won a court case which sought to disprove exactly what this article is now alleging, in the country they are both originally from, and not in a foreign country where she was not even directly part of the trial. Remove it immediately as this is both disgusting and extremely against what Wikipedia should be for. 83.85.201.57 (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Also, two of the "sources" cited are BBC and The Guardian, which are both widely associated with bigotry such as transphobia, and using them as a "reliable source" in any gender-related matters is absolutely ridiculous, comparable to citing Fox News in an article about American politics. 83.85.201.57 (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I deleted the line. The jury found that Amber Heard did not commit acts of abuse against Johnny Depp. No journalist's differing opinion matters after that. Tocharianne (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support your deletion because of BLP considerations. Just to be perfectly clear: although I support your conclusion, your rationale is utterly false: there is no Wikipedia guideline or policy elevating the finding of a U.S. jury above the accounts written by journalists and published in reliable sources. Any such published account which adheres to policy and duly represents the general opinion of reliable sources without running afoul of other policies (such as WP:BLP) most certainly may be included in the article, regardless what any jury declares. Mathglot (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The jury didn't rule on whether Heard abused Depp. The jury used Heard's own admissions of her abusing Depp as evidence, and came to the conclusion she was probably also lying about Depp beating and raping her. Heard cannot, by definition, be a victim of DARVO; she admitted she had physically abused Depp. Kronix1986 (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I shouldn't have added my opinion; that just confused the situation. My main point was just to delete the line entirely. There are a lot of strong opinions on the Depp/Heard case, and I think this has the potential to turn into an edit war about adding/deleting the line, or claiming one party to be the victim versus the other. Since the particular Depp/Heard example isn't crucial to the DARVO article, it should just be deleted from here. The place to discuss the case is on the Depp/Heard page. Tocharianne (talk) 19:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The person who coined the term DARVO recognizes Depp’s actions as a textbook example of DARVO. Not sure why this is even being debated. 2600:1700:8460:BCE0:A8AF:4F73:4FE6:EA71 (talk) 21:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Johnny Depp is a good example of a person who used DARVO against his victim, and his example should remain as unbiased information on Wikipedia. In fact, most of the DARVO conversation right now and recently is about Johnny Depp, so it would make the most sense to include him. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 02:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Libel under examples
Given that DARVO requires a crime with an offender and a victim, the examples insinuate that the people in question committed a crime. In a democratic society people are presumed innocent unless proven guilty. Since neither Donald Trump nor Brett Kavanaugh have been proven guilty of the allegations, they are not offenders and there is no crime, both essential for DARVO to be DARVO. In addition since these claims are unproven they are libelous in their current form. For these reasons these two items need to be removed or rewritten to remove insinuations of guilt. Schubert2845 (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * "Crime" is not part of the description. Here's an example of DARVO that doesn't involve a crime: John, a child, hits his brother David in the arm. Someone calls for mother. David says "John hit me." John says "No I didn't." David says, "Look at this bruise on my arm." John says "You got that playing ball." John starts to cry and says "David hit me. He always does that. You always take his side." David (the original victim) gets punished. Grorp (talk) 03:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That's semantics. Swap the word "crime" in my OP with "alleged incident". The incident has to have actually occurred for DARVO to be valid. You cannot reverse victim and offender, if there is no victim or offender. As it stands my point is valid, as long as the alleged incidents (which in these cases, would be crimes) in the examples are unsubstantiated they're just libel. Schubert2845 (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Y'all, none of this is relevant. Wikipedia follows reliable source according to due weight and does not publish original analysis. If we follow these policies and guidelines, we are in no way guilty of libel, which is a matter we take very seriously (see e.g. WP:BLP but also WP:CRYBLP). Generalrelative (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Examples
Is it fair to expect that the items in §Examples include citations that explicitly characterize the examples as DARVO-related? For instance, one of the entries is about the Iğdır Memorial, and it cites a reliable source which supports the content. But, as Oshah noted above, the source does not talk about DARVO at all. I would favor removing that item, along with any others whose relevance isn't explicitly supported by a source. Any thoughts? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Pinging, who recently re-added the Iğdır example. To be fair to them, the reason for removal was pretty denialist. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, I hadn't seen that discussion. Thanks, FFF, for the ping. As I stated in my edit summary, my revert was based on the IP's rationale being incorrect. In light of the fact that that the term doesn't appear in the article, I support removing the example. It's a clear case of OR. And if we don't enough well sourced "alleged examples" for a section, I'd say cut the section. Generalrelative (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't see any reason why the term "DARVO" must exist in the source in order for it to appear on this page as an example. As long as you have all the elements — deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender — then it is a valid example. I have added a quotation excerpt from the source re Iğdır that shows all of the elements. (diff) In my opinion, this is exactly the kind of example that should be included in the article. Grorp (talk) 03:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm, while the quote does show that all the elements are present in this case (and thanks for providing that, btw!) it still looks to me like original analysis to add them up and call this an "alleged example" of the DARVO tactic. I'm going to remove the example for now, but if someone can provide a reliable source that uses the term "DARVO" explicitly in conjunction with denial of the Armenian genocide, I'll be happy to see the material reinstated. Generalrelative (talk) 21:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Reminder: NOTFORUM and NOR
I put a banner at the top of this page to remind everyone of the Wikipedia policies of WP:NOTFORUM and WP:No original research, and to try to reduce future social argumentation that has plagued this talk page. Grorp (talk) 01:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC)