Talk:Depp v. Heard/Archive 4

Social Media
A commentary on social media response section is kinda redundant as on an encylopedia and the general significance of these op-eds is low so it should be removed. Originalcola (talk) 03:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The "Commentary on social media response" subsection is indeed redundant, but that is only a problem of organization as certain editors have repeatedly split the "Social media" section under numerous different convoluted names (e.g., "Potential misleading information", "Commentary on social media response," and "Reactions to social media content"). One must assume they were acting in good faith, but it is noteworthy that in each case the editor objected to specific content before moving that same content to a subsection which reflected his personal view that the content was merely hypothetical or "potential" or consisting of "commentary" (as opposed to the rest of the article, which is apparently strictly factual, considering that no other section is similarly labelled). It seems almost axiomatic that the "Social media" section of an article documenting one of the most viral social media topics in contemporary American society would obviously include "Commentary on social media response" or "Reactions to social media content"; however, this illogical and wholly unnecessary split has now created a pretext for selective deletion of noteworthy content. As a solution, I support merging the subsection back into the main section, rather than rewarding this behavior.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Originalcola, spot on. It's all pretty peripheral to the case. Jurors took oaths, instructions and orders;  one juror stated that they followed their oaths... and Judge Azcarate referenced "evidence ... [that] all jurors followed their oaths, the court's instructions and orders" (from what I remember from my two times on jury service in the UK jurors are questioned relevantly about any relevant matters.  In the case where there were worries that we might be targeted for juror influence, we were all provided with 24 hour police support.  I don't know if this was reported on in the news because, following my oath, I didn't look). The social media content is largely peripheral to the Depp v. Heard trial.  edit GregKaye 15:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * TheTimesAreAChanging The content on social media correctly presents facts first with opinion and commentary to follow.  A subsection (it might be thought) might aid readers to navigate to the "Commentary on social media response" content.  It would otherwise be buried beneath the 560+ words relating directly to "Social media".  However, if editors want to remove what I might have thought would have been an otherwise helpful navigation, fine by me.  (Also, please, if in any circumstance you want to make reference to me, please ping me.  Thank-you). GregKaye 06:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * it's been a while since the trial now and the notability of the commmentators can now clearly be revealed as low Originalcola (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Definitely agree with . The notability of social media coverage of the trial and subsequent analysis is absolutely crystal clear as most RS have dedicated specific articles on the topic. I made an edit that makes it clear why the topic is notable: several experts believe that social media was an influence on the final verdict by the (non sequestered) jury.
 * Some of the sources:
 * - Did Social Media Sway the Johnny Depp Jury? VICE
 * - How social media could influence other cases after Depp, Heard trial TODAY
 * - Amber Heard says social media was a factor for her defamation trial jury NPR
 * - Depp-Heard trial: Advocates fear chilling effect on accusers ABC
 * - Juror in Johnny Depp Trial Says Amber Heard's Testimony 'Didn't Add Up', Jury Believed She Was 'the Aggressor". Rolling Stone. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 17:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Gtoffoletto you turned a speculation in which "Legal commentators ... believe that the social media coverage may have had an influence on the final verdict into an intitle assertion of "Effect on the jury". Please remember that the jury members also come under BLP.  Please stick to MOS:INSTRUCT we "Simply present sourced facts with neutrality and allow readers to draw their own conclusions."  Please don't remove citations.
 * your chosen sources present:
 * - Did ...?
 * - ... could ...
 * - ... says ... and,
 * - referencing "Some advocates ...", fear ... (and surely none of them could have a ~conflict of interest).
 * Judge Azcarate, who presumably understands her court's procedures, came in and referenced "evidence ... [that] all jurors followed their oaths, the court's instructions and orders" GregKaye 19:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you have read accurately MOS:INSTRUCT. Why do you think it is relevant here? I agree with your edit adding "possible" to the heading. Thanks for fixing it. Not sure what you mean by conflict of interest and whatever the involved Judge says isn't very relevant... those are independent commentators evaluating her work. I've only removed a broken citation and a poor citation that was redundant. Let's try to keep only the best sourcing per WP:BLPSOURCES. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 20:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You seem crystal clear on mos:instruct in your agreement to the addition of "possible" to the heading. Optional ways we could go with the content could be to present issues related to the (BLP) juror before presenting criticisms relating to their involvements or to present the person and the criticisms separately as is currently done. Another way of doing things would be to present the person in line with other related content such as the judges comments.  Your "leading" editing is in need of being addressed. Deadline is recognised WP:RS and the article gave good coverage of the subject which presented the views of the juror well.  I'd go further and add the original source article which could better do the topic justice.  GregKaye 21:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The juror's comments are not WP:DUE for the lede summary, but, if we are going to include a section documenting social media's possible impact on the jury, then we are obligated to include the juror's response in the interest of balance. WP:MANDY is an essay, not a policy, and it does not trump WP:NPOV. With that said, the length of the "Comments by juror" section is somewhat excessive in my view. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * A jury trial, or trial by jury [according to that topic's Wikipedia article], is a lawful proceeding in which a jury makes a decision or findings of fact. Our topic is a jury trial. Our job is to present fair and balanced information to that topic. If we are to also present potentially less relevant and peripheral information on media (something that the judge and a jury member indicated was of little relevance to the decision making of the trial) in the article then we must certainly present balancing information in the article related to the jury. If we are to touch specifically on information on media in the lead then we should also present balanced lead reference to the jury per WP:DUE.  Reference to statements from the chief judge Azcarate might similarly be used to achieve balance. Following Starship.paint's recent edits, the comments by juror section looks like this. GregKaye 17:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The juror stuff can be further improved, but I don’t have time to do it yet. Luckily there is no rush, and I am looking to improve it more in the future. The juror basically explained the verdict (according to their own view, of course), and as of now there is no better source for that. We have ample reliable source coverage of the juror’s comments. I don’t see why we shouldn’t include the juror’s comments.  starship .paint  (exalt) 15:13, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with . The fact that the juror "went public" is probably notable here. But it should be given appropriate WP:WEIGHT. And that is not a lot as WP:MANDY (an essay but a meaningful one) obviously applies here. The mainstream view by RS (supported by various experts as reported in the article) is that social media coverage and the whole circus around the trial was an influence on this case. I don't think anyone is trying to argue that it wasn't (except the juror himself and Depp's defence). Also it should be treated as WP:PRIMARY as those are not comments from an independent source. We should always prefer independent and reliable analysis. Please don't remove such sources from the article. I would trim down the juror comments and include them in the "Potential effect on jury" section or in the "verdict" section. Definitely not in the lead or a standalone section. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 09:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Gtoffoletto, even Mandy Rice-Davies was notable. Please also note thet the essay on Mandy only goes as far as to speak of "Editors [being] tempted to close these sections with self-sourced denials".  The related, small proportion of #Comments by juror section relates to a personally referenced statement for the group that "Social media did not impact us".  It's hardly a "he would, wouldn't he" type reference.  The section is also very far from closing with it.  MRD does not apply.  It far from justifies your repeated attempts at complete removal of content.  There is no argument of soapbox, there's no self-promotion or advertising.   There's a juror being given direct reference within an article on a jury trial, the kind of thing that happens naturally in other Wikipedia articles on jury trials where jury members have had their comments published.  I don't see how primary relates to these significantly noted comments, yet there's a lot of other less noted content currently in the article to which WP:PRIMARY might more immediately apply.   GregKaye 15:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Reputable sources (such as the ones that were removed from the article for no reason ) believe the jury was influenced. Can you find credible RS that believe the jury was not influenced? The juror certainly thinks he wasn't influenced... and "Well, he would, wouldn't he?"  &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 17:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "The only evidence before this court is that this juror and all jurors followed their oaths, the court’s instructions and orders." as per: Chief Judge Azcarate, in comments that (unlike much content in the burgeoning #Social media and #Other reactions sections) have been widely quoted. It certainly looks like they believed that. My view was of comment that I considered "hasn't aged well".  We are debating similarly on your talk page matters following your raising of the same historic matters. Your argument here again brings current misrepresentation of Mandy.  The "he" she refers to is Lord Astor not herself.  Your argument is that we "trim down the juror comments" (presumably keeping the "Social media did not impact us" comment but cutting back from the majority of the comments made and referenced).  This misapplies an essay content to push for far reaching change in page content.  GregKaye 05:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Greg I don't think you have understood the point of WP:MANDY. The fact that the judge and the jurors (who are directly responsible for the verdict) are denying that they were influenced is irrelevant if every other independent observer thinks that they were. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 12:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Gio, a great proportion of independent observers simply made reference to the jury trial as dealing with allegations of defamation between Depp and Heard and spoke about the case. You're stretching things.  GregKaye 19:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The comments already in the article are very clear. If we don't have any other source reputably saying that the circus around the trial wasn't a huge factor then I guess we can consider this matter as settled. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 20:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The comments progressively added to the now burgeoning #Social media coverage sections are fairly irrelevant to the Depp v. Heard trial which fits in with the view of the judge and perhaps also to the majority who didn't make it an issue. Much of the extensive content in the #Other reactions is also arguably tangential to the main article topic. GregKaye 08:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant according to who? The ample coverage by WP:RS seems to indicate otherwise. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 16:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Late response but my main issue was with the fact that it could easily be included in a different section and shortened. The op-eds chosen weren't exactly the most representative or popular opinions, I think one of them was from a local arizonian news outlet. Originalcola (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I completely agree that the sections should be remerged Originalcola (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm persuaded and support. It's not the only titling that can be streamlined.  GregKaye 14:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Removal of people who support Depp and Heard
Uh, why? I don’t see the purpose of removing mention of that. Aardwolf68 (talk) 04:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Removal of people who support Depp and Heard
Uh, why? I don’t see the purpose of removing mention of that. Aardwolf68 (talk) 04:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Removal of people who support Depp and Heard
Uh, why? I don’t see the purpose of removing mention of that. Aardwolf68 (talk) 04:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Use of the temporary title of the Sun's online article which mentions "Wife Beater"
can you explain this big indiscriminate revert?

The edits are pretty well supported by WP:RS fix a broken reference and is in total alignment with discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Depp_v._Heard/Archive_1#%22Wife_Beater%22? to which you replied absolutely agree &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 16:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC)


 * p.s. you have also purpousefully reintroduced just one of the notices I added to the page. You removed the WP:BLPPRIMARY notice. Why? &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 16:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Certainly, but most of this is explained in the edit summary. You produced a series of edits. Your wife beater addition was reverted by  with comment: "Seriously? Defamation 2.0" which, against WP:BRD, you again added. I then, with reason, rolled back your various unilateral edits.
 * In the wife beater talk page discussion, policy reasons, including a ref to BLP, were presented for exclusion. Another editor still thought the reference to the label was ok but I agreed with that editor that the full title should not be used.
 * WP:BLP says "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively" and that "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist". Remarkably, even The Sun found “wife beater” either to be non representative of the significantly time spaced alleged incidents, either that or it was  too sensationalist even for The Sun.
 * It also fails WP:DUE on the basis that searches on Depp "News Group Newspapers" and Depp "The Sun" give few visible reference to "wife beater". Moreover, through good work on by myself and Hurricane Higgins, the sequence of events presented in the lead has been placed into chronological order.  Sensationalist reference from a different trial is an inappropriate introduction to the legalities of Depp v. Heard.
 * The article's lead used to present a full text: "Depp and Heard married in February 2015. Heard filed for divorce on May 23, 2016. Four days later, she filed and was granted a temporary restraining order against Depp, alleging that she had been physically abused by him."  The current text presents: "In May 2016, at an early stage in their divorce process, Heard claimed that Depp had abused her physically, which he denied." which presents a rounded presentation of the situation.  According to the Wikipedia article on the topic, "Divorce (also known as dissolution of marriage) is the process of terminating a marriage or marital union."  Heard made her allegations at an early stage of this process. The current discussion immediately above relates to the editing back of content.  Editors are free to seek consensus on issues related to changing the article in talk page discussion.
 * I still think that some form of additional Sun reference would be appropriate. We previously gave direct reference to the article itself with reference to all titling used.  Perhaps an informative use of footnotes could work.   GregKaye 18:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Have you read the discussion? You are attempting to misrepresent it spectacularly. The other editor said: I think mentioning original title is fine. Can probably leave full title out of lead and just mention it in Background section which is exactly what my edit did. Reputable sources all report the original title and all mention wife beater as the reason for the trial. Your crusade against the use of the term is a WP:POVPUSH
 * - "Johnny Depp loses libel case over Sun 'wife beater' claim" BBC
 * - "UK court rejects Depp bid to appeal ‘wife beater’ ruling" AP news
 * - "Johnny Depp speaks of Hollywood 'boycott' after losing 'wife beater' libel trial against The Sun newspaper" SKY news
 * - "Johnny Depp and Amber Heard's testimony in 'wife beater' libel trial" Reuters
 * - The list goes on (of course)...
 * Reuters, AP News, the BBC... that's the gold standard. So the use of "wife beater" is not "too sensationalist" at all. Also it is definitely not "sensationalist" to report the title of the article in question as published in the body of the article. It would be extremely odd to change it actually.
 * Also: your "technique" of basing your WP:DUE considerations on raw Google Search Results is not how Due works. Only viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources are relevant. Not the general results in Google Search (which is often full of bullshit).
 * Finally your comments regarding the definition of a divorce are misleadingly pedantic. Depp and Heard started dating in early 2012, after meeting on the set of The Rum Diary a few years earlier. By 2015, they were married. But just 15 months after they made it official, it was over. Heard filed for a divorce and a restraining order, appearing in a Los Angeles court with a bruised cheek. is what the BBC states. Totally in line with the proposed text. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 19:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You keep WP:Cherrypicking away. Searches on Depp "News Group Newspapers" and Depp "The Sun" give few visible reference to "wife beater". It's easy to check the publishers and see which articles are from RS.   GregKaye 20:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As I've already pointed out several times... WP:DUE states explicitly: Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.. I don't think you can keep editing in this area unless you acknowledge this important policy. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 14:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

your examples of articles using the complete original title are wrong. They mention the words "wife beater" but don't state the whole article title. I feel like you're pushing your opinion here, constantly reverting edits. I don't understand why you're so adamant on using an obviously defaming title, when even judge Nicol acknowledged that is was defamatory. AknolIikiW (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)


 * And that's your response to your WP:Cherrypicking of articles to support use of a sensationalist take (that even The Sun rejected) to use it in introductory, lead content on an article on a different topic. On your: "I've already pointed out several times... WP:DUE states explicitly: Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources", while, sure, it's all great policy, where did you do this?  On: the "prevalence in reliable sources", as found by picking out RS references from search results, rarely presents "wife beater" with prominence if at all.  WP:DUE also states, "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery" and "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic."  It's policy, in full, that I assert.  Giving that "minor aspect" some perspective, Nicol states "79 I have already noted that neither party sought to distinguish between the articles. The notable difference was that the original online article in its headline referred to the Claimant as a 'wife beater'. The amended online article and the print version instead referred to the 'assault claim'. However, as I have said, neither party treated the differences as material."  In his previous notes Nicol also referenced the rapidity with which the online article was changed.  You're again fighting over content that the judge of the trial did not view as relevant - or is another judge wrong? As I've already pointed out several times... WP:BLP says "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively" and that "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist". (Of course, I could follow your breaking of WP:TPG by saying, "I don't think you can keep editing in BLP unless you acknowledge this important policy". I request your acknowledgement).  GregKaye 05:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm talking about WP:RS. You are talking about WP:OR. When you cite the Judge's ruling and interpret it yourself that is Original Research which is not allowed on Wikipedia. All major RS are aligned in reporting this trial in a similar way as I have done in the edit you reverted entirely. That's what I based my edits on. If you still don't agree we can see what others think or open an RfC if necessary.
 * Also: what about the WP:BLPPRIMARY notice? Why did you remove it? &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 12:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I'm talking about WP:BLP which says "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively" and that "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist". Please acknowledge this.
 * Secondly, I'm certainly talking about WP:RS. Indeed, searches on Depp "News Group Newspapers" and Depp "The Sun" give few visible reference to "wife beater".  It's a rarely prominent issue in the coverage of sources and is certainly far from prominence in the vast majority of WP:RS.  You're WP:Cherrypicking. Your question on BLPPRIMARY is asked and answered - but it also seemed like part of your preposterous, edit-warring effort to remove comments from a juror from an article about a jury trial. GregKaye 18:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Greg above is objecting to the general use of the term "Wife Beater". You are talking about the use of the full original Sun article title. Only the BBC article I cited above reports the full title in the article. And of course they use the full original version: Gone Potty: How can JK Rowling be ‘genuinely happy’ casting wife beater Johnny Depp in the new Fantastic Beasts film?. The other sources I reported don't mention the full title in those articles but just the "wife beater" claim. But the Associated Press also uses the original title including the "Wife beater" as well as the guardian  the Washington Post  etc. etc. I can't find a single WP:RS that doesn't use the original title but the amended one. So I don't see why we should be different. &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 12:46, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * First of all, in your reply to you said: Also it is definitely not "sensationalist" to report the title of the article in question as published in the body of the article. I think that depends. We should be careful with statements about living persons especially if they are defamatory (which they are, see Judge Nicols ruling). Also the sources you name, either don't use the full title or they only did so in the past. The newer articles only refer to it, sometimes using the words "wife beater".
 * Secondly: This article is about the Fairfax defamation trial. I think we should mention the London trial in its body, but not in the lead. We should refrain from using the whole title in the body, but an alternative can be the (one time) use of the words: "wife beater".
 * Also thirdly: In the article about the London trial, we should NOT use the whole defamatory title in the lead, but I think it would be okay to use it (one time) in the body. There are other editors, though, who clearly do not want to mention the whole title or even want to link to the original source. Which I also understand. My point is that you are pushing your view and keep reverting those edits, along with my edits. For example in a time frame of 24 hours a moderator had deleted the defamatory source, mentioning it was obviously not done to publish it on Wikipedia in an article about this defamation case. Your edits after that, actually reverted this and made it more defamatory. I reverted your edits, which then got reverted by another editor. There is no consensus.
 * At last: Your point of view about the use of an alternative or altered title, I definitely understand. It's the consequence of compromising, but it feels strange. AknolIikiW (talk) 14:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "We should be careful with statements about living persons especially if they are defametory (sic) (which they are, see Judge Nicols ruling).", Justice Nicol ruled against Depp's defamation claim.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I know Justice Nicol ruled against J. Depp's claim. He acknowledged that it was defamatory, but he also found A. Heard's allegations of abuse to be substantially true. The judge said: "Although he has proved the necessary elements of his cause of action in libel, the defendants have shown that what they published in the meaning which I have held the words to bear was substantially true." The ruling focused on the article itself, not the title. We at Wikipedia SHOULD be careful with statements about living persons when they are defamatory, especially now that we're aware that the Virginia court ruled that the accusations made by A. Heard were false (Which is what this article is about. AknolIikiW (talk) 20:40, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

, as a very experienced editor, I have literally no idea what you think the raw Google search results above are supposed to "prove". Like Gtoffoletto, "I haven't found a single WP:RS that DOESN'T use the original title" of the The Sun's article. Even Starship.paint, who has defended you several times in the past, inquired as to "why you're so touchy about the 'wife beater' stuff. There is plenty of reliable source coverage to support it, including the Holy Trinity of news agencies - Associated Press / Reuters / AFP, and reliable sources - BBC / NYT / WaPo. I'm sure I could find many more sources. Regardless of how many hours that term appeared, it did appear online, and Depp sued for it in London, and lost. As such, it would be wrong for Wikipedia to not include it." In fact, it seems clear that you also have been unable to find even one secondary source noting the title change, considering that you have not presented any over the course of numerous talk page discussions and your edits in article space instead relied on the deprecated source itself (along with Nicol's judgement). (Talk about cherry-picking!)

Furthermore, the Nicol excerpt that you cited above proves exactly the opposite of what you are contending. Read it again: "I have already noted that neither party sought to distinguish between the articles. The notable difference was that the original online article in its headline referred to the Claimant as a 'wife beater'. The amended online article and the print version instead referred to the 'assault claim'. However, as I have said, neither party treated the differences as material." [emphasis added] You added a lengthy digression and footnote trying to distinguish between the two versions of The Sun's article, but Nicol is stating that the specific label used in the headline was not a material issue in the case. In other words, neither the interested parties nor Justice Nicol shared your concern that "wife beater" is any more "defamatory" than "assault claim".

Frankly, I don't know what results you're getting as they tend to fluctuate, but when I clicked on your link to "Depp 'The Sun'," there were three "visible references" to "wife beater". (Though it has since fluctuated down to one.) Still, why must we play along with this "visible" game in the first place, given that the rules are entirely of your own making? Simply put, there is no basis in Wikipedia policy for your stipulation that any particular phrase must be "visible" (i.e., from the headline or preview, without actually clicking on the article itself to see what it says) in raw Google search results to be included in a Wikipedia entry. This completely made-up "rule" tends to obscure the fact that "wife beater" would be "visible" (certainly not "invisible"!) in many, many, many more sources—if only GregKaye could be bothered to read them! (Again, none of the articles on the first page of the Google search results mentions The Sun's title change at all.)

Given that there is absolutely no support for your view in any secondary sources—reliable or otherwise—or in the primary source of the Depp v. NGN litigation, including the arguments made by Depp's legal team and Nicol's ruling, it is difficult, Greg, to see how you can so indefatigably insist on forcing your personal preference on this and other articles. The only reason that I have not pushed back until now is because I basically agree with Nicol that the precise label used is immaterial (and hence cannot match your passion about this detail), but that doesn't excuse your illogical statements and misrepresentation of sources and the record. After all, if you think that Depp was defamed, then it's rather odd to try to "protect" readers from the serious accusations that were made against him.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Totally agree . Nicol’s ruling is being entirely misrepresented but that is irrelevant: any interpretation of a primary source is WP:OR This discussion is a big waste of time. The WP:RS are spectacularly clear. Let’s see if some new users/opinions come up, otherwise I think we can end this discussion once and for all.  &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 22:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)


 * as a very experienced editor I dislike the idea of both of you are avoiding issues from: WP:BLP: "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively" and that "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist".
 * WP:DUE states, "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery" and "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic."
 * The issue commonly raised in RS articles on the Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd is abuse. In the perhaps unnecessary Depp v. Heard lead reference to this different trial, the existing reference covers this more than adequately.  Sources don't typically present "wife beater" prominently.  Nor should we. You're WP:Cherrypicking for a reference that isn't typically mentioned prominently in sources and which the judge indicated was of little relevance within the context of a different trial.


 * Totally agree with AknolIikiW that Gtoffoletto's twice reverted addition effectively worked as "Defamation 2.0". It's the lead of Depp v. Heard.  Reference to Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd is already unnecessary.  Reference to sensationalism that even The Sun rejected, is gratuitous. Gtoffoletto, you again misrepresent WP:OR which specifically gives ruling that Wikipedia articles must not contain original research.  Editors should certainly give relevant consideration to which contents should be used to meet requirements including in DUE, BALANCE and IMPARTIAL.  You are repeatedly seeking to push a PRIMARY (as explained in WP:NOTLINKSINCHAIN) content from a different trial despite your regular argument for exclusion primary references when relating to other contents that specifically relate to Depp v. Heard.  GregKaye 07:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You keep acting like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Multiple editors (including me, and ) have pointed out that reliable sources have "wife beater" in the title of the article... so I'm not sure why we are still arguing about this. I think we have consensus and solid WP:RS support.  &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 09:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , while I heard everything, editors such as and myself disagree with your cherry-picking approach.  Please be fair.  Starship.paint made the quoted comments (presented above without reference to their thread) before having looked at the  Depp "News Group Newspapers" and Depp "The Sun" searches where "wife beater" references are notably absent.  Yet, being unfair, while replying to me you exclusively WP:CANVAS editors other than me.  The current beginning of the Depp v. Heard lead already contains a perhaps excessive reference and link to the Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd trial while also specifying the verdict result.  If readers want further details of this different trial, they can get them at with click.  GregKaye 10:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at the "searches" is irrelevant as several editors have pointed out to you already multiple times. Once again it seems you WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You have failed to provide a single example of a WP:RS that: 1. does not reference "wife beater" prominently and 2. does not report the original title of the Sun article. So we can consider the discussion closed on both points I think? &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 11:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * P.s. there is a clear reference to 's original comments above made by ... and they are reported in full in this discussion. So your accusation that I am somehow miscarachterizing their views is absurd.  &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 11:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes but, following "Starship.paint's original comments" (as were cherry picked from content that followed your unprompted thread addition on my talk page,) and after considering both the search result supported argument for DUE and the BLP argument of conservatism, Starship.paint said, "while we may disagree on whether the previous iteration with “wife beater” was acceptable (and I can see how reasonable people can differ on this), we agree that the current iterations are acceptable. That should be enough to resolve the matter." While you cherry pick citations, TheTimesAreAChanging cherry picks use of outdated quotes.  I have cordially, fairly and truthfully stated that I've heard you but you refuse to listen.  WP:IDHT relates to when "editors perpetuate disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive."  It is you that is pushing for a change from the WP:STABLE version and your harassment quoting of this policy does not apply. Looking at searches is a fair means to assess WP:DUE. You have no policy justification for your twice reverted change and yet views on WP:DUE and WP:BLP can raise strong objection: "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively" and that "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist".  You're trying to add wording rejected by The Sun and that rarely appears with prominence in sources into the introductory lead content of a different trial.  GregKaye 16:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Gtoffoletto, That's the pot calling the kettle black... Your seemingly unwilling to be selfcritical, that's understandable, but please try to be more open to discussion.
 * 1. You claim: Reputable sources all report the original title. That's full out wrong. Before the Virginia trial there were certainly reliable sources mentioning the full title, as well as only referring to it mentioning "wife beater". Maybe you cherry picked the first option? After the Virginia trial sources still sometimes use "wife beater", but they almost never mention the whole title anymore. They are obviously more careful to do so.
 * 2. You're blaming GregKaye of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, but it seems to me consensus is reached if all parties listen to and respect each other. It goes both ways. Wikipedia guidelines specifically call on editors to assume good faith (AGF).
 * 3. Consensus CAN change.
 * 4. This article is about the Virginia trial, therefore we should follow the reliable sources about THIS trial who mostly, as I mentioned before, only refer to the Sun article, sometimes using "wife beater". We also mustn't include the outcome of the UK trial in this articles lead, mentioning it in the body is enough. AknolIikiW (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * In reply to: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1102306363 Google search: Depp vs The Sun and look for articles published after or during the Virginia trial. You see that the articles do not always mention "wife beater" and if they do they use quotation marks. They never mention the Sun's article title. (And yes I've also read the articles.)
 * These are some of the results:
 * https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/johnny-depp-lose-against-sun-27138495
 * https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/jun/02/johnny-depp-amber-heard-libel-outcomes-differ-us-uk
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2022/06/01/johnny-depp-libel-law-uk-us/
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/27/arts/depp-heard-closing-arguments-libel.html AknolIikiW (talk) 18:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * 1 Before the Virginia trial there were certainly reliable sources mentioning the full title so we agree. After the Virginia trial sources still sometimes use "wife beater", but they almost never mention the whole title anymore. They are obviously more careful to do so. why is it relevant if you agree they still use "wife beater"?
 * 4 reliable sources about THIS trial who mostly, as I mentioned before, only refer to the Sun article, sometimes using "wife beater" so we also agree here. We also mustn't include the outcome of the UK trial in this articles lead, mentioning it in the body is enough why? It is clearly crucial and a lot of sources have covered the differences between the two trial which is very significant and notable.
 * You seem to agree that all sources use and still use wife beater in their coverage. So I don't see a problem with writing the whole title of the original article to describe the situation clearly to users. Censoring it doesn't make any sense. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 19:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You are even cherry picking within quotes. AknolIikiW was saying "Maybe you cherry picked the first option? After the Virginia trial sources still sometimes use "wife beater", but they almost never mention the whole title anymore. They are obviously more careful to do so."  There is no censorship.  I personally expanded the "wife beater" reference in the article's body and the lead links to the Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd article which mentions "wife beater" despite Judge Nicol referencing the very temporary online title in noting "that neither party sought to distinguish between the articles."  We're just trying to present relevant content for ''Depp v. Heard.  GregKaye 20:30, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * In response to my first point: "1. You claim that: 'Reputable sources all report the original title.' That's full out wrong. Before the Virginia trial there were certainly reliable sources mentioning the full title, as well as only referring to it mentioning 'wife beater'. Maybe you cherry picked the first option? After the Virginia trial sources still sometimes use 'wife beater', but they almost never mention the whole title anymore. They are obviously more careful to do so", you say you agree to the 'bold section' and you ask: why is it relevant if you agree they still use "wife beater"?
 * In your reply to my fourth point: 4. This article is about the Virginia trial, therefore we should follow the reliable sources about THIS trial who mostly, as I mentioned before, only refer to the Sun article, sometimes using "wife beater". We also mustn't include the outcome of the UK trial in this articles lead, mentioning it in the body is enough, you agreed to the 'bold section', but wanted to know why we mustn't include the outcome of the LONDON TRIAL in the lead of THIS article ABOUT the VIRGINIA TRIAL in your response: why? It is clearly crucial and a lot of sources have covered the differences between the two trial which is very significant and notable.
 * My answer to both your questions is this: We mention the London trial in the lead and link to the Wikipedia article about the London trial. We mention the London trial, it's outcome, and we may choose to use the "wife beater" reference or use 'assault claim' in the body, just like the reliable sources do. These reliable sources DO NOT use the Sun's FULL TITLE in their articles about the Virginia trial. You say you only want to do the article justice and report what reliable sources say, but you don't seem to practice what you preach. Your reply to GregKaye: You have failed to provide a single example of a WP:RS that: 1. does not reference "wife beater" prominently and 2. does not report the original title of the Sun article is false.
 * As is your assumption: You seem to agree that all sources use and still use wife beater in their coverage. So I don't see a problem with writing the whole title of the original article to describe the situation clearly to users. Censoring it doesn't make any sense. Here you are saying that I agree that ALL sources still use "wife beater" which I obviously don't agree to. And you link that assumption to 'not seeing the problem in using the WHOLE title of the original article' which in my opinion is taking it even one step further. AknolIikiW (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, this amount of argumentation over a terminological dispute that is crystal-clear in reliable sources is a waste of editor time and resources, but a few quick rebuttals are in order:
 * "Before the Virginia trial there were certainly reliable sources mentioning the full title, as well as only referring to it mentioning 'wife beater'. ... After the Virginia trial sources still sometimes use 'wife beater', but they almost never mention the whole title anymore. They are obviously more careful to do so." This is an unsourced, demonstrably untrue generalization contradicted by many of the sources that we have already reviewed in detail, likely fueled by confirmation bias and little else. To return to Starship.paint's "Holy Trinity of news agencies," for example, Associated Press wrote that "Johnny Depp lost his high-stakes libel case Monday against The Sun tabloid newspaper for labeling him a 'wife beater'"; Reuters wrote that "Depp lost a libel case against The Sun, a British tabloid that labeled him a 'wife beater'"; and Agence France-Presse wrote that "The 57-year-old 'Pirates of the Caribbean' actor brought a libel claim against The Sun tabloid for a 2018 article that branded him a 'wife-beater'"; all prior to the Virginia verdict (and in AP's case all the way back in November 2020), and even at that time none of them reproduced the lengthy full title of The Sun's original article (i.e., "How can JK Rowling be happy casting wife beater Johnny Depp in the new Fantastic Beasts movie?"). Why would they? Doing so would violate the summary style used by those news agencies. Besides, the "wife beater" label was the only contentious—or newsworthy—aspect of the headline in question. As with GregKaye's earlier stipulation that only "visible" excerpts or headlines establish WP:WEIGHT for inclusion, the implication that prominent references to the "wife beater" label in the body of RS somehow "don't count" unless they are accompanied by the full question posed by The Sun is simply a made-up rule, moving the goalpost yet again, that other editors are not obligated to pretend is real (or related to Wikipedia's content policies).
 * (As an aside, GregKaye's argument that we should rely on headlines to establish WP:WEIGHT is diametrically opposed to Wikipedia's content policies, specifically WP:HEADLINE, which notes: "News headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source. If the information is supported by the body of the source, then cite it from the body. Headlines are written to grab readers' attention quickly and briefly; they may be overstated or lack context, and sometimes contain exaggerations or sensationalized claims with the intention of attracting readers to an otherwise reliable article. They are often written by copy editors instead of the researchers and journalists who wrote the articles.")
 * "Starship.paint [later] said, 'while we may disagree on whether the previous iteration with "wife beater" was acceptable (and I can see how reasonable people can differ on this), we agree that the current iterations are acceptable.' ... While you cherry pick citations, TheTimesAreAChanging cherry picks use of outdated quotes." Starship.paint's amicable willingness to "agree-to-disagree" in the interest of an "acceptable" compromise does not imply that he conceded the argument entirely, or that he retracted his earlier statements, which are henceforth "outdated" and cannot be cited.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * edit conflict: Good, let's talk chronology. No one had been talking about The Sun's article title in any way for months after the initial publication was physically distributed and had it's online title amended on the morning of April 28, 2018.  None of this had been an issue.
 * Thank you for referencing titling, despite my reference: that searches on Depp "News Group Newspapers" and Depp "The Sun" give few visible reference to "wife beater". Even specifically in Headlines ... written to grab readers' attention", references to "wife beater" are rarely made.  More in line with my point, Google (who make it their business to present relevant content) rarely present "wife beater" in immediate connection to Depp related references raised in for News Group Newspapers or The Sun.  It's not typically a first port of call.
 * Given a choice of referencing Starship.paint's early "I'm not sure why you're so touchy... comment and the later (post presentation of my DUE and BLP arguments) comment where Starship graciously recognised "I can see how reasonable people can differ on this" you still cherry pick reference to the pre-debate "... you're so touchy... comment over a post debate agree to "differ" comment. Starship certainly didn't here advocate a change in content but stated, "we agree that the current iterations are acceptable. That should be enough to resolve the matter."  Those were the views of this one involved editor so far.  I agree on "waste of editor time" despite contending that a defence of BLP is worth the effort. GregKaye 08:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Can we at least agree that this is the talk page that belongs to the Wikipedia article about the Virginia Trial? You just quoted me saying: After the Virginia trial sources still sometimes use 'wife beater' when they refer to the UK trial, but they almost never mention the whole title anymore. They are obviously more careful to do so". Please acknowledge that in this whole discussion I'm talking about the articles that cover the Virginia trial when I address coverage during or after the Virginia trial. I now added a 'italic section' to this quote, to put it in context. See my other post: These reliable sources DO NOT use the Sun's FULL TITLE in their articles about the Virginia trial. Your examples are articles covering solely the London trial and date before the Virginia trial. Mine cover the Virginia trial. AknolIikiW (talk) 08:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Summary of discussion points
To simplify participation I'll summarise the main points of contention so that everyone may clearly state their position and we can finally move on. We have discussed way too much. So let's close this. &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 10:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Should we use the term "wife beater" in the article when describing the cause for the original dispute between the actors?

 * Support use of the term "Wife beater": the previous trial between the actors was caused by the Sun calling Depp a "Wife beater" and all major WP:RS have used the term to describe the Sun's claims precisely. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 10:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Please ask the right question. Depp vs the Sun was not a dispute between the two actors! A. Heard was just a witness for the Sun. Please stop referring to Depp vs the Sun as "the previous trial between the two actors". Also we should contain the questions to this article, in order for it not to create even more chaos. I think the question should be as follows: AknolIikiW (talk) 13:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Slightly imprecise sorry. Thanks for correcting (although it doesn't seem like a big change to me...). I'll close this so we use the corrected question below. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 09:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Gtoffoletto, please listen to AknolIikiW. You are not simplifying (in asking: "Should we use the term "wife beater" in the article when describing the cause for the original dispute between the actors?") but mixing in confusions.  The "dispute between the actors" was caused after the Heard op-ed and the Waldman statements were published and you have followed the cases long enough to know this.
 * In relation to a previous and different trial, no one had been talking about The Sun's article title for months after the initial publication was physically distributed and had it's online title amended on the morning of April 28, 2018. None of this had been an issue publicly.  Depp, however, sued the publishers of The Sun through a different trial within which Judge Nicol stated, "... that neither party sought to distinguish between the articles. The notable difference was that the original online article in its headline referred to the Claimant as a 'wife beater'. The amended online article and the print version instead referred to the 'assault claim'."  Who even knew about the original title?  It wasn't what that trial was about.  To understand the background of the debate, contributors could do well to work through the above discussion.  GregKaye 16:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Should we use the term "wife beater" in THIS article when describing Depp vs Newspaper the Sun?

 * Neutral with the remark that it should only be used in the BODY, not in the lead. Also we should refrain from using it more than ONCE and if we decide to use "wife beater" we should always use quotation marks. AknolIikiW (talk) 15:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - important, relevant, recent and widely reliably sourced (anything triply covered by Reuters/AP/AFP is a slam dunk). See evidence below.  starship .paint  (exalt) 02:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)


 * 1) Guardian, 11 April 2022
 * 2) NYT, 20 April 2022
 * 3) AFP, 22 April 2022
 * 4) NBC, 25 May 2022
 * 5) WaPo, 25 May 2022
 * 6) Reuters, 1 June 2022
 * 7) USA Today, 1 June 2022
 * 8) Buzzfeed News, 2 June 2022
 * AP, 12 July 2022
 * 1) BBC, 28 July 2022


 * Support - per Starship.paint &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 10:05, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support retaining the attributed "wife beater" label, which is used (as exhaustively established by prior discussion) in upwards of 99% of all reliable sources to concisely explain why Depp sued The Sun's publisher.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow. You're suggesting rapidly amended "wife beater" reference had been a major issue prior to Depp setting on a path of suing NGN.  GregKaye 18:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Support in acknowledgement of the belated references to "wife beater" as prominently appearing in a small proportion of RS articles that refer to Depp and either News Group Newspapers or The Sun. I've historically supported the use the term "wife beater" in THIS article when describing Depp vs NGN and Wootton.  It's always had reference which, at times, I expanded on.  GregKaye 18:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Should we report the ORIGINAL title published by the Sun or the subsequently MODIFIED title without the term "Wife Beater"?

 * Original title: the original title of the Sun article calling Depp a "Wife beater" was the reason why this trial started in the first place and all WP:RS have used the original title rather than the "redacted" one. Otherwise a reader would not understand why Depp sued the Sun in the first place. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 10:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. Your question isn't clear on the fact that we are discussing the reporting of the title in THIS Wikipedia article. 2. Also the question in accordance with the discussion above should be: Do we use the TEMPORARY title, the MODIFIED title or do we use NO title at all. Therefore we should answer the following question... AknolIikiW (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

==== Should we report the ORIGINAL title published by the Sun, the MODIFIED title or NO title at all, when referring to the article published by the Sun which claimed Depp was a "wife beater" in THIS article about the 2022 Virginia trial?====
 * NO title AknolIikiW (talk) 13:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * NO we should not report the temporary title which had not been reported (at least not with any significance) for months. GregKaye 16:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That search is obviously wrong, not sure why you would cut it off at August 2018. Frankly anything past February 2019 (start of Virginia lawsuit) is fair game if it mentions the Virginia trial. To narrow it down even more, only consider from April 2022. Obviously there are fewer sources than those who simply mentioned "wife beater".  starship  .paint  (exalt) 02:36, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that "wife beater" ... [was significant to] the cause for the original dispute between... Depp and the publisher when, "for months", in time prior to Depp's raising of the dispute with the publisher, what had remained were an amended online article and physical copies of the tabloid with the amended title.  GregKaye 05:52, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * All WP:RS report the term "Wife beater" for a reason. The original title was changed the day after but apparently "it was too late". Streisand effect? &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 10:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * p.s. as starship pointed out that search is definitely wrong. There are 7 results (none of them seems from WP:RS) for the modified title in google search versus 827 (including many RS) for the full original title that includes "Wife beater". &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 10:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Original title if we have to report the full title. The original title of the Sun article calling Depp a "Wife beater" was the reason why this trial started in the first place and all WP:RS have used the original title rather than the "redacted" one. Otherwise a reader would not understand why Depp sued the Sun in the first place. We can also have no title and just mention the "wife beater" part honestly as that is the only relevant part of the title and the cause for the dispute. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 10:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No headline. There is no reason to mention either headline in full. This also means that 's entire WP:OR digression and footnote trying to distinguish between the two headlines in the "Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd" subsection should be removed—especially in light of both Justice Nicol and the interested parties conceding that the differences were not material and the complete lack of any secondary source coverage noting the change.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with no headline. It was the article content in it's entirety that was an issue and the headline (especially the version that stopped appearing online) doesn't especially seem to have been an issue.  Trying? I'd effectively distinguished between the two headlines, much as Justice Nicol had done.  GregKaye 20:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Juror Section
Does it add to this section to clarify that the juror is male in the first sentence? 66.231.139.233 (talk) 14:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia content is not based on editor opinion alone, so what you or I might think is largely irrelevant. As all of the cited sources prominently mention this detail, it seems appropriate for Wikipedia to do so as well.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIMARY
, You recently added a WP:BLPPRIMARY template on the article with edit summary claiming, "Sources being used such as court documents and trial records should be avoided"  While the specific guidance of WP:BLPPRIMARY states: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person", WP:PRIMARY permits that: "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." What, if any, of the current use of primary source material do you think may go beyond this? GregKaye 21:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)


 * We have something like 20 references to trial transcripts and court records which are definitely not verifiable by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. The article needs to be cleaned up according to WP:BLPPRIMARY. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 16:18, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And those something like 20 references are within 192 references in total. All primary references used in the article certainly should have been used in relation to "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts" which are verifiable by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.  Are there examples where you'd say statements made within the article weren't verifiable by educated people within the primary references supplied?  GregKaye 19:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Should be 0 references to court documents. Something like this (which is used 6 times) is completely unverifiable and unintelligible to most people. Also the article currently contains something like 10 WP:YouTube links and some unreliable sources like Fox news. Sourcing leaves much to be desired. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 15:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Your false claim of "0 references to court documents" has no basis. We don't use references "to support assertions about a living person" but "to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts". The article's opening paragraph recounts both that, "Depp, as plaintiff, alleged three counts of defamation against defendant Heard" and that "Heard filed counterclaims". In our usage, footnotes specify content to both those counts and counterclaims and a provision is given of paragraph references that educated people can easily follow.  Footnote type contents could alternately fit into |quote= sections of refs but, here too, references would still be easy to follow.  References are provided directly to documents that have been pre-prepared either for or by the court. The WP:YouTube videos: aren't from Fox News for whom "[t]here is consensus that Fox News is generally reliable for news coverage on topics other than politics and science" on which (non-celebrity and law related) topics "[t]here is no consensus on ... reliability"  and, even if a problem was still considered, the video contents were directly streamed and recorded.  The reliability should be as good as the recording equipment allowed and they afford direct reference to topical content.  GregKaye 09:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sources being used such as court documents and trial records should be avoided seems crystal clear to me. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 09:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Gtoffoletto, can you please cite your now claimed text, Sources being used such as court documents and trial records should be avoided. edit: You are citing yourself. 10:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC) edit: GregKaye 16:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yup &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 18:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)


 * WP:BLPPRIMARY is very clear. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person.  Note that unlike other uses, there is no exception for straightforward, descriptive statements of facts, so that argument has no meaning; as long as it touches on a living person in any way (and essentially everything in this article does), we cannot use a court transcript, fullstop. Things we definitely cannot use court transcripts for are claims or counterclaims made by parties about living people; aspects of the basis for the case that touch on living people (which is essentially all of it); judges involved; claims made in court about different parties; anything that might carry implications about the case or its outcome; and so on. The biggest problem is that it looks like we are citing only the transcripts for claims and counterclaims in the lead, which is totally unacceptable (that is the sort of things that, when touching on a BLP, requires a secondary source, because it is potentially BLP-sensitive - the only reason it's not remove-on-sight is because a BLP-complaint source certainly exists, but we still need to use that source.) But honestly, skimming the article, none of the uses of the transcripts look BLP-compliant to me - some are backed by secondary sources, but we still need to review them to make sure that the cited statement is supported entirely by the secondary sources, which means it would probably be best just to remove the transcripts. --Aquillion (talk) 12:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Aquillion, I hadn't got as far as your "unlike other uses" argument which covers the pre-prepared documents involved. Some fixes are in order  GregKaye 16:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I saw you have removed the notice. Have you seen the discussion above? The references to court records have been substantially reduced since we added the notice but many (around 12 I think) still remain. Given your experience do you think it does not constitute a problem anymore? &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 14:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I wasn't aware of this discussion, thank you for bringing it to my attention. I've further (drastically) reduced reliance on court documents. As far as I can tell, the only ones left are not verifiable elsewhere and, therefore, should probably be cut (along with the content that they support). cc  The SandDoctor  Talk 16:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that great work on all those sources! Agree with the remaining problematic sources. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 09:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Now completely done. The SandDoctor  Talk 18:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The Consensus
On the Reactions tab, you wrote, "The trial drew much attention from supporters of both Depp and Heard, as well as the general public." On the next tab, directly below that line, you wrote "A consensus view emerged online that Heard was lying". I think one of these sentences should be changed because the only way we would know that supporters of Amber Heard were "drawn to the trial" is because they made themselves known in public forums, loudly. Therefore, that would cancel out the idea that there was a consensus. From what I have seen play out in social media, there is not a clear consensus that Amber Heard was lying. Sites like Buzzfeed, Vice, Vogue, and NPR shared pro-Heard views, and although it's the point of view of a specific writer, it was published (it had to be green-lighted). Also, the Social Media tab still has a pro-Heard tone, and it's within its specificity. Everything after this sentence ("with multiple such videos going viral"), beginning on "Journalist Amelia Tait of The Guardian" and ending down on "cocaine on the stand" sounds like there's a point to be defended. The imagery created in the Sunny Hundal quote feels deliberate, especially when that article is very biased against Depp. The piece seems to make the accusation that because people like Depp's characters, they are flawed in their assessment of what truly happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeleneMarie (talk • contribs)
 * I agree with removing the "consensus" part. Especially because my perception post-trial has been an overwhelming show of support for Depp that all but drowns out the pro-Heard crowd. The fact that we both have almost opposite experiences of this shows how subjective it is. Certainly not a consensus. John Bullock (talk) 11:50, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Michele Dauber
I apologize for being obtuse in this edit summary. I assumed it went without saying that one should click on the "News" tab after searching Google for "Amber Heard Michele Dauber". To be clear, clicking on the "News" tab provides a litany of sources detailing Dauber's links to Heard, dating back to at least November 2016. These sources detail instances of Heard presenting Dauber with awards (plural), the two being seen at multiple "red carpet" events, "after-show" parties and numerous other private and public events, and Heard quoting Dauber's work during multiple speeches. An extensive history all easily verifiable via WP:RSs at Google News, in sources dating from November 2016 to late 2019. , &.

With this in mind, Dauber's commentary is not unbiased or neutral, in that she is not independent of one of the subjects of this article. Per WP:Independent sources, she cannot be "distinguished by [her] lack of any direct influence with the subjects involved", which is grounds for immediate removal. I'm happy to continue discussing, but it should be obvious why her commentary is not unbiased and needs to be excluded.

I'm also taking this opportunity to politely suggest that temper their rhetoric. I based my edit using the above listed sources, which I admittedly should've linked earlier, but was in absolutely no way inspired by the "alt-right trolls threatening Professor Dauber on reddit and Twitter". I have not read that coverage, and was in no way influenced by that coverage. It's in everyone's best interests at this point to assume good faith. Further insults and insinuations will only lead to more ANI reports. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


 * This is WP:OR. The links you provided do not say what you are saying. the fact they have a picture together is irrelevant. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 12:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah to suggest Dauber is not an independent source for this trial, based on those sources, is a ridiculous claim. –– FormalDude   talk   12:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not original research to highlight multiple reliable sources have noted one of the voices currently presented in this article as a neutral, unbiased academic has links dating back at least 6 years to an article subject. Per onus, when content is disputed, it is the responsibility of "those seeking to include disputed content" to "achieve consensus". Looking in to Michele Dauber's credentials, she is a professor of "Feminist, Gender and Sexuality Studies" and a "professor (by courtesy)" of "Sociology". How do those credentials translate to her being a knowledgeable source regarding the decision of the trial being televised, or the impacts thereof?Dauber hypothesizes an unfounded fringe theory. A multitude of content has already been expunged from this article using the same justification, including the entirety of the witness testimony. In the meantime, we have Dauber's Twitter feed, full of hateful language regarding the topic, including a tweet where she jokes about Johnny Depp dying, in a comment that even Twitter has since deleted for violating their TOS. The pretense of Dauber being a random academic commenting in a balanced fashion on particular events is not realistic. Her name and quote can easily be removed from the article with no loss to actual content; ala "some commentators have criticized the decision to allow the trial to be televised", et cetera. Her repeated inclusion here speaks volumes to this article's lack of NPOV thus far. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If you can't understand how feminist, gender and sexuality studies applies to this article, you probably shouldn't be editing it. There's no RS that suggests Dauber would be biased for this topic. Your complaints for removal are simply not valid. –– FormalDude  (talk)  05:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with the above. make sure you are familiar with No original research as it is a core content policy. Your comment above is exactly what this policy tries to eliminate from Wikipedia. Without verifiable WP:RS your complaints are not valid.  &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 10:00, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It feels like you two don't have an actual argument. 174.52.69.109 (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Why is the UK case even spoken about here? It should be an entirely different entry as these are two VERY separate suits - to include both is misleading and, therefore unacceptable.
Why is the UK case even spoken about in the same space? The two trials were vastly different and one only included Heard as a witness (UK and malice had to be proven on the part of the Sun only in their reporting of Heard’s claims). The Verdict was the Sun had not defamed with malice on their part. The other (US) held Heard to a different standard of proof - as she was directly involved. To have an entry about both together is misleading, and therefore, unacceptable. Amber heard was largely and unanimously proven in a court of law to have defamed Johnny Depp with malice. 2600:8807:C1C5:C300:BD4B:B422:76BE:BBB9 (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, in a way, Amber was connected to the UK trial. Oh, and according to two lawyers on Twitter, the settlement agreement Depp & Heard agreed to actually renders that jury verdict essentially unenforceable, not to mention they both agreed neither defamed the other. So, at this point, the jury trial no longer matters, which also means the jury's verdict no longer matters, and Depp's legal team from Brown Rudnick should know better than to make statements that they know are blatantly untrue. Makes you wonder why Vasquez (one of Depp's lawyers) hasn't been seen on NBC since the network hired her as a legal analyst.
 * Not to mention, as multiple lawyers on Twitter have pointed out, Azcarate allowing the trial to happen should cost her her law license, a neither Depp nor Heard had any jurisdictional relationship to Virginia. If anything, maybe it's a good thing Depp agreed to the settlement, as I've heard that, had Heard's appeal gone through, she would have won, and her win would have ended the legal careers of Azcarate, Vasquez, & Chew. Plus, what's to say some "rando" jurors understand anything about domestic abuse?
 * It's going to be so funny when, in the years & decades to come, more & more people finally start turning on Depp & admitting that the trial was a sham & that Amber should have won. 2600:1700:C960:2270:A52E:E8FB:CC5D:51AB (talk) 06:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The above comments are not based on reliable sources and unrelated to article improvement. Please do not treat Wikipedia talk pages as a general forum—there are other places on the Internet for that. As to the OP's question, we follow the reliable sources, which frequently compare/contrast the two trials. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, at the very least, the comment about Amber being connected to the UK trial IS based off news reports. As far as all the other stuff, it is merely in response to an editor mouthing off in a way that doesn't contribute positively to the article's development. 2600:1700:C960:2270:4C8D:FCBD:8F1C:1D5B (talk) 08:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Several reliable sources and expert commentators have made that connection. The two articles are closely related. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 16:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

"Possible effects..." POV template
I added the pov section template to the possible effects section. Although I think the first paragraph could use more work (and has a weasel-words issue), I'm more concerned about the second paragraph. That paragraph opens with: "Columnists, including feminist writers and researchers in intimate partner violence, considered the verdict a backlash against feminism and the #MeToo movement and predicted a chilling effect on the speech of those victims of domestic violence who might fear being sued for defamation or disregarded without extensive photographic and medical evidence." At the end of that sentence is several sources apparently serving as examples of this coverage, but there are no examples in-line. That's a weasel-words issue, but, more pressing, when the paragraph transitions to discussing how "[s]ome" were skeptical of the aforementioned view, it provides several examples in the text of the article. In other words, one view is summed up in a sentence and no above-the-line examples are provided, while another is given three distinct quotations to illustrate it.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 13:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. Definitely a Weasely and non neutral section. Especially since the mainstream view is that the verdict will have negative effects on other victims coming forwards etc. See: https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/national-feminist-organizations-break-silence-amber-heard-open-letter-rcna56629 National feminist organizations break their silence on Amber Heard in an open letter of support: The letter denounces the “rising misuse” of defamation lawsuits to silence people who report domestic and sexual abuse. This source should be included in the article probably. And used in the lead to better characterise the fact that the trial "renewed debates around topics relating to domestic violence, the #MeToo movement, and women's right". &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 16:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Since that letter seemed to mostly pertain to the social-media coverage, I added it to the social-media coverage section, although I did note it also objected to the verdict. I think it's probably difficult to disentangle the social-media-coverage section from the possible-effects-on-metoo section, since there's undoubtedly going to be a relationship, but maybe the best way to do so is to try ensure the latter section focuses on chilling effects?--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree. I would focus the social media section on the spread of memes, misinformation and the effects it might have had on THIS trial. And keep the "effects" section focused on the effects on potential FUTURE trials. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 17:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks like we both added the source in different areas of the article :) Should we use the approach I proposed above? If we overload the Social Media section it might become a problem. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 17:10, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Whoops! Sorry I must have clicked edit at just the wrong time—I thought you were asking me to add that to the article. I'll defer to you—that approach sounds fine, although to my mind the source you found would still fit in both sections? (Describing the harassment as the product of misogyny, etc. is probably the strongest line in the letter and the secondary source reporting on it, and that very much seems to be a discussion of this event, and not future events.) Could also include it in both, I guess—focusing on the criticism of the social-media atmosphere and Heard-specific engagement in one and the use of the suit in the other. Up to you--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Didn't plan on adding it but I read it and couldn't resist! I've tried to reduce the duplication according to the rule above but kept it in both areas. It seems relevant to both aspects. What do you think? &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 18:57, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Awesome. Tried to reduce the redundancy a little further but to be honest I think it's still slightly—though not irredeemably—clumsy, very possibly due to my own edit. Also, for now I think that the pov tag should stay, since I still think the balance is a little off—maybe at some point later this week I can look at the reference with all the examples and just find quotes from them.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Legal Terminology in Edit Summaries/NPOV
I just want to flag a few things. First, it's generally not a great idea to try to justify edits based on legal terms. In just the past few edit summaries, you've suggested Neither of those claims are correct (fraud requires reliance; to be defamatory in this context, a statement must be false, and a statement that explicitly notes that a false claim was, in fact, false, is inherently true).
 * that a website paying to promote content with a certain orientation/misleading content would constitute "fraud"; and
 * that describing false allegations made against a person—including noting that those allegations were false—was "slanderous".

More than that, I can't help but notice that your edits have a pattern: You consistently delete examples of bad behavior by pro-Depp factions or suggestions that the trial may not have been fair to Heard, despite the fact that those claims are supported by reliable sources.
 * Here, you deleted the Vice study, claiming that was the consensus of the talk page. But, as I noted when reverting you—that was wrong: in the above discussion—which you were a part of—you were the only editor to support outright deletion; one editor suggested the sourcing should be attributed to CNN (before failing to respond to follow up questions); while two editors (including myself) said the sourcing and info should be kept. Nonetheless, you then deleted that same content again, though this time for a completely different reason—the "fraud" claim.
 * Here, you deleted the description of false allegations made against Heard, which were explicitly noted to be false. You claimed that deletion was justified because those allegations weren't relevant to the trial (which, for the record, isn't a legitimate basis for deletion), and, bizarrely, called their inclusion "vandalism and bullying". That edit was rollbacked by User:Blaze Wolf, noting that you were acting against consensus (Indeed, that content had just been restored days earlier by User:TheTimesAreAChanging ) and advising you to gain consensus before making edits "of this nature." But you entirely erased that content again, this time suggesting it was "slanderous".

I'm not trying to discourage you from being bold, but, critically, you've made the aforementioned duplicate edits without any significant engagement on the talk page. Again, as to the Vice study, you were reverted precisely because your removal didn't reflect the consensus, but you re-deleted that content without making any further comment in that discussion. I think the general WP:BRD cycle is worth remembering, and, if necessary, we can always go to some place like WP:3O if you think you need additional objective voices in the discussion.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Social media coverage section
In the social media coverage section there's this part that i believe is inappropriate and should be deleted. (In May 2022, the media non-profit The Citizens and Vice World News reported that the conservative website The Daily Wire had spent between $35,000 and $47,000 on Facebook and Instagram advertisements and have promoted "misleading information about the trial" and "anti-Amber Heard propaganda"). We are publishing an unconfirmed accusation against a website, and the cited sources are not reputable or adequate to make the whole thing appropriate. We are literally singling out that website. RSH7 (talk) 02:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)


 * What do you mean? The statement is quoted and I don’t see a problem with those sources. What is inappropriate about it? &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 07:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:PRIMARYSOURCEd to WP:VICE, which is not a reliable source, especially for contentious claims. Can be removed. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 17:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I'd agree with that reading of WP:VICE. That page—which, notably, is an information page—describes plenty of sources as non-reliable. It does not say that Vice is unreliable; rather, it says there is no consensus. According to this article from Inverse—the journalism that revealed the numbers were done in a collaboration between Vice and The Citizens, a nonprofit news organization, which I think buttresses the reliability.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:RSP is an information page listing all prior discussions regarding a source's suitability for use on Wikipedia. 4 separate discussions have taken place regarding Vice, and none have established consensus. In cases like this, the source is not fit for use in contentious articles. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 17:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with @Jerome Frank Disciple. We also have other RS covering this topic:
 * - https://edition.cnn.com/2022/06/02/media/depp-heard-reliable-sources/index.html
 * - https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2022/05/johnny-depp-amber-heard-trial-livestream-jokes/631648/
 * So I don't see any problems with this claim. We can strengthen it with additional sources if we want. But its reliability doesn't seem disputable. Did the Daily Wire even deny it? &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 17:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, forgot to include this in addition to the above: Further, I'm not sure I'd agree with your reading of WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. Two chief concerns with primary sources are that they can be used to shoehorn in either original research or non-notable info. ("Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources.") But neither of those concerns seem relevant here—plenty of sources picked up this report and their reporting is consistent with this article: Vox (website), CNN , Forbes , Yahoo! News via Business Insider , Inverse (website), Salon.com --Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The CNN source is best, but the text here would need to be amended accordingly. It doesn't confirm the amount of money spent, nor does it say "anti-Heard propoganda", merely "promoting ads of articles largely favoring Johnny Depp". Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 17:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * While I have no qualms with getting rid of the quotation, I don't think that your idea to replace the source with CNN addresses the substance of my point. Plenty of websites do present either exact or approximate dollar amounts (Vox says "nearly $50,000"; Forbes says "between $35,000 and $47,000"; Yahoo via BI says "between $35,000 and $47,000"; Salon says "$35,000-$47,000". If your policy is that only "green" sources on WP:RSP count, then CNN, Vox, and Forbes all qualify. I added the Forbes article late, so I'm not sure if you saw that, but given that it's plainly a news article, I'd say that it qualifies as the "best" source, but that's neither here nor there.) The point is that there's no reason to be concerned about notability or novel interpretations.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 17:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, I just remembered that several of these sources were removed from the article by consensus quite a long time ago, because of the presence of Christopher Bouzy's Bot Sentinel report: which used highly dubious methodology. The CNN report is the best quality of the ones you've listed which don't mention it. So it'd be best to use that. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 18:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't find any reference to that in this article's talk page archives. And that still isn't responding to the main point I had.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:32, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * removed from the article by consensus quite a long time ago, because of the presence of Christopher Bouzy's Bot Sentinel report: which used highly dubious methodology have been editing this page for a while and I don't remember this ever being disputed. Can you post a link to that discussion? I would strongly oppose that decision. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 17:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Update: Having now reviewed each discussion linked at WP:VICE, I'm very confident that blanking is not appropriate. First, a source for which there is consensus on reliability can be cited, even for controversial claims—the idea is to consider the reference on a case-by-case basis. Second, with one exception (in which 4 out of 6 editors said the Vice source in question was reliable), each of the discussions on Vice concerned either film/music criticism or op eds.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)