Talk:Depp v. Heard/Archive 5

Weasel Words
There seems to be some disagreement about weasel words. I'm working on one paragraph now to remove them, but it might take some time. The best defense of the article in its current form is that it's using weasel words as topic sentences—but that's not always true. Moreover, I have some concerns about whether these topic sentences accurately reflect the concededly myriad sources cited in their favor. (In fact, maybe this is more of a "failed verification" issue rather than a weasel words issue.)

As to the latter point, consider: Feminist organisations and activists 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.
 * The first source cited in support of that sentence is an article by New York Times book-critic (then movie-critic) A.O. Scott. But Scott is neither a feminist organization nor an activist, and his piece, by my reading, doesn't really dive into backlash or potential chilling effects—he doesn't argue that the verdict marked the end of the MeToo movement—he argues we were already in a post-MeToo world. (Admittedly, Scott's piece is nuanced and not easy to effectively lump in with other critiques—I'd say, at bottom, he argues that a mixture of celebrity and misogyny yielded a societal willingness to forgive Depp that ultimately reinforces misogyny.)

Separately: Other advocates and domestic-violence experts argued that the verdict was in fact an expansion of #MeToo to male victims of intimate partner violence and a "victory in the battle against cancel culture". In support of this claim, two sources are cited—both appear to be criminology professors.
 * One, Kellie Lynch, describes herself as "a scholar and someone who cares about expanding public understanding of the complex dynamics of IPV". Not sure that qualifies as a "DV expert," but, more critically, does Lynch's piece actually argue the case was an expansion of #MeToo to male victims and a victory against cancel culture? No. She just argues that the trial presented an "opportunity" to discuss the nuances of IPV.
 * The other, Alexandra Lysova, appears to be a DV expert ... but, here the use of the quotation is problematic. While I would argue that is she making the argument, the quotation isn't her words—rather, it's her quoting others—specifically, the cancel culture line was spoken by Tomi Lahren

I'm going to work on that paragraph and see if I can use more examples and quotes, but will have to take a break till tomorrow.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 20:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the article still has an issue with weasel words. I want to make this clear because of the sourcing issues I mentioned above and that others have found—specifically, weasel words that are followed by a summary of a viewpoint have repeatedly raised concerns—even though weasel words in a topic sentence are often appropriate, the sourcing is a flag. I think those issues have largely been addressed, but it wouldn't kill the article to have a few introductions to topics that aren't dependent on such view summaries. "Commentators disputed the effect of the case on future defamation litigation." Or, though it's a bit clunky, we can have a few paragraphs like the one discussing whether the case was an expansion of MeToo, where we just dive into a viewpoint.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Misleading phrasing in opening paragraphs
In one of the opening paragraphs before the contents menu it says, "They also ruled that Waldman had defamed Heard by falsely alleging that she and her friends 'roughed up' Depp's penthouse as part of a 'hoax.'"

The subsequent sentences go on to say that Waldman's claims that Heard's abuse allegations were a "hoax" were not defamatory.

Given these subsequent statements I think it is confusing to use the word "hoax" when referencing the statement that was defamatory. The reader will be confused as to whether or not it was defamatory to state Heard's allegations were a hoax.

I'd suggest replacing the word "hoax" in the first sentence with the words "set up", and perhaps mention that this was about a single incident rather than a general statement about Heard's allegations as a whole.

Does anybody agree or disagree? I don't do much on Wikipedia and this article feels to hot for me to dive in and make this edit without testing the waters here first. Lollapalooza4725 (talk) 09:21, 4 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I think using the quotation from the actual statement in the lede is the best policy.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have replaced the word "hoax" with the word "ambush." Both words are used in the first sentence of Waldman's statement ("Quite simply this was an ambush, a hoax") so using the word ambush stays true to the statement and avoids confusing the reader as to whether the general claim that her allegations were a hoax was defamatory. Lollapalooza4725 (talk) 09:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Using the full phrase "an ambush, a hoax", you provided here instead. I think "hoax" is worth including, because that word was used by the vast majority of third-party sources reporting on the verdict. See:    --Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 13:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's the word "hoax" I think is confusing and I don't think its use is mitigated by the inclusion of the word "ambush" alongside it. If we are to include the word "hoax" I think the sentence should say the statement was in relation to a single incident. Hopefully I'm making sense, I just don't want to confuse a reader by suggesting that saying her claims were a hoax is both defamatory and not defamatory at the same time.
 * Something like this: They also ruled that Waldman had defamed Heard in relation to a single incident where he falsely alleged that she and her friends "roughed up" Depp's penthouse as part of an "ambush, a hoax."
 * I don't think the problem is as potent if the word "hoax" is not used but if we are to include it we really should say (in my opinion) that it was about one incident rather than a statement about her allegations as a whole.
 * Lollapalooza4725 (talk) 14:43, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The place to start is by finding a description in a reliable source. This sort-of relates to our discussion of Bloom's quote, above—it's not for Wikipedia editors to analyze the jury verdict and determine its meaning independent of reliable sources. That's a WP:OR issue. That said, while I'm not a huge fan of the "Separately" sentence, I do think that its inclusion mitigates any risk of confusion.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Further down, in another subsection where the statement is written in full, the article already describes it as being about a single incident: "Waldman's second statement regarded a 2016 incident in Depp and Heard's Hollywood penthouse:…" I don't believe there is any dispute that the statement is about a single incident. Lollapalooza4725 (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think the current lede implies it's not a single sentence. If anything, the text you propose creates ambiguity—a single incident of Waldman acting? a single incident of Heard?--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:02, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think the current lede implies it's not a single sentence. If anything, the text you propose creates ambiguity—a single incident of Waldman acting? a single incident of Heard?--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:02, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Most recent revert
I realize I've reverted a lot of edits—I don't completely disagree with all of them, and I'll be working on going back and adjusting the current article to address the aspects I agree with, but I wanted to provide an explanation here. I also want to be really clear that I assume all of these edits are good faith, and I'm happy to be reverted back! That's all!--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I reverted this edit of yours. I understand your larger point: "The article contains a single expert supporting this view". But I think that's actually a bit off. In fact, I think that article is one of the rare articles that directly supports weasel words! So, first, the author herself says Depp coming forward may encourage men to come forward: "Depp coming forward and speaking out against Heard will likely impact many men who experience female-perpetrated intimate partner violence." So that's one. But she also says, in the intro, "[O]thers claim a 'big victory in the battle against cancel culture' and a turning point for male victims of domestic abuse." Critically, both phrases are linked—the second—"turning point for male victims of abuse"—links to this article in The Spectator by Cristina Odone. Admittedly, that's only two references, but I've also seen enough allusions to the idea that I think it's worthy of a sentence in the article. (Although I do concede most of the references I've seen have been in the context of "some have said x, but that's wrong".) In terms of weight, I do think it's relevant that, right now, it's just a single sentence, compared to the many sentences devoted to the other views.
 * I reverted quite a few of your edits, though I was sympathetic to a few.
 * This is the edit I disagreed with the most: you deleted commentary by Lisa Bloom, calling it "terrible commentary which did not even understand the verdict." That's WP:OR. Bloom is a notable legal expert who commented on the case—it's not for Wikipedia editors to say "oh she doesn't know what she's talking about" and remove that comment.
 * You deleted sentences supported by references to Vice here, here, and here. We've discussed Vice a bit above, and, first, "no consensus as to reliability" doesn't indicate "content supported by Vice should be blanked"—rather, it suggests such content should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Moreover, as to the commentary, Vice is effectively being used as a primary source—which renders concerns about its reliability moot; it's being cited for itself.
 * I agree with your edits here and here: I had mentioned some concern about weasel words above, and this is a perfect example of why I'm wary of the article's usage of them. "Legal commentators" shouldn't be used to refer to Heard's attorneys. I've edited the article to address that issue.


 * Regarding my reverted text: I think WP:UNDUE applies here. Is there a single national domestic violence association that supports that view? What other expert supports that view apart from that single expert? I tried looking and couldn't find any. It's fine to keep it in the body of the article but it shouldn't be in the lead if we can't find more expert opinions to support it.
 * I agree with most of the rest.
 * &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 18:40, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Whoops—I actually agree with it not being in the lede! Sorry about that--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * On the sentence about Lisa Bloom describing the verdicts as inconsistent: I don't dispute that that's what she said but the verdicts are not inconsistent so it feels misleading to cite a supposed expert saying they are. The defamatory statement described a single incident as a hoax. The non-defamatory statements were about Heard's allegations as a whole.
 * I'm not suggesting the article should explicitly state that the verdicts are consistent but I think including the Bloom quote is unhelpful. The verdicts are not inconsistent so where is the encyclopaedic value in citing an individual lawyer suggesting they are? Lollapalooza4725 (talk) 09:47, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * But that analysis of Lisa Bloom's statement is WP:OR, and, to be fair, Bloom wasn't the only one who suggested they were inconsistent. It's not the job of Wikipedia editors to say "yeah but those experts are wrong so we should censor them. That said, you could always provide a reliable source saying that the verdicts were all consistent!--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ben Chew, lead attorney for Depp, is on record stating that he does not believe the verdicts are inconsistent, and explaining why. Would it be appropriate to include that contrary opinion alongside the Bloom quote? Especially since we have used Heard's attorneys as sources for pro-Heard content in the social-media section. Lollapalooza4725 (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As long as you clearly denote him as an attorney for Depp, absolutely!--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I’m too busy in real life to deal with this now. I will be back when I have the time.  starship .paint  (exalt) 13:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)