The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Popular Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of popular culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Popular CultureWikipedia:WikiProject Popular CultureTemplate:WikiProject Popular CulturePopular Culture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
I've moved this section, which was previously between sections "Not neutral. Sources biased." and "Not neutral. Sources biased.", down in the page as it relates to a now recently applied article hatnote. GregKaye 05:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a lengthy trial with dozens of witnesses, and as a result, the section on the trial is getting intimidatingly long. Although there is most likely some space for tightening the text, we can't cut that much of the content if we want to present the case in a balanced way. This is why I think it would be useful to find a way to organise the text in some way. Splitting it by person seems to me the easiest and clearest way of doing this (then if someone finds their way to this article because they are looking to find out what witness X said, they can easily find them) but some of the testimony is brief and does not need more than a sentence or two, so it would feel weird if they also had their own sections. Could using bolding for the names of who is giving the testimony work? Any ideas? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the need for organization but I think, messy as it is, the current format is still the lesser of evils. Mainly because the chronological ordering gives context to specific statements or testimony. People can always use CTRL+F to find where else a person's statements or testimony came up. Week 5 is definitely a gigantic section at this point but I think the developments are best managed by generous splitting of paragraphs so readers can latch onto new ideas or events more easily. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 17:45, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think having subsections by Weeks is fine, I think the current format, subsections by person, is too much? starship.paint (exalt) 07:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it makes really easy for a reader to jump to a particular witness considering there are 10s of them each with a paragraph dedicated to them. >>> Extorc.talk 14:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Recent mass blanking
I've recently reverted mass-blanking by RandomCanadian since I think that the detailed, well-sourced content about the testimony is worth keeping in the article. I think the conversation here points towards a working agreement that the content should generally be preserved and I don't understand the motivation for nuking all of the witness testimony. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 23:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reason most of the content was removed is because of the ITN thread where this is being discussed. Far too much of this is trivial stuff which fails WP:NOT and WP:RECENTISM. We don't have a day-by-day, event-by-event account of stuff as pivotal as the Battle of Stalingrad. Or even for stuff like the Nuremberg trials; or the O. J. Simpson murder case (which does include a detailed account, but not a witness-by-witness quote farm). The trend in doing so seems really like undue focus on (and unability to distance oneself from) recent events - i.e. recency bias. People really need to look up the WP:10YEARTEST. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, completely blanking the section and not mentioning any of the testimonies should not be the ultimate solution. There should at least be an abridged version of what we had before, as even the OJ Simpson and Nuremberg trials mentioned at least some of the proceedings. --WuTang94 (talk) 02:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is better to have no content than to have bad content because the bad content sets a bad example; whereas no content may actually serve the purpose of driving forward the creation of new, better, more meaningful stuff. There should indeed be "an abridged version" of the description of the proceedings (in the same way the description of the Stalingrad battle is a much abridged documentation of main events). Simply said, what was in the article was not "an abridged version"; and is in fact so excessive I am not sure it is a useful basis from which to write a summary, hence the blanking. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, there's gotta be a way to write about someone's point of view without presenting it as fact, and this stuff can be summarized in a few paragraphs instead of being drawn out, right? Instead of having full sections of each witness, we could probably lump certain witnesses into corresponding paragraphs. --WuTang94 (talk) 02:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to that. I'm just saying the interim non-solution of keeping blatantly excessive stuff is, well, not a solution. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the content to Talk:Depp v. Heard/temp where it can be worked on without making the main article look so ridiculously silly. I'll note that the overly detailed coverage should probably be replaced with reference to sources more distant from the events, or, given those probably don't exist yet, at least ones which try to make a summary and not give a "play-by-play" account of the thing (as the latter would be almost WP:PRIMARY, being original materials that are close to an event). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, thanks for doing that. That way we can trim it down and put it back when it's ready. WuTang94 (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as that talk page has amounted to basically a split that left zero coverage of the testimony in the appropriate section, I've tagged the page with ((NPOV)) for having WP:BALASP issues. Each aspect of this article—including testimony—needs to be treated with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. The article abjectly fails to do so at the moment, especially in light of all of the coverage that the testimony received. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The solution is to go and undertake the hard task of fixing that by writing a proper encyclopedic summary; not abdicating and keeping the WP:NOTNEWS trivia in a separate place. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Christi Dembrowski, Depp's sister and personal manager.
Isaac Baruch, Depp's neighbor during his marriage to Heard
Other subsections/collapsible boxes would be for: Witnesses for Heard, Witnesses for Depp in rebuttal and Witnesses for Heard in rebuttal and I'm hoping this can increase the directly trial related content in the article.
I'm also ploughing on with the Testimony article following great work by RandomCanadian, but there are still gaps such as for Shannon Curry and Johnny Depp on rebuttal. All the same, it's getting there.
Other editors can go further if they like but the uses I found in the first three results were:
"a consensus was established online that Ms Heard was lying."
" jurors will remain in deliberations until a consensus is reached"
"Even as the whole concept of consensus reality seems to be collapsing into the abyss"
Beyond the jury I don't see evidence that there is consensus in regard to Depp v. Heard but am open to evidence.
I thought that X-Editor's 10 June 2022 "more neutral wording edit brought a positive removal of the "backlash" wording to say "The trial has resulted in a debate over the #MeToo movement, women's rights, and the hashtag #BelieveAllWomen."
I'm really hoping that we can secure representation of the range of contributors weighing into debate. Gtoffoletto
I'm not sure what you are asking here GregKaye. You reverted back to your text here: . Why? The sourcing is pretty solid and consistent. It feels like there is a lot of confusion in the discussion page and on the article history at the moment. ((u|Gtoffoletto))talk 14:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. I'm really confused by your use of Google Searches to substantiate your points. A Google search result is totally irrelevant on Wikipedia. What matters are sources. The sources in the edit are pretty clear and support the statements. Or do you believe otherwise? Unless you can point to an issue with those statements and those sources we should revert back. ((u|Gtoffoletto))talk 15:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Following your recent multi edit mass changes those were just some of the needs "Rescuing WP:NPOV broadly informative text on issues discussed on the talk page." We can go into the rest.
What I'm asking? Why? We work to NPOV. Editors cannot clarify Wikipedia contents to their chosen argument. That's not how it works. If you want to clarify things between editors, be welcome to raise your points on the talk page.
Google searches are one way to find the extent to which RS consider a topic to be WP:notable. Do a news search for, say, the last month on depp "metoo" "backlash" the content just isn't coming. There's no talk of a backlash to #MeToo in the headlines and those terms, even individually, hardly appear there at all.
Do that search, for instance, on depp "women's rights" or depp "domestic abuse" and the searches gush with stuff. You just shouldn't be pushing your own agendas. Either that or you are welcome take the challenge above to prove the consensus you claim. GregKaye 16:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GregKaye: Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. It is irrelevant if those articles are recent. Actually what you are talking about is quite problematic as it leads to WP:RECENTISM. Also I think you might be mistaken about what WP:NPOV means. Neutral point of view (NPOV) [...] means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.. I modified a single paragraph of text in the article. Hardly "mass change". As you can see, the text you removed is followed by substantial secondary and reliable sources. So to remove them you should point out an issue with those sources or the way they are reported. That text was the result of three small edits describing each of the problems I was fixing (let me know if any of them is not clear):
- Remove vague and unclear statement not properly supported by source
- Excessive detail for lead. Restore to previous version maintaining only major points reported by most sources and only the major reputable sources to avoid having too many (they all say the same things)
- Sources are less solid than previous text. NYT source is not easily verifiable and the other is the opinion of a single professor WP:DUE. Restore to previous text that reported several WP:RS summarising the current consensus among experts and advocates. Maintain text indicating ongoing debate.((u|Gtoffoletto))talk 19:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just would like to agree with Gtoffoletto that there is no consensus for Greg's recent edits "to avoid the whipping of controversy" and which are plainly aimed at some political agenda he feels is being stifled in mainstream media coverage of the trial. It does not matter whether the ambivalent media representation of the trial is at odds with the jubilant public reaction as our article is based on reliable media sources, not the public mood. It would also be swell if you didn't edit war for your inclusions again. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As shown from the minority of my many edits cited, they are generally exemplary, on the one occasion that I stretched things, when it was reverted I let it go. When I've had disputes I've respectfully raised them in discussion. GregKaye 04:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
False. 6 different editors have told you your edits are a problem within the last few days. This is not a case of "one occasion that I stretched things." In fact, you never represent sources accurately in any of your edits. All of your edits have this problem. In many instances, you cite a source and gloss it as saying the opposite of what the source says. In other cases, you synthesize multiple sources to create text that is not found in any of them and does not accurately represent any of them. The problem with your editing is not one of "stretching"; the issue is one of blatant and egregious misrepresentation of what sources actually say. Would you like for me to cite for you each of the editors who have pointed out the problems with your editing? I'd be more than happy to do it for you, if you happened to miss the entire talk page section devoted to helping you work on your problematic editing, which you appear to have totally ignored. There-being (talk) 09:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There-being, that's serious stuff and I'm listening. I'll certainly take views on synthesising on board and try to keep myself in check with that. I know of a specific editing instant that was pointed out to me which was a certain mistake. I'd like to get it in context. I'd previously made an edit"Legal experts considered that Depp's chances of winning in the US were weaker than in the UK citing strong freedom of speech protections in the US." Later, when editing an internal link into this text, I had a real brain fart and mixed up the US and the UK with the result of producing this edit to rewrite the same text as I'd previously written to say "Legal experts considered Depp's chances of winning to be better in the US than the UK." Luckily TheTimesAreAChanging was looking out at around that time and was able to revert my blunder. In other cases I'm doing some looking back at edits I've made and am finding that my inputs generally still stand. I'm certainly open to people pointing outmistakes I make. I want to be the best I can in my contributions and criticism will help. I've also made a real procedural blunder on the Depp v. NGN page which was highlighted to me and, while I was still making enquiries on what to do, TheTimesAreAChanging again stepped in to handle the complicated revert. This certainly should have been my responsibility but I was pursuing my own effort to check on things at the time. Don't hesitate to point any issues out. GregKaye 10:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the example mentioned here where you changed the text to say that experts said Depp would have an easier time in the US trial, despite the sources saying most libel and defamation law experts expected the US trial would be more difficult to win because of stronger freedom of speech protections in the US, here is an example of what I would consider an improper synthesis and misrepresentation of sources:
As I have previously noted regarding this sentence the words "debate" or "renewed" or anything similar never appear in any of the sources, none of which say anything like this. In my view, this gloss is a synthesis of what you think the sources are collectively saying, but it is not accurately drawn from the sources themselves or what the legal experts quoted in the sources are saying. By giving a very vague gloss of all 5 sources together at once without quoting any of them, you basically create a synthesis that does not accurately represent what the sources here do say. All 5 of the cited sources say something like this: 1) "advocates and legal experts who fear that the case – unique as it was for its celebrity lineup, sordid revelations, mutual claims of abuse, and relentless misogyny on social media – will have a real-world chilling effect on women coming forward with abuse claims" (pbs, with further elaboration by interviews with several law professors); 2) "Wednesday’s verdict favoring Johnny Depp in his trial against ex-wife is a setback for domestic violence victims that comes at an already delicate time for women’s rights, survivors and experts say" (NBC); 3) "The long-awaited and much-dreaded backlash to the Me Too movement is here." (Vox); 4) "Some experts in the field of sexual and domestic violence said the verdict should be a wake-up call to women, to redouble efforts in a system that does not guarantee equal protection" (The Guardian); 5) "Certain advocates and experts fear this verdict will silence women coming forward with abuse claims and embolden perpetrators. While others claim a “big victory in the battle against cancel culture” and a turning point for male victims of domestic abuse...Contrary to certain advocates’ concerns, the Depp v. Heard case is likely to contribute to a renewed confidence in all victims of abuse — not only women but also men — and in a justice and jury system." (The Conversation article by Alexandra Lysova, a Criminology Professor) Throwing all 5 sources together and saying they renewed a debate when no one used those words is a synthesis, and worst of all, tells readers there is a debate without describing what the heck the 'debate' is supposed to be. In my view, the proper approach to glossing a group of sources that plainly say different things is not to misrepresent them by stating vaguely that "there is a debate" as if this is all the sources say, but rather, to have a first sentence that quotes from and glosses the first 4 which are largely similar, (stating something like "many legal experts and advocates feared the verdict and the public treatment Heard experienced during the trial, which was described by some as 'misogynistic', would have a chilling effect on women coming abuse claims") followed by a second sentence that glosses the counterpoint provided by other experts like Lysova ("other experts denied that the verdict would have a negative effect on MeToo or other abuse claims, stating that Heard was not representative of all victims and 'considered this case to be a crucial turning point in the public discussion of intimate partner violence because it has shed light on hidden forms of intimate partner violence and men who are victims of it'). I chose this example simply because I've previously pointed it out so it was easiest for me to re-hash for you here. There-being (talk) 12:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really pleased we also had some chat on user talk. Your dedication to exploring the issues you cover is fantastic.
In my edit I both started and finished with text that mentioned "The trial has renewed debates", "the #MeToo movement" and "women's rights". I'm not as familiar with the contention you mention as you are. GregKaye 16:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gtoffoletto Whenever it can fit with WP:NPOV I agree with views on detail in the lead and further support the recent edit by Starship.paint in editing to simply say "Many legal experts doubted whether Depp could win his case having lost a similar libel suit in the UK." If we want to present commentary for reasons why this may have happened, we have to do so in a balanced WP:NPOV way.
Your text had been to say that: "Many legal experts doubted that Depp could win the case, having previously lost a similar libel suit in the UK. The fact that the US trial was before a jury and broadcast live, while the UK trial was before a judge was a major difference between the two trials." This was despite the fact that jurors were instructed not to engage with media.
My text had been to say that: "Differences between the US and the UK trials included the decision being made by a jury rather than a judge, a different understanding on what had happened to the divorce money, Heard being the defendant, additional witnesses coming forward in the US, Depp being able to opt for a location lacking strong anti-SLAPP legislation and that teams may have learned from the challenges of the previous trial."
I agree in removing explanations for reasons for the differences. Failing that, if we do present them, we have to do so in a representational and WP:NPOV way. To quote that WP page "NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia". It's decisive. GregKaye 05:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone agrees articles should be written from an Neutral Point of view. The trouble is that your edits indicate that you don't understand what a Neutral Point of View is. As a result, you contribute edits which are, to put it bluntly, garbage-like in quality. Not only that, the sentence you cite there as "my text" is some of the most poorly written English I have ever read. I pray you have not attempted to put that into the article, as it is literally unreadable. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 09:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It represents what a scan of RS had noted. I'd welcome anyone to contribute representational content. GregKaye 10:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
that sentence is again, to speak frankly, garbage. If you wrote that sentence, I gravely doubt your ability to produce readable English prose worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Your endless posts on this talk page confirm this. Not to worry, I will be reverting your detrimental changes shortly, as they are not improvements to the article and you have no consensus for them.22.214.171.124 (talk) 10:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why yes, my edits are indeed far more representative of the analysis and commentary of the trial available from reliable sources and certainly better written than yours are, thank you for asking. But I thought we were discussing the lack of consensus for your edits here, though, weren't we? Multiple editors have told you they disagree with your political campaign to "avoid the whipping of controversy" by removing reliable sources that you feel do not reflect public opinion. You seem fundamentally confused on what a reliable source is. Analysis published in major media outlets are reliable and notable whether or not they diverge from public opinion. It literally does not matter whether our sources are "biased compared to public opinion" because articles are not based on public opinion. Perhaps you should read WP: RIGHTGREATWRONGS and stop quoting policies to me to draw attention away from yourself, as if it is my conduct that is at issue here rather than yours. Multiple editors have repeatedly complained about your changes and yet you keep edit warring to re-insert them without having gained one iota of consensus. Your repeated edits to tailor the article your personal political perspective in divergence from analysis in media sources are just creating extra work that people will later have to delete. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 14:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My complaint here regarded reference to "backlash" which I found not to be representative of material in RS. In connection to this we may also note that, on the #MeToo movement page editors have removed the subtitle == Johnny Depp, Amber Heard, and #MeToo backlash == and replaced it with === 2022 (Amber Heard and Johnny Depp) === If multiple editor push POV, I'll take on whoever. Take it to admin and see what happens. GregKaye 17:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"If multiple editor push POV, I'll take on whoever." I'm glad to see you've basically admitted you do not understand how Wikipedia works and that you think you have the right to add whatever you personally think is true. You don't get the right to edit war for your inclusions because you think you are some noble hero championing the truth of men's rights or whatever nonsense fills your head. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 18:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)2 (UTC)[reply]
Once we've covered the stuff appropriately in the body, I'd like to see The trial has resulted in a debate over the #MeToo movement, women's rights, and the hashtag #BelieveAllWomen., something along those lines. Differences between the US and the UK trials included the decision being made by a jury rather than a judge - this one is also okay. I think Gtoffoletto wants mention of the live broadcast, which is reasonable, I don't mind that being the second difference mentioned (Differences between the US and the UK trials included the decision being made by a jury rather than a judge, the live broadcast of the US trial...), but I don't really like outright combining the two factors like The fact that the US trial was before a jury and broadcast live, while the UK trial was before a judge. starship.paint (exalt) 14:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The trial has resulted in a debate" is just your own characterization, and it has nothing to recommend it. It is not drawn from the characterizations from the reliable sources themselves. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 14:24, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, it is, for #MeToo, at least. See Guardian news story. some observers worried that the verdict might have a chilling effect on the #MeToo movement … others said that #MeToo … would continue to expose injustice and would not be halted by one court ruling in a case that many saw as unique.starship.paint (exalt) 15:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
precisely - the source says “observers worry that the verdict will have a chilling effect on the Me Too movement.” The word “debate” is never used and the sentence you wrote has a completely different meaning then that in the source. “The trial has resulted in a debate” in no way shape or form means the same thing as “observers worry that the verdict will result in a chilling effect.” The second is what the sources say and what the article should say. The first is vague wording that is not drawn from the sources but from your own mind and has no place in the article. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That "some observers" ... "others said" wording is, I think, indicative of a lack of consensus regarding the topic. We must stay neutral and not push certain views. GregKaye 15:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Greg, you seem to have almost no idea of what the criteria are for citing sources in a Wikipedia article, and I'm beginning to lose my patience. We are not "pushing certain views"-- I could probably find you 100 similar articles to that guardian one where analysis of reliable sources is that they fear the verdict will have a "chilling effect" on abuse claim. The wording is almost always verbatim. This is not an isolated or fringe perspective. The fact that not everyone agrees is of zero relevance to whether it should be put in the article. If you want to seek out reliable sources with contrasting analysis that doubt that, then do so, but you've provided no grounds whatsoever for excluding the claim that some analysis of the trial fear the verdict and public treatment of Amber Heard could have a chilling effect on sexual abuse claims. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We can certainly expand the article remit to a certain extent but the topic is Depp v. Heard. As I have done we can certainly also add links to other content. In any expansion we must fairly represent notable views. GregKaye 18:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My point here is that there are countless reliable sources from which the claim "observers worry the verdict will have a chilling effect on MeToo or Sexual abuse claims" can be sourced. Nothing that has been said here -- that the claim diverges from or is biased compared to public opinion, or that not everyone agrees-- provides any grounds for removing sourced information of this kind. It is a clearly notable aspect of reliably sourced analysis of the effects of the verdict. When this claim is changed to "The trial has resulted in a debate" you are creating text that is different in meaning from what the sources say and that has no sourced grounding. You cannot just change what sources say because you think it is unfair or biased. This is the point. If you have reliable sources that have differing analysis, then add them too, by all means, but stop butchering what is said in the sources that are being cited. In no way shape or form is "The trial has resulted in a debate" a reasonable gloss on "Observers worry that the verdict will result in a chilling effect." You cannot just change the meaning of what is said in reliable sources because you find them biased. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 18:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what's done in other articles. Would Implications be an appropriate section title for balanced cited material? GregKaye 18:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What's done in other articles is that editors don't change what is said in reliable sources to suit their own political agenda, "men's rights" or whatever crap you're trying to push here. The fact that you believe the sources are "unfair" or "biased" literally does not matter even if it were true-- if there are multiple prominent, notable, reliable sources that make the claim that the verdict is, or may be, a setback for Me Too, or have a "chilling effect" on sex abuse claims, then that goes in the article. Indeed, there are hundreds such sources, as the editor below me confirms as well. No one cares that you think this is unfair or biased towards Depp. You can take it up with the media if you don't like it. Here we publish what reliable media and academic sources have to say on a topic, and we do not edit what they say because an editor has a concern that the media's treatment is "biased" or "unfair." You are wasting everyone's time here with this nonsense. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not even entirely sure what the question is here, but I'd say the majority of high profile RS news sources in at least the US and the UK have released pieces recently stating that this verdict is a step back for domestic abuse victims and for #MeToo. For #MeToo, the movement's founder has also commented. Many major domestic abuse organisations have also commented publicly on this verdict and denounced it, e.g. RAINN, NCADV, Refuge. I don't have time to start listing articles right now, but a Googling of Depp v Heard + org/publication will easily find you their statements/pieces. Also, I would strongly advise against stating that there is a backlash against the hashtag #BelieveAllWomen – I'm pretty sure it's a MRA myth that this hashtag has ever been used by #MeToo or any other intersectional feminist movement. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed w/ IP and mostly w/ TrueHeartSusie. The coverage of relevance to MeToo is now woefully inadequate—a single sentence?? The topic is Depp v. Heard, one of the most heavily watched trials in the past decade, and there are numerous sources calling it a backlash to MeToo, along with some that rebut that claim (although they still seem to be in the minority). Their opinion is totally relevant and deserves several paragraphs, including at least a few direct quotations. Ovinus (talk) 06:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:OvinusUser:TrueHeartSusie3User:Gtoffoletto I attempted to restore these paragraphs to the article that gave numerous expert and media analyssts reaction to the article in terms of the effects of the trial/verdict on women's right/domestic abuse/Me Too, but it was removed by an editor who offered no real justification for the removal apart from rudely opining that "Opinions are like arseholes" as their explanation. This is a major aspect of the reaction and I ask that someone else restore the material. Surely the material on experts/analysts expressing opinions on the effect on Me Too/Women's Rights/Sexual abuse claims could be improved, like everything in the article, but no real justification has been given for wholesale removal of this section of the article. There is certainly no consensus that the article should remove all reference. Edit: I actually see that a new section has been created to discuss this issue with a link to the material directly, so perhaps it would be best to continue the discussion there. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 11:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a reminder, I was the editor most immediatly involved in getting #MeToo references back into the article. You're welcome. GregKaye 11:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Currently the article has no essentially zero reference to the verdict's effect on women's rights, domestic abuse, or MeToo as Ovinus literally just noted, so there is nothing to possibly thank anyone for. If you want thanks for making positive contributions to the article for adding discussion of this issue, then restore this deleted material. I'll be the first to thank you at that point. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 11:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded previous comment. Given how widespread the coverage of this trial re: misogyny and domestic abuse is (virtually every RS publication in the US and UK is publishing pieces on that and has done so already before the verdict), and how organisations working in women’s rights and DV are releasing statements on this, it is difficult to see a good reason excluding that content. Unbelievable. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)
"Legal experts considered Depp's chances of winning to be better in the US than the UK"?
User:GregKaye, who has expressed a desire to be personally involved in helping Heard (whom he addresses on a first-name basis) obtain "some level of psychological help," has been systematically rewriting much of both this article and Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd, often evading scrutiny through large numbers of edits (both major and minor) performed in quick succession with rather opaque edit summaries. To be fair, many of GregKaye's edits entail very subtle changes to language/tone (e.g., , , ) that are not obviously problematic at a glance, although he does seem to be WP:BLUDGEONing this talk page—he has contributed 30,781 bytes of content to the current version, roughly twice as much as the next-most-active editor. For all of these reasons, I am sympathetic to IP 220.127.116.11's concerns about possible civil POV-pushing (although needless to say this is not the correct forum to request sanctions against any editor). Regardless, GregKaye's recent edit claiming that "Legal experts considered Depp's chances of winning to be better in the US than the UK" is a straightforward misrepresentation of both what reliable sources generally predicted prior to the verdict and of the (post-verdict) sources cited by GregKaye himself. To wit:
GregKaye's first source (BBC) states: "At the start of his recent trial, many legal experts suggested that Mr Depp had a weaker chance of winning than he did in the UK, because the US has very strong free speech protections."
GregKaye's second source (The Guardian) states: "The perceived wisdom is that it is much easier to win a defamation case in the UK than in the US, where the enshrinement of free speech in the first amendment of the constitution is sacrosanct. So what happened in this case to reverse the expected result?"
GregKaye's third source (Time), which is primarily discussing a separate matter (i.e., "What Legal Experts Think of Amber Heard's Chances on Appeal"), states: "Many legal experts doubted that Depp would win the case: The actor had lost a similar libel suit in the U.K. against the tabloid The Sun in 2020."
Therefore, all of the above sources explicitly or implicitly support the long-standing consensus understanding that having lost a similar case in the U.K., few legal analysts predicted that Depp would prevail in a defamation case against Heard in the U.S., especially given the strong protections for freedom of speech enshrined in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (and, one might add, the fairly anodyne nature of Heard's Washington Post op-ed, which did not even refer to Depp by name). For GregKaye to use these sources to insert a claim in wikivoice that (pre-verdict) "Legal experts considered Depp's chances of winning to be better in the US than the UK" is seriously misleading, and raises legitimate concerns about his judgement and competence. In any case, I have reverted the edit, and I do not expect it to be restored absent sources that clearly substantiate the (eyebrow-raising) assertion being made. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree with the claim that Greg is both 1) significantly misrepresenting the sources he cites (please look above and you will see that I offer other examples of this, such as willful misrepresentation of sources that said analysts feared a "chilling effect" on sexual abuse claims from the verdict); 2) attempting to evade scrutiny for his edits by sheer volume and making his edits difficult to revert without doing so manually-- conduct which extends to his edits on the talk page, where rather than listen to criticism, Greg creates multiple new talk page sections a day. By my count, Greg has created 6 new talk page sections since June 9. Since all 6 sections address the exact same topic-- Greg's unfounded concern that reliable media sources are biased in their ambivalent analysis of the verdict -- I can only assume that the multiple sections are created to evade scrutiny for his editing, which I have tried to warn him against doing. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs and unbias the media towards your much-beloved Men's Rights cause. Wikipedia is meant to report what is said about the trial in mainstream media and academic analysis, not twitter or public opinion or fringe viewpoints such as men's rights. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 02:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. GregKaye: This is getting way out of hand. I was misled by your attempt to "avoid controversy" as I thought it would be a chance to lay down arms and, well, write what the sources say. You need to either be dispassionate and be faithful to the sources, or refrain from editing the article directly. Cherry picking sources is one thing; wholly misrepresenting them is another. Ovinus (talk) 06:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I also agree with the users above. GregKaye I think you need to step back and slow down here. From what you have stated in this page you might be too personally involved with this topic and are making editing it hard for everyone else. Also I think you might not be aware of a substantial bias that you are showing when editing here and when you dismiss/select sources. ((u|Gtoffoletto))talk 12:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gtoffoletto, it's truly been one way traffic with you. You specified that Depp had assaulted Heard in 12 of the 14 alleged incidents, you inserted 'for publishing an article defining him a "wife beater"', you added 'and that he had put her in "fear for her life."',, you deleted 'Depp's lawyer referenced the trial to say, "this was never about money."' you three times added "The fact that the US trial was before a jury and broadcast live, while the UK trial was before a judge was a major difference between the two trials. The trial has been described as backlash to the MeToo movement and a potential set back for women's rights", and you deleted the reference saying that "Both parties faced challenges in the defamation case". GregKaye 12:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. What issues do you see with those edits? I don't have time to follow this huge discussion though. And several of those items have been already discussed in this page. Many editors have expressed their views to you. We are just trying to give you some friendly advice. You can keep ignoring it if you prefer but it would help you have a better time on Wikipedia. I know how it feels to be in your position. Try to take a big breath and take a step back. Try to read and understand fully the policies that other editors point out to you. And trust that the process of Wikipedia will work in the end. You don't have to do it all yourself. ((u|Gtoffoletto))talk 13:15, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've made huge contribution to the page as the second most prolific contributor after Starship.Paint. For instance, I added all the page's footnotes.
Given the timing of the Since then, at 05:29, 12 June 2022 reinclusion of reference to MeToo into the body following my 05:26, 12 June 2022 addition of the valuable Differences between the US and the UK trials section and following my at 04:48, 11 June 2022 addition of the MeToo movement § 2022 (Amber Heard and Johnny Depp), I think it's possible that I can be somehow credited with both reintroductions of #MeToo related content into the article since the mass blanking of
00:04, 11 June 2022.
I even went as far as to suggest use of an additional title section in the text above so as to ensure that reference to #MeToo could be added, but not in a way that it violated WP:Lead which "serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents."
As to points raised:
I have long been concerned for Amber Heard with my initial strong concerns being that she might go the same way as Caroline Flack.
I've done a lot of work on the Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd article, taking the verdicts section from this to this. I've done my best to make content as accessible and usable as possible and, on a complicated topic, would greatly welcome an audit.
My edit summaries are among the most accurate and descriptive that I have seen
Social media is not a monolith. It is made up of people with a proportion of them having actually watched the trial. Non-the-less I agree that my edit referencing this went beyond what was necessary.
I think that the lead reference to a "circus-like atmosphere at the courthouse" was inappropriate as was the positioning of the reference to the trial being livestreamed within the context that jurors were instructed not to engage with media.
I used Jennifer Freyd's actual article quote so as to avoid misrepresentation.
While I think other contributors have edit-warred, I have brought matters to the talk page.
My edit to "Legal experts considered Depp's chances of winning to be better in the US than the UK" gave accurate reference to article content while linking to the newly formed Differences between the US and the UK trials section.
You have edited back to edit of Starship.paint of which I also approved. One of the advantages of my edit is that it linked to content that I developed to include the topic of freedom of speech as referenced in the article.
Another advantage of the text at my edit was that it gave easy flow: 'Legal experts considered Depp's chances of winning to be better in the US than the UK. Heard's spokesperson and lawyer said she intends to appeal the decision. When asked about a possible settlement, Depp's lawyer referenced the trial to say, "this was never about money."' I think this a more constructive way to present article content. GregKaye 07:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Greg, that's not the point; the point is that the text you put in (that the US would be an easier place for Depp to win) is not supported by the sources. Also, volume of contributions isn't a mark of quality or accuracy. Ovinus (talk) 07:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ovinus, The sources I used were the ones previously in article and are mischaracterised as "GregKaye's ... source"
None-the-less, as above, they say:
first source (BBC) states: "At the start of his recent trial, many legal experts suggested that Mr Depp had a weaker chance of winning than he did in the UK, because the US has very strong free speech protections."
second source (The Guardian) states: "The perceived wisdom is that it is much easier to win a defamation case in the UK than in the US, where the enshrinement of free speech in the first amendment of the constitution is sacrosanct. So what happened in this case to reverse the expected result?"
My edits presented this while also linking to content relating to the topic of freedom of speech as mentioned. There were a lot of articles surrounding the topic. Being open to challenge, I chose to stick with the articles previously cited. We have talk page conversation where we can discuss article and adjudicate on article edits which is fine. In general I think I have improved the quality and accuracy of the article but am fine to discuss point by point. GregKaye 07:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"In general I think I have improved the quality and accuracy of the article but am fine to discuss point by point." What everyone here is saying is that you haven't. If you would like to improve the quality and accuracy of the article, maybe try listening to the multiple editors pointing out that you are badly misrepresenting sources among other issues instead of just defending yourself and ignoring all criticism. How many people have to point out that you are misrepresenting sources before you listen? I count at least 6 different editors within the last few days who have pointed out that you are misrepresenting sources. Misrepresentation of sources is probably the worst fault a Wikipedia article can have, so this is a pretty big deal.22.214.171.124 (talk) 11:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TheTimesAreAChanging and Ovinus: - the edit you were referring to by GregKaye was certainly puzzling, but I think it's explainable (not straightforward misrepresentation). Simply put, Greg changed the lede based on what was written in the body, with three different references in the body, without changing the references in the lede. That was certainly clumsy. Now, the references in the body tried to explain why Depp won, and pointed to several factors, which Greg documented in the body, so Greg changed the lede (As an aside, Insider is a questionable source). It seems that Greg may have over-analysed this, as I don't think the sources actually explicitly said that the US trial was easier for Depp, though they did describe reasons why he won. So @GregKaye:, please be more careful. Ignoring the part where legal experts considered it easier in the UK due to defamation law was a mistake. starship.paint (exalt) 10:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A quickly fixed mix-up between the "UK" and the "US" made within approaching 10,518 character edits
The main accusation above wasn't cited and, having given my responses to the various circumstantial materials otherwise presented, I'll address it now.
At the time of my edits, I had been personally researching the importance of freedom of speech legislation in relation to the trials and among achievements of which I'm proud, I brought the topic of freedoms of speech into the article. It was in those same four consecutive edits I also made a mistake by, I'm guessing, transferring wording from one side of a link, "US and the UK", directly into wording "US than the UK" on the other side of the link. The result was that I produced a link in the form: "[[#Differences between the US and the UK trials|in the US than the UK]]". In my four edits, I'd amended the total wording from: "Many legal experts had doubted whether Depp could win his case having lost a similar libel suit in the UK." to read: "Legal experts considered Depp's chances of winning to be better [[#Differences between the US and the UK trials|in the US than the UK]]", while also adding the freedom of speech material into the Differences between the..trials section.
For context I've currently done 10,518 characters of editing on this page, third most with only Starship.Paint (16,670) and Hey man im josh (10,660) having input more. I'm generally proud of a contribution that has helped the page progress from it's condition from just before I started to it's condition now. Very few of my edits here have been reverted and content that I've contributed has generally had longevity.
More context I'd developed an NPOV content on #Differences between the Depp trials, referenced above via a neutral gathering of finding from google news search on US UK difference depp trials. This was following my other intermediate edit produced: "Legal experts considered that Depp's chances of winning in the US were weaker than in the UK citing strong freedom of speech protections in the US." At this stage at least I'd got the nations in a right order.
A /temp subpage was created some time ago for the testimony and then draftified for further work. For similar reasons (more about neutrality than inclusionism–deletionism) I've created Talk:Depp v. Heard/reactions for the reactions section, using the text that has been repeatedly restored and removed as a starting point (which I personally think is too long, but it actually has meat to it, unlike the current article's section). We can't spread this discussion over so many headings, really all about the same general problem, or a consensus will never be reached. Hopefully a more centralized approach can get it fixed; if not, the next reasonable step is probably the NPOV noticeboard. Ovinus (talk) 07:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ping also Originalcola who deleted the content citing WP:NOTNEWS.
As was kindly noted by TheTimesAreAChanging above, I've done a lot of work on the Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd. We may note that various lawyers had opinions regarding the varying fortunes of the two trials and it would be fair for any range of views to be presented. As far as I can see, for Mark Stevens to say that the judge ... dismissed a large amount of evidence that did not directly address whether Depp committed assault or not seems questionable to me. You are welcome to refer to Nicol's Judgement to see the range of evidence considered despite the fact that the Defendant was the publisher. While my overhaul has not got that stage in the text, there are four paragraphs on "Faeces on the bed". While I personally find Steven's view to be plausible, it seems questionable to me.
More worthy, I think, is the professional comment of Jennifer Freyd and I'd hope that her quote that "“Darvo refers to a reaction [that alleged] perpetrators of wrongdoing, particularly sexual offenders, may display in response to being held accountable for their behaviour,” might be faithfully used.. Depp certainly admitted to a variety of faults and failings but, in the context of simultaneously presented accusation against Heard, Darvo can certainly be viewed to apply. This, I think, should certainly be seen as a welcome inclusion in the article.
Comment on "The trial has been described ..." is just news other than to provide context for the professional views or people like Tarana Burke. Further comments by journalists and film critics don't seem to me to be of much relevance to encyclopaedic content. GregKaye 08:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"As far as I can see, for Mark Stevens to say that the judge ... dismissed a large amount of evidence that did not directly address whether Depp committed assault or not seems questionable to me. You are welcome to refer to Nicol's Judgement to see the range of evidence considered despite the fact that the Defendant was the publisher. ... While I personally find Steven's view to be plausible, it seems questionable to me." This is a perfect example of GregKaye's original research and inability to accept WP:V. Most of GregKaye's large-scale additions to Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd are selective, lengthy quotations from portions of a primary source (i.e., Justice Nicol's 129-page judgement) that he thinks have been ignored, neglected, or misrepresented by reliable secondary sources. While editors are always welcome to point out clearly demonstrable errors on the talk page, even using original research, it is not proper to insert said original research directly into article space, to over-emphasize findings from a primary source that are not considered notable by secondary sources, or to remove sourced content simply because one subjectively feels that "it seems questionable to me." I would like to know if GregKaye accepts the validity of these core Wikipedia content policies, because many of his edits/comments seem to be more or less openly dismissive of them.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TheTimesAreAChangingWP:OR relates to the instruction that, Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. We should certainly make enquiries into what and which materials are worthy of inclusion. Mark Stevens is a solicitor, not barrister, who has likely benefits from having his name in the WP:News. We could certainly look around for which legal experts to quote but I think many would be irrelevant. I'd provisionally say that specialists like Jennifer Freyd and Tarana Burke are, in my view, far more worthy of inclusion. GregKaye 10:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whether an attorney "likely benefits from having his name in the news" does not describe a valid criterion for assessing the reliability of a source. Nearly all experts "likely benefit from having their name in the news." In addition, Greg, your claim is by definition original research-- it is not drawn from a reliable source.126.96.36.199 (talk) 12:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, to get us back on topic, I strongly support the inclusion of the material citing various academic, legal professional, and media views on the potential effects of the verdict and trial on domestic abuse claims, the MeToo movement, and women's rights generally. Even a cursory examination of reliable sources on the topic would show discussions of this nature were widespread, even dominant, in the aftermath of the trial. This perspective is clearly notable, prominent, and drawn from reliable sources, and we would do a great disservice to our readers by omitting mention of it because some editors believe the media is "biased" in this discussion. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 13:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make clear, there's a difference between opinion articles in reliable sources and news articles in reliable sources. The former is only for opinion. starship.paint (exalt) 14:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with the you on the inclusion of this trial's potential effects but much greater emphasis should be placed on information from professional or academic sources then on media views. Media articles used as sources should not be opinion pieces or include opinions of non-experts as they are fundamentally unreliable sources. This was one of the reasons for my removal of the (rather incoherent) wall of opinions that made up the other reactions section. Originalcola (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with 184.108.40.206, one can't dispute the reliability of a source solely due to the potential of the expert benefiting from having his name in the news. The primary issue with including professional opinions such as Mark Steven's opinion is presenting a balanced and accurate view representantive of the opinion of experts, as to balance out differing expert opinions we should use a suitable secondary source like an article from a peer-reviewed journal on the trial. Originalcola (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree with you that it would be preferable to place greater emphasis on professional, academic, and scholarly views on this matter over opinions of media analysts. For now, I am more concerned that the section on this topic is restored and is included at all rather than requiring that it first be made perfect, however. It is not reasonable to remove clearly notable article sections in full because they are not perfect and could be improved. The proper way to address this is to improve them, not delete them. There-being (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The content I removed consisted of quotes from non-notable op-eds written in the style of a newspaper instead of an encylopedia. Low quality ontent that doesn't meet wikipedia's guidelines shouldn't be kept just because the topic they discuss is notable. The characterisation of the content removed being "not perfect" is, in my opinion, an understatement of the severity of the issues with what was removed. Originalcola (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not only were op-eds written by journalists removed, but also citations to professors, attorneys, and other sources of just the kind you have yourself said you would like to emphasize in such a section over the analysis of journalists. Wholesale removal of an entire section is not justifiable by Wikipedia policy unless the section has no right to exist, yet you have yourself said that characterizing your position as advocating for the deletion of the section was "strawmanning" you. So I must say I am a bit confused on what your position is here. There-being (talk) 20:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The strawman claim was that I was against the inclusion of a reaction section which was completely wrong, I removed parts of the reaction section not the whole thing. The specific sections I removed were not notable as per the general notability guidelines as per the general notability guidelines(WP:GNG) as there is a distinct lack of detailed coverage and analysis from media outlets on the issues discussed Originalcola (talk) 20:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The specific sections I removed were not notable as per the general notability guidelines as there is a distinct lack of detailed coverage and analysis from media outlets on the issues discussed." This statement is simply false. First of all, you did not remove "specific sections." You blanked the entire section. Let's not mince words. Second of all. there is not a "distinct lack of detailed coverage and analysis from media outlets on the issues discussed." There is extensive detailed media coverage and analysis on this issue. You could easily find 1,000 references on this topic if you wanted. Please. Everyone here knows very well this topic has been extensively discussed in the media. There-being (talk) 01:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)220.127.116.11 (talk) 18.104.22.168 (talk) 01:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well there's no reason to keep lower quality content in a non encyclopedic format just because it could be improved. We're also discussing the reactions section which I did not remove. I removed specific sections of the reaction section, not the entire thing. Originalcola (talk) 10:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The issue seems to have been resolved anyway Originalcola (talk) 10:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, you blanked and removed the entire section under discussion. Please stop misrepresenting. The issue has not been resolved as there are clearly more editors here who support inclusion than oppose it, and the issue will be taken to administration or arbitration or whatever is necessary if you continue to blank article content without justifiable reasons. There-being (talk) 11:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant by my statement was that the other reactions section was re-added. Sorry for not elaborating in greater detail and responding so late. Originalcola (talk) 22:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I took a two-week leave from Wikipedia, and it seems that in that time GregKaye has pretty much single-handedly re-written much of the articles related to this case. I am not even going to start going through every edit he has made, but I echo everything said above about his behaviour. He has a strong opinion on this case, very weak source criticism skills and on top of that seems to have decided that facts must bend to his will. Just two examples of this are his obsession with Heard’s ACLU donations and his replacing of much of the well-sourced content with quote walls in Depp v NGN; in both cases, he habitually misrepresents sources and overemphasizes those facts that support his view while leaving out the ones that do not. If I had the time, I’d take him to ANI as this behaviour has now continued for 2 months. Editing these articles is essentially all about dealing with his edits these days. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't the editor that, citing WP:News, blanked the content. Previously there was a real problem with bias. Now we're hopefully constructively discussing to work out what potential encyclopaedic ways there may be to go forward. GregKaye 14:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain what you mean by your claim that the sources are "biased"? What makes them unreliable? It sounds to me like you are inserting your own original research and personal opinion here- if the same type of material can be found in many reliable sources, you don't get to interject that you personally feel it is biased and exclude it on that basis. I am concerned there is an issue here of you personally rejecting Wikipedia policies and thinking you needn't abide by them if you disagree, as others here have suggested. Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).There-being (talk) 14:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that GregKaye is referring to the fact that the media coverage on this subject has included a large amount of personal opinions on social issues, with many major outlets doing op-eds that are being cited in this article. Op-eds are, by definition, at least partially biased towards a certain opinion and thus aren't the most neutral of sources. As a sidenote, I know you have concerns about the actions of another editor but try to avoid personal attacks. Originalcola (talk) 15:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should distinguish between the professional opinions of academics, attorneys, and journalists who are paid to analyze and opine on social matters and the effects of legal proceedings, and the purely personal opinions of Wikipedia editors, which are of no interest to anyone. I feel these are wildly different things are being conflated here, and I'm not really clear why anyone would have difficulty seeing how different they are, as this distinction is pretty simple to make.. What policy states that reliably sourced op-eds are not to be used on Wikipedia? There is none.There-being (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What policy states that reliably sourced op-eds are not to be used on Wikipedia - not to be used for facts, for sure, only opinions. starship.paint (exalt) 16:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And who exactly is claiming that op-eds should be used as a source for facts? The point here is that we are not covering significant themes in op-eds about this case in the "Reactions" part.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The principle issue is that there are a large number of op-eds from multiple different major media outlets that would require editors to make decisions on which articles could be used in order to provide balance and a neutral POV. That would require original research and thus cannot be done. In this case, reliable neutral sources are sorely needed. If one cannot find reliable neutral sources for the notable themes then the content cannot be included on Wikipedia. Unreliable sources for notable subjects shouldn't be used simply due to an absence of more reliable sources. Originalcola (talk) 20:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems as if this issue has been rectified already with a satisfactory new edit. Originalcola (talk) 10:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand your logic, we should not have a 'Reactions' section at all? If there are multiple op-eds from RS publications all citing similar themes –#MeToo movement's crisis, misogyny in our society, violence against women– then we definitely can summarize it as "Several publications wrote about XYZ themes. [Prominent example 1, prominent example 2]." This most definitely does not go against the policies you've cited and is not OR. What is bizarre is the exclusion of a major theme in the media coverage of this trial from the Reactions.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:OriginalCola Could you kindly direct me to the specific policy page and specific text that says that citing op-eds cannot be done because it would constitute original research? I do not believe this is true, and would like to see evidence. There-being (talk) 20:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Op-eds can be used as sources and I never claimed that they couldn't be used as such. According to wikipedia's policy on reliable sources, op-eds are generally,but not always, unreliable as sources of information. The policy page is here:WP:NEWSORG. Saying that it "cannot be done" as it would be original research was an error on my part, it would have been more accurate to say that it would require very reliable op-eds considering the nature of this trial. Originalcola (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reference to WP:NEWSORG. However, the op-eds and other sources of opinions cited were being quoted as sources of the opinion that ngos, professors, attorneys, journalists feared a "chilling effect" on domestic abuse claims from the verdict. Obviously they were not being cited to state as definitive fact that this would occur. So I do not see the conflict with the policy given on NEWSORG. There-being (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that the actual reliability of the opinions determines their inclusion in wikipedia as, although they are not presented as fact, the opinions are presented as expert viewpoints and thus have to be of high quality, especially when dealing with a legal case. Originalcola (talk) 20:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At most you have given a possible rationale for excluding some of the opinions -- those from journalists, rather than legal, academic, or policy professionals. Yet the entire section was removed, including opinions of just the sort you've said you would like to emphasize. Why is this?There-being (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The section was on media coverage, not expert opinions and was not notable due to a complete lack of reliable sources with analysis on media coverage on the trials. Media coverage was relatively minor, with most of the reactions to the trial being on social media platforms like TikTok. The opinions were valid but were not presented in an encyolpedic format.
Thank you for the source but I don't feel you've given an answer to why the entire section deserves deletion when you claim to object only to op-eds written by journalists and that the reaction section should emphasize the opinions of academics, attorneys, and professionals. I still don't see where you've offered even a possible rationale for why the section as a whole was deleted and I think blanking the section was completely unjustifiable, to be frank, even by your own logic. There-being (talk) 22:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try to avoid using strawman arguments, I very clearly am not advocating for a lack of a Reactions section. You could summarise in a way that would not be covering each and every source in excessive detail. The main issue is that it would have to be summarised in such a way as to not give undue weight to any particular viewpoint and in an encyclopedic format. Originalcola (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to where exactly I have advocated for "covering each and every source in excessive detail"? I'm saying that when there is significant media coverage of certain viewpoints (+actual NGOs weighing in as well), it is most definitely not against any policy I'm aware of to summarize the main themes and arguments in those and give a couple of good examples. That's how you edit Wikipedia in general, at least any analysis/reactions section. I and There-being are asking you to point us to the policy that you are saying prevents this and to explain in more detail how this would be OR.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That was one of the biggest issues with the previous section, unless you wrote that section then I can't see how you advocated for it. Originalcola (talk) 20:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Media coverage doesn't guarantee inclusion on wikipedia(see WP:SUSTAINED and the notability guidelines) which is a reason why most of the op-eds were removed. Originalcola (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First of all I think it needs to be said that, regardless of your personal opinions, you shouldn't assume that editors are acting maliciously and trying to sabotage pages without sufficient evidence. Let's all try to remain civil and avoid further edit warring.
As to the formation of a consensus, I think that the primary issue with the reactions section is that a large portion of it is simply restating op-eds and news articles that either support or oppose the results of the trial and then trying to balance it with other articles without any regard to the articles actual signifiance or impact. Not enough time has passed since the trial to find decent secondary sources with in-depth analysis of the trials to use(as far as I know)so the reactions section should remain relatively short. Nearly half of the social media reactions section is mostly just op-eds from a variety of newspapers that could easily be summarised in a few sentences and the section on companies, in my opinion, is unnecessary and as it stands now contains nothing worthy of inclusion on this page.
I think it's also worth saying that this article is seriously lacking in actual details about the trial despite extensive media coverage and the trial itself being livestreamed. There are no details on what actually happened in the trial, only the opening and closing statements.Originalcola (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, the entire section was removed and replaced with no mention of this topic apart from 1 very opaque sentence that completely misstated what the underlying sources which it cited said in favor of a personal and inaccurate synthesis. Surely the section can be edited but not including it at all because it is arguably too long and of course needs editing (much like the entire article) doesn't make a lot of sense. I agree with you that the article requires additional detail about the trial, particularly regarding the testimony, which, amazingly, is not even present. But that's a different matter. There-being (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
despite 100+ sources entirely misses the point that these are clearly excessive, intricate details which do not provide an encyclopedic summary of the topic. Wikipedia is WP:NOTEVERYTHING. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is an absolutely bizarre rationale for why an encylopedia article about a trial should include zero details on its testimony, when testimony is quite obviously a key element of a trial. If you think a section of an article could be improved, and has excessive detail, the actual policy guidelines state that you should improve it, trimming it of the excess detail, not simply delete it. Your citation to WP:NOTEVERYTHING has no application here, as NOTEVERYTHING does not say anything that could reasonably interpreted as saying that encyclopedia articles about trials should include no details about the testimony in the trial. Could you please explain how you possibly get that from WP:NOTEVERYTHING? Moreover, could you explain why the proper response to seeing a section with "too many details" is to delete the section, rather than actually doing something to improve the article, such as trim the number of details? There-being (talk) 22:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why such a hurry? Doing the work to "trim the details" takes time, and effort. An effort which we don't need to show to our readers while it is in progress, since an excessively detailed section brings attention onto itself and distracts readers from the rest of the article. The proper course of action is to spin out the offending section to a temporary draft page; fix the issues with it, and reinsert it once and only when the issues with it have been fixed. Wikipedia is a perpetual work in progress and simply because something is in the news does not mean Wikipedia needs to instantaneously have coverage on it. There is WP:NORUSH and Wikipedia not a newspaper. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This reply strikes me as rather naive or disingenuous. There is no need to trim all of the details at once, given that there is no hurry, as you correctly note. Simply start by cutting one excessive detail at a time. Deleting a section such that it cannot be improved by other editors collaboratively is not a productive way to edit a collaborative encyclopedia. Also note that your rationale would equally justify deleting articles with problems rather than improving them, so I do not think you are interpreting those policies correctly. There-being (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What strikes me as "disingenuous" is claims that this has been "deleted". It's just been moved to a draft article so it can be worked on without being showed down every reader's throat here. This is standard practice with material which fails standards but could be reasonably reworked into something sensible (heck, it's the whole reason the draft namespace exists). Anybody can go and edit the draft (linked above) to trim it gradually until it can be included back in. There is no need to trim all of the details at once Except if this is done in the article while it is shown to readers, this will lead to very uneven coverage (and thus leave readers with a possibly unbalanced impression of things) until everything has been trimmed down appropriately. There are some instances where incremental improvements can be done on a reader-facing page. This, seemingly with an excessive reaction in every newspaper imaginable, is not it; i.e. we shouldn't accept getting it wrong, so we should patiently keep working on it until we have something that is right. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you likely know very well that probably does not happen often, if it happens at all, and that when articles are moved to draft spaces they at most become an individual's personal project. Collaborative editing surely happens primarily in articles and secondarily on talk pages. Secret draft pages hidden away that almost no one knows where to find are not a significant locus of collaborative editing. What you are describing is a way to kill an article while claiming to not do so. I remain completely unconvinced by your interpretation of policy that the proper response to noticing problems in an article subtopic that nonetheless merits inclusion in the article is to blank the section, rather than fix the problems, one at a time, if need be. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 00:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your accusations would sound less egregiously wrong if the link to this supposedly "secret hidden away draft page" wasn't prominently featured at the top of this comment chain. Here again just in case you've somehow missed it: Draft:Testimony in Depp v. Heard. You know where the draft is. If you want to work on it, feel free to do so. If you don't, then don't complain. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most editors of this article are not going to notice this link. Therefore it reduces collaborative editing, which is the intention in blanking the content rather than working to improve it, presumably. I still fail to see how the policies you've cited could reasonably be construed as supporting blanking what you admit is a relevant section of the article for "excessive detail." You've not offered any justifications, just overly general links to policy pages that do not offer any support or justification for the blanking of entire sections for "excessive detail." 126.96.36.199 (talk) 00:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're barking up the wrong tree. I'm not the one who removed the notice about the draft (). As for the policy explanations, I've already linked NOTNEWS Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories; and this is also a helpful explainer of why we shouldn't include excessive information which is of little if any long-term encyclopedic interest (see the WP:10YEARTEST). The solution of removing it to a draft page and reinstating it once it has been fixed is the simplest to implement (copy pasting it back in should pose no difficulties), the one which is likely to result in the highest involvement (as draft space is still not an individual editor's domain; and on a topic like this I'd expect there to be interested people to work on it); and also the most pragmatic as it avoids duplication of work (having a single copy that can be worked on with no rush and without being shown in an incomplete state to readers ensures as few problems as possible). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Starship.paint:Thanks for pointing out the draft but I was aware of it already, I just thought that a brief summary of the testimony could be included in this article.Originalcola (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Originalcola: - you are right, unfortunately, that takes work, and the Reactions in this article also take work, and the rest of Wikipedia also takes work, so simply, no one has gotten around to do it yet. starship.paint (exalt) 14:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering about the extent to which this data may affect editor's perceptions of the extent to which sources find topics to be notable.
2)Encyclopedias do not simply use google search data to determine notability of topics or sub-topics. And even if they did, 6.7 million hits obviously passes any such test. There-being (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal view that sources are "of little note" is not relevant to others besides you. Obviously a search for Depp-Heard vs Depp-Heard and MeToo generates fewer hits for the second as opposed to the first; indeed, this is true by definition. What exactly do you think this proves, and why do you possibly think that said number of search results is insufficient for notability? This is not how notability is determined to begin with, so this whole discussion is pointless, but google search data for this topic OBVIOUSLY indicates notability if you chose to assess notability in that way. Could this be a case of WP:COMPETENCEISREQUIRED? There-being (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Try to remain polite and civil as well as assume good faith when dealing with other editors as per WP:EQ. Originalcola (talk) 20:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, what is the point supposed to be here? I quickly scanned and was able to find many more sources than you claimed citing Freyd's analysis in less than 60 seconds. The Washington Post, Newsweek, The Global Herald, Vox, The Guardian, Yahoo, University of Oregon, Stanford University, all have citations to Freyd on the Depp-Heard trial within the first 2 pages of results (in addition to the ones you already claimed). Your claims here have no meaning and reflect only an inadequate attempt at searching for sources. There-being (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With pleasure. Here are a number of links quoting or citing Freyd on the Depp-Heard trial found on the first page of a simple google search for the terms. Your personal opinion that a notable and prominent university professor who has been quoted multiple times in national and international outlets such as Washington Post, Newsweek, Vox, etc. on this precise topic is "of little note" has no possible relevance here. I really do not understand how you can reasonably dispute that a prominent, notable University Professor at perhaps the most prestigious university in the United States who is quoted at length on this topic by multiple prominent international news outlets like the Washington Post on this very topic is not notable. The criterion for being a reliable source is not whether or not Greg Kaye finds something to be "of little note."
'Comment I'm starting to believe that, as was previously suggested by someone else, this dispute needs to be sent to some sort of administrative intervention, as a committed minority of editors seems intent on blanking an entire section of a clearly notable subtopic filled with reliable sources, but has been unable to describe justifiable policy reasons for doing so. There-being (talk) 01:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have been given clear reasons why. Disagreeing with it does not make such reasons illegitimate. Something that fails WP:NOT (as argued) should be removed, not kept indefinitely until someone bothers to fix it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and since you seem to be insisting on exact "letter of the law" stuff (even though Wikipedia is not a court of law; there is WP:INAPPROPRIATE (Information that falls under any guideline listed under What Wikipedia is not or several other Wikipedia guidelines and has been added to an article can be boldly removed.; though this really was common sense RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I heard your supposed "reasons" but, alas, bad reasons are not actually reasons ('reasons' is a success term, to put this another way.) The topic has received significant media coverage and is indisputably worthy of inclusion in the article. I'm honestly astonished someone could even argue that the article should wholly omit discussion of a topic which has been as extensively discussed in the media as well as academic and policy sources with regards to the trial as this.. Equally astonishing to me is that anyone could think extremely vague justifications like WP:Inappropriate or joke articles like Opinions are like Arseholes could possibly justify blanking of obviously notable content based wholly on reliable sources. Nor do I even grant the premise that there was anything especially wrong with the section to begin with (I only say, that even if you take that view, blanking the section was still grossly inappropriate.) Since a minority of editors chooses to inappropriately blank reliably sourced, notable, relevant, informative content without adequate or reasonable justification, I take it that the only solution is to submit this dispute to higher authorities, as User:Ovinus] suggested would be necessary when creating this section. There-being (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A Key argument here relates to WP:DUE which says: "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Despite protestations on the page here, I have clearly demonstrated, in the context of vast coverage on the topic as a whole, the relatively small proportion of those articles that in some way referenced #MeToo. The ratio for June 1-12 Google news searches is 25,600:48 - 533:1.
I had been partly persuaded, through my own research with results presented at Talk:Depp v. Heard/reactions, of genuinely strong comments made by Tarana Burke that I had separately found. Prior to that I had been revolted by the misrepresentation of the reference that RS had made to Jennifer Freyd.
Please, the pushing and even manipulation of one sided arguments has to stop. 533:1.
Following an, I think, reasonable edit by X-Editor the Other reactions section now has an additional line, "Various opinion pieces from major news outlets were written either in support of Heard or against her, as well as on the trial's implications for the future of the #MeToo movement." This is accompanied by nine citations current citations which, in context, may be excessive though a fair representation of references is certainly warranted.
(edit conflict) I tried once more to write a cohesive section, with a rationale in the edit summary. I included more sources that GregKaye found and listed on the /reactions page, such as Burke's tweet, and mostly quoted notable people (the exception being Dan Novack's quote on the First Amendment). I want to avoid bludgeoning, and I'm getting incredibly tired (this really isn't the part of Wikipedia I enjoy editing). Agreed with There-being that if this keeps going, NPOVN is a good idea. Unfortunately it looks like I somewhat diffused conflict by creating the /reactions page. We'll see how long it is until I get reverted. :P Regarding GregKaye's argument that in the context of vast coverage on the topic as a whole, the relatively small proportion of those articles that in some way referenced #MeToo, that doesn't make sense. An article can cover the case without referencing #MeToo but without taking any stance. The bigger question is what percent of opinion (section subtitle, "reactions") pieces discussing the verdict (see section title, "To the verdict") mention #MeToo, in a positive or negative fashion. That proportion is not at all negligible. Ovinus (talk) 05:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The tiredness is mutual. We work with policy, one of which is WP:Due. I didn't remove the content. We have to discuss what proportional references to put back. Several have been. GregKaye 05:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I don't think this is going anywhere productive, so I've opened a discussion on the NPOV noticeboard here; if it attracts other editors' attention I encourage you to respond there. Ovinus (talk) 05:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it so hard not to make basic logical fallacies?
Disagreeing with the reasons given does not make them be "bad reasons", if you can't provide a justification why. Saying something is "vague" when in fact you have been provided with exact links and exact quotes (as you were repeatedly requesting; quote your request to describe justifiable policy reasons for doing so) not only does not make it vague, it makes it look like you're moving the goalposts.
The rest of your comment is attacking a strawman. Nobody is saying that there shouldn't be a section about reactions to the trial, what is being said is that the proposed section is not anywhere close to what the final result should look like (i.e. WP:TNT); and that most of the existing sources and of those that were used in the proposed section are too much WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS to be useful in this aspect. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am talking about the section titled "Other Reactions to the verdict, including effects on Me Too." (or whatever the exact title was.) This lengthy, well-sourced, notable section was deleted in full and is the topic under discussion. Likewise, the entire "Testimony" section was blanked in full. This has made them many orders of magnitude more difficult for editors to collaboratively improve, and the article was obviously better off with the information they provided in them, as both sections were filled to the brim with reliable sources. Indeed, the only criticism anyone has been able to muster of either section is that they were "too detailed," which is hardly a crime worthy of deletion or indiscriminate blanking of the sections in their entirety. And yes, the pages you provided in justification for your unjustifiable actions such as WP:OPINIONSARELIKEARESHOLES or whatever joke page you sent me to do were indeed quite vague in explaining why the proper course of action when faced with an "excessively detailed" section would be to delete it in full. Nothing on any page you referenced says anything of the sort. Your citations don't support the claims you wish to make. So the only one "making basic logical fallacies" and attacking strawmen is you, pal. There-being (talk) 02:34, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"reliably sourced" misses the point, again. The removed sections are written in an entirely unencyclopedic way, as though the person(s) who did it had no clue what an encyclopedia should look like. It's astonishing when, with sources like, for example, this, instead of giving appropriate summary like The court has been presented with witnesses’ recollection of the couple’s disputes and investigated for their observations of the relationship dynamics that underpinned them, as each side attempts to establish for the jury the probability of their version of events. or Throughout the trial, jurors have heard from a number of medical and mental health professionals., somebody decided that it would be better to give a indiscriminate quote-farm of every single witness and what they said and whatnot happened under cross-examination, ... We don't have that level of detail for such literally history-changing stuff like the Battle of Stalingrad or the Battle of Verdun. For a simple celebrity trial which has already been mostly replaced in the news cycle by whatever else, going to such extremes is clearly a textbook example of a lot of WP:RECENTISM (lack of hindsight) and a similarly significant amount of WP:FANCRUFT. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As the person who deleted the section, I would like to add that undue coverage was being given to a specific section and that there was no debate on that section. Originalcola (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Full disclosure, the results for the news searches on google for June 1-12 that I'm now finding are:
This is on the same stated methodology that I mentioned earlier that, "On the results page you can only see the result numbers by selecting the text around and under the date and copying and pasting somewhere else." Something somewhere has glitched but my search based argument for WP:Due seems to have dissipated.
Oddly, I find, the search's first page of results  now reads for me as 5,720 results but the last (8th) page  it now reads for me as 80 results. I've learned something. GregKaye 07:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This methodology is flawed. The number of results is not relevant as it includes mostly non reliable sources given the major coverage the trial has gotten. You need to base you conclusions only on reputable sources. ((u|Gtoffoletto))talk 11:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
News searches will typically link to a range of sources considered reliable and not. GregKaye 13:15, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced the content of the other reactions page as had been input at the time of Ovinus's edit. GregKaye 07:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So is everyone in agreement with this new edit? I'd say it looks fine. Originalcola (talk) 10:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a start. We need to better explain some parts such as what DARVO means I think. It isn't clear unless you already know what it means. ((u|Gtoffoletto))talk 11:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jennifer Freyd's direct quote from the article was that "“Darvo refers to a reaction [that alleged] perpetrators of wrongdoing, particularly sexual offenders, may display in response to being held accountable for their behaviour,” I added the link to the article which should be sufficient but, if reference is added, it should be done inclusive of the [alleged] reference. GregKaye 13:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I read that DARVO applies to real perpetrators and not alleged ones. Originalcola (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's normally used in that context at least. Originalcola (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly not in agreement. It's woefully inadequate in its coverage and clearly inferior to the previous version. There-being (talk) 02:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I produce great NPOV results and, according to the tiny proportion of my edits cited, also appropriately counter significant bias and spin. GregKaye 03:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, your editing is so full of misrepresentations of the sources you cite and of such generally poor quality that a talk page section was created by another editor immediately above this one to bring to your attention the significant problems with your edits. You fundamentally do not understand how to represent what sources say accurately- I have seen you quote a source as saying literally the exact opposite of what the source actually says. At least 6 different editors agreed and tried to tell you in various ways that your editing was deeply problematic, but you refuse to listen to criticism and simply dig in your heels and boast about how magnificent your editing is, instead of hearing what others are saying and trying to improve your work. Nor does your reply explain why anyone should take seriously that you have any commitment to neutrality after expressing your desire to personally get "psychological help" for "Amber." There-being (talk) 03:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just for reference all, I brought the topic of freedoms of speech into the article which I did in the same (not previously cited) diffs of the edit that was brought into question!!! GregKaye 18:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Avoid personal attacks on other editors, you can have opinions on this trial and still try to act neutral. Originalcola (talk) 22:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why is a reaction section necessary at all ? There is a legal determination here on the facts of the case, and Wikipedia can just summarize the verdict. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Various commentators have spoken as to the potential effects of the case and there has been extensive coverage of the trial on social media and media outlets and it's potential impact. Throughout the whole trial there has been substaintial discussion of issues like #MeToo and domestic abuse so just covering the trial itself without dealing discussing the reactions to it that were even brought up in the trial would make the article incomplete. Originalcola (talk) 22:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a serious question? Major news events almost always have a reactions section, because expert and public reaction to major or culturally important events is typically notable. In some instances, there is even an entire article for reactions. See Reaction to the verdict in the O. J. Simpson criminal trial for example. Wikipedia also abides by a consensus of reliable sources, it doesn't depend entirely on the jury's determination as you seem to suggest since this is not a court of law, but an encyclopedia. There-being (talk) 02:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Originalcola and There-being. The Depp V. Heard case (and the hysterical coverage that it received on social media), though not technically setting any new legal precedent, is likely to be studied by journalistic and academic sources for years to come. While Wikipedia's coverage may accordingly change over time, I can see no policy-based support for StellarNerd's suggestion that the scope of our article should be limited to merely summarizing the jury's verdict and nothing more.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can we also agree that the other extreme, of indiscriminately quote-farming op-eds and journalistic opinion takes written in the immediate aftermath, is not a plausible way to get an encyclopedic article which provides a "summary of knowledge" based on high-quality sources? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Social media is all about networking. If people don't agree with or sees flaws in what's being said they will often be able to respond and challenge it. I'd be curious about the proportion of people on social media who led the social media response who actually watched the trial. While using social media for things like it's court reporting and legal and body language commentary there wasn't much around that could be defined as hysterical, but there was plenty of pointed and hurtful stuff that needed challenge.
When looking scrolling down the article on the Depp v. Heard trial I currently find ~4.5 screens worth of information about the trial and ~7.5 screens on reactions. GregKaye 18:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that, the reactions section has an excessive amount of quotes for an encylopedia. Originalcola (talk) 22:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's start from scratch since this is clearly going nowhere, whose reactions should we include and why? Give sources for specific reactions or claims.Originalcola (talk) 22:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NO, entire pointless, out of date, NOTNEWS and NOTGOSSIP content. Sure, many figures voiced some fleeting response, however this has no lasting significance. The article, instead of covering the trial, is covering these silly soundbites of responses. TikTok videos are on the net one moment and are gone the next. This article should cover the legal case, not these trivial reactions. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and No. (I came here from the RfC notice and have not previously followed this page.) Sorry, but as asked, this RfC is not a yes-or-no matter; that diff removes a massive amount of content. I see this as: yes, some of this content belongs on the page, and no, not all of it does. I do think that it's very WP:DUE to cover the prominent online coverage, how it included misleading information, and how it may have influenced the verdict, as well as Depp's and Heard's reactions to the verdict. But a blow-by-blow account of every online bloviation is unencyclopedic. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Whilst there are still a lot of issues with the reactions section, there doesn't seem to be a clear reason why the entire section on reactions to this trial should be removed. I did not know that this issue was contentious as, to my knowledge, only 1 editor had previously suggested it's total removal whilst there appeared to be a consensus that the reaction article needed to be improved, not removed.Originalcola (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat. I think what needs to be kept in mind is long-term significance as to what is noteworthy. Broader strokes rather than individual examples. The quotes are really good to have. A possible avenue for prose is a section on the role social media played in swaying the public. "Reactions" from the 'spectators' should be reduced to "disruptions from court spectators". Stuff about Depp and Heard should be under the 'Verdict' section. Finally, wrap up with analysis of the implications of the trial ("other reactions" should do). I know this is comment is scatterbrained, sorry. SWinxy (talk) 23:39, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, covering what secondary reliable sources deem notable is non-negotiable on Wikipedia, although over time we may want to look for more authoritative academic sources.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, many sources indicate the trial has a broader meaning. If nothing else, victims of domestic violence who don't have hard evidence might be less inclined to come forward, but so will victims who made it all up. So no more #BelieveAllWomen blindly without looking at the facts and a little more innocent until proven guilty. This is a conclusion that was reflected in multiple good sources. Since the trial had an impact on society, this should be mentioned. I'm not too fond of the "reactions" heading, which suggests it's like movie reviews. Also, considering BLP, i think that any op-eds that state Heard was the victim despite the trial outcome, should at least argue why they think so (as i also stated above). Aside from those ponts, i think the section is in a pretty good state at the moment. PizzaMan♨♨♨ 10:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Yes, ample and important coverage by reputable sources. Can be improved but should definitely be there. ((u|Gtoffoletto))talk 11:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC) p.s. the section is getting out of hand though. Editors are adding way too much detail and trivia. The "to the trial" section should be reduced to a few paragraphs maximum. ((u|Gtoffoletto))talk 12:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not as written, though we should have something about the trial's significance in some form. That version puts far too much focus on the opinions of individual talking heads (often ones with no relevant expertise), and generally feels like it has fallen into the WP:QUOTEFARM problem where editors with different views on the topic have been trying to stuff as many opinions into it as possible to bludgeon the weight and focus of the overall section. It should have less focus on individual opinions (especially individual opinions by columnists, which I feel should get no space at all when there's already so many better sources available), and should instead focus on broad strands of high-quality coverage about the trial's significance. I also feel that retitling it to something like impact or significance would be better than just reception - this isn't a movie; we don't need people reviewing it. The trial was significant for these reasons and had this impact, cited to high-quality sources that can be used for that sort of thing in the article voice, that makes sense. But we should avoid stuff like "0/10 trial, totally awful, would not watch again" said Grindy McBigmouth, opinion columnist for Talk Magazine. --Aquillion (talk) 04:31, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Its inclusion is due weight considering the massive amount of RS. Yet, I would support trimming it down a bit. ~ HAL333 03:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes because the reaction was as important as the trial–we know this. But it's too damn long. Trillfendi (talk) 03:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree that the reactions were important. A summary of the sources, without too much detail, would good enough I think. Iraniangal777 (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - The section should exist, as reliable sources have covered that the reactions themselves are noteworthy. I make no further comment as to the SPECIFC content of the section, how much it should include, etc... but the section should absolutely exist in general. Due to the weight reliable sources give, I'd say that a section on it is basically mandated by wikipedia policy. Fieari (talk) 05:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
and if the body content indicated is removed, the following lead content would be unsupported.
"... The livestreamed trial attracted large numbers of viewers as well as considerable social media commentary, the majority of which was sympathetic to Depp and/or critical of Heard. Large numbers of Depp's supporters gathered at the courthouse, contributing to what was widely described as a "circus-like atmosphere" and a significant public spectacle. In the United States, news articles about the case generated more social media interactions per article than all other significant news topics of that time period. Clips of the trial were widely used to create compilations and reaction videos, with multiple such videos, on platforms such as TikTok, going viral. Videos carrying the hashtag #justiceforjohnnydepp had attained over 18 billion views on TikTok by the trial's conclusion."
It depends which topics we think should be covered. GregKaye 11:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Parts that I'd say are less warranted are the first para of Potential misleading information due to containing unsubstantiated? accusation and speculation all of which might go into controversies sections of related articles. The second para may have valid criticism of social media and might be attached at the end of that subsection. The Camille Vasquez section. If wanted the content could go into her article. The Companies section ironically lacks value. GregKaye 12:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I think that the opinion poll at the end of the Other Reactions section may also be unwarranted. Originalcola (talk) 13:09, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure why this section has been included. There has been limited media coverage on this topic but it seems out of place on an encyclopedia and not very notable so I think it should be removed from the article or be shortened and moved to the Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd section of this article. I previously made the mistake of deleting this section without trying to gauge pre-existing consensus or seek one so I would like to recieve input from any interested parties.Originalcola (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the choice is between whether the article presents a content on differences between the trials or not. WP:Lead says "...The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. ..." There can be difficulties if editors WP:Cherrypick items to reference in the Lead without having related content in the body text. I think the choice is between the article making no comment on Differences between the trials or doing so properly as per WP:Due which says, "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." As per open talk topic above, Differences between the Depp trials, I conducted a Google news search on US UK difference depp trials and attempted, in various ways, to present an NPOV reflection on the response. GregKaye 04:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A potential solution could be to leave a sentence or two about differences in the lead and remove the other section from the article Originalcola (talk) 13:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Originalcola: I don't think this should be a standalone section. Not sure why it turned out that way... unfortunately the edit history of this article is a mess. I would keep the content but move it into some other subsection for sure. The Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd section might be ok although this is more of an analysis to te verdict and why it was so different. So the notorious "reactions" section might be more appropriate. ((u|Gtoffoletto))talk 11:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gtoffoletto, as per the above, it turned out that way to in relation to and support content on difference between the trials in the WP:Lead, a part of the article intended to serve as a summary its most important article contents which should covered in accordance with WP:Due. Edit summaries on the section have generally been pretty clear. GregKaye 12:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that something can be briefly summarised in the lead but not have it's own section if warranted if the information isn't significant, like a brief line mentioning differences. Originalcola (talk) 13:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show policy for that? WP:Lead is pretty clear. Also, with AknolIikiW's constructive edit, the lead reads "Differences between the US and the UK trials included the decision being made by a jury rather than a judge, and the fact that Heard was the defendant in the US trial, whereas in the UK the newspaper group was the defendant. Another difference is the cultural response to the live broadcast US trial." which, at least, presents more rounded reference. Best to follow policy but the important thing it that editors agree on WP:NPOV content compliant with WP:DUE. GregKaye 13:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere in WP:LEAD does it say that every sentence in the lead should have it's own section. I'm not sure what you mean when you say that it is "pretty clear", as it doesn't say what you think it does anywhere. Also a lot of your other points are definitely not very clear... you point out several policies which seem unrelated to this discussion. I agree with Originalcola we should merge this content elsewhere. ((u|Gtoffoletto))talk 17:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also: that content is pretty poor sourced, gives WP:UNDUE weight and reflects the sources poorly... needs a rewrite in addition to the merge. ((u|Gtoffoletto))talk 18:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The content is extremely well represented in RS and was gathered by methods corresponding with WP:NPOV by working impartially through the searches adding information as it was proven notable according to Reliable Sources.
And, on top of issues previously mentioned, is the issue of WP:Balance that, "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence." and goes further even to say that "... when reputable sources both contradict one another and also are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint." There's not even a contradiction here. There's just multiple factors involved which should be relevantly presented with WP:Balance.
Then there's WP:IMPARTIAL that, "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes."
Factors involved in the outcome of the Depp v. Heard trial include:
that Heard was the defendant in the US trial, whereas in the UK a publisher and its editor were the defendants,
that additional witnesses came forward in the US trial and
that courtroom discussion in the US included new information including on issues like what happened to the divorce settlement money that Heard had pledged to donate.
They were all prominent among the relevant factors. It's just not WP:Honest imply that it was just down to having a jury instead of a judge or (despite the fact that the jury was told not to engage with the media) that it was down to the trial being broadcast. WP:Due content can't be supressed. We must present relevant issues with WP:Balance. GregKaye 20:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Woah, "can't be supressed"? In all seriousness, the factors in the outcome of the trial can simply be stated without stating them as differences; the relevant factors that led to the verdict don't need to be framed in the context of differences between the two trials. Originalcola (talk) 02:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It states on the wikipedia page on leads that "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article". The differences between the trial would probably fall under basic facts in this case. I was trying to avoid excessively quoting rules and guidelines as I felt that many editors, including myself, have been doing this too much which has hampered actual discussion on improving this article. Originalcola (talk) 02:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Was asked to comment, here's my ¢2: Before we actually have relevant sources comparing the two cases in detail, these types of sections are bound to attract serious Original Research. I think GregKaye's list above is a prime example of that. Yes, there are differences between the two cases that would be interesting to discuss (jury v. judge; tv v no tv; Heard's medical evidence, messages not being allowed v allowed; pledge/donation discussion; Stephen Deuters; changes in Depp's and Kate James' statements; the focus on Heard's credibility instead of evidence, etc.), but before there are several pieces of academic/journalistic analysis, it simply does not meet Wikipedia guidelines and just invites half-truths and opinions. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 21:10, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TrueHeartSusie3 That's a good argument which is appreciated. My research added Anti-SLAPP and freedom of speech issues into the article so it had some good outcomes whatever you may think. It was also conducted in an RS search at the time of the trial which gave a some list articles cited. But I've looked for more but haven't been able to find further substantiation. You're right about editing. I know the section has been moved around since I set it up with a move of Heard as a defendant at the in first place of the list which is substantiated to an extent by being the first item listed in the first google result in the insider listing. I've done a deeper dive and the listing type articles do dry up.
IF then we can't cover a topic properly and find a balance on all the relevant topics in an encyclopaedic way, why do we touch it at all? Why do we present content on editor chosen topics regarding the differences. Isn't that original research? Shouldn't we just state that the Virginia trial had a jury and was broadcast and be done with it? GregKaye 00:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because the primary purpose of this defamation trial was for both parties to try and protect their reputations and thus has been centered on public reactions. These reactions were even brought up in the trial and have been discussed by both parties.
Let's try to get back to the main matter at hand. Originalcola (talk) 03:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with TrueHeartSusie3 and GregKaye that virtually any attempt to comprehensively list all of the differences between the legal proceedings in the U.K. versus those in the U.S. is likely to run afoul of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH and therefore that such a direct comparison should be avoided. It is not necessary for us to directly compare or contrast the two trials, as there are separate articles on each one; readers may examine the articles/sources independently and come to their own conclusions, but I am deeply concerned that editors (on both sides) would almost inevitably turn a dedicated section on differences between the two cases into a WP:COATRACK for endless argument about how the U.K. judge and/or the U.S. jury got it wrong. My analysis might change if higher-quality academic sources become available in the future and help to clarify this topic (and if the passage of time results in a more stable editing environment), but that hardly seems imminent.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And again, TheTimesAreAChanging, In the same way that I said to Suzie "You're right about editing." I'll say to you, you are very right about coatrack and the same rules need to apply to all. The initial ORcoatrack, if anything, was the initial lead comment on differences between the trials in the lead. IF it's OR to attempt produce a balanced account of differences between the trialsisn't it alsoOR to cherrypick select examples of differences between the trials to publish? Fundamentally, on the valid argument you present, it's this OR chosen initial content that should go. We can simply talk of having live broadcast (done) and the trial having a jury (also done). As I said from my first reply: "the choice is between whether the article presents a content on differences between the trials or not." How is that not so? personal comment: While I maintain the content to be good and balanced I recognise contextual problems. I had a valid point but it could have been tackled in other ways. GregKaye 06:04, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'd prefer to remove the whole section as I stated at the beginning so if there were only the two options you stated then I would support the removal of the section and any mention of it in the lead. Originalcola (talk) 23:31, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Select comment on differences must be removed especially when not given balance such as in the lead. Going back to 10 June the 5th paragraph of that lead began with a relatively NPOV"Both parties faced challenges in the defamation case and there were legal experts that doubted whether Depp could win his case having lost a similar libel suit in the UK." From then and to now, the 5th paragraph has become written in an far less impartial way.
MOS:LEADLENGTH suggests long articles might have lead length of "three or four paragraphs" with purpose as a "summary of the topic". The Lead for Depp v. Heard has five with much of the fifth being barely represented in the body. I think the third paragraph worked both better and more neutrally with chronologically based mention of the Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd trial. In this case a fourth paragraph could neatly continue from "In the United States, news articles about the case generated more social media interactions per article than all other significant news topics of that time period." with "The trial has renewed debates on topics relating to domestic violence, as well as the #MeToo movement and women's rights." It would fit with WP:Rules. GregKaye 14:06, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GregKaye I'm sorry but you do not seem to understand what WP:NPOV means. The methods you use to ensure "your neutrality" are substantially biased and problematic. You need to base content on what reputable sources say. Not make it up. e.g. Going back to 10 June the 5th paragraph of that lead began with a relatively NPOV "Both parties faced challenges. Who said that? What does it mean? 1. It is a terrible sentence that doesn't add anything to the article. 2. Saying "both parties" does not mean NPOV... I'm sorry but I think you are making editing this article very hard for everyone. The current article lead has lost all references to the previous trial!? How the hell did that happen? What are we doing here... we are having this discussion and then you go ahead with stuff like this where you remove it all altogether? And I don't even know when all the content from the lead was removed but it is gone once again. This is tendentious and unconstructive as many other editors have pointed out above (for example here) but you keep acting like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. This is a problem. I think that either you understand the consensus on this page and how the relevant policies work or you need to stop editing here. Please restore the article with the relevant mentions of Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd.
I'll leave here the sources that we have removed form the article so they can be restored into the article:
Just the last one is not a major WP:RS and they are all saying the same. I think this definitely represents what TrueHeartSusie3 was asking: several pieces of academic/journalistic analysis. Also for reference the previously agreed upon lead is here: . We should go back to this ASAP and stop degrading the text by removing reputable sources and adding WP:OR. ((u|Gtoffoletto))talk 11:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well at least you didn't quote a policy or guideline. In all seriousness, the trial's verdict should be mentioned in the lead as the verdict of the UK trial is a crucial piece of context for the US trial. Originalcola (talk) 23:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Heard, at 3m23s of her Guthrie recording, speaks of "another trial that dealt with the same substantive issues." I think think mention of something like "similar substantive content" could be encyclopaedic while not going far into subjective interpretation of similarity and difference. GregKaye 02:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused, according to the list of frequently discussed sources there isn't a consensus for it's usage whilst for culture it is generally reliable. Is there any specific reason why it's not a reliable source in this case? Originalcola (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Starship.paint: I'm pretty sure we are talking about "culture" here. SO it should be fine. In any case, I would stick to the other sources which are definitely better (BBC, Guardian, Wapost etc.). ((u|Gtoffoletto))talk 14:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"culture" is so broad that virtually anything would be "culture", isn't it? That's why I rely on a listing in . starship.paint (exalt) 14:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how you do that though. You can only see the recent articles. I would just avoid the source. We don't need it. ((u|Gtoffoletto))talk 21:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A juror has come forward to explain the rationale behind the verdict, this should be included in the article IMHO, but where?
3.1To the trial
3.2To the verdict
3.2Juror comments GregKaye 06:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think this comment should be included. Hasn't gotten broad enough coverage and is essentially fluffing up commentary by a single juror member, easy to take out of context (I haven't watched to interview, though). Ovinus (talk) 16:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should the RfC above be successful, I believe any one of these sources could be used to counter the allegations that jurors were influenced by social media when deliberating their verdict. This is a claim made several times in this article, and none of the sources provide any proof to support this. If evidence ever came to light that the jury disobeyed their instructions, this could cause a mistrial, even now, or provide grounds for an immediate appeal, well in to the future.We should've been very careful about repeating these claims in the first place. So since the claims remain on the article, in the interest of WP:BALANCE we should include a juror explicitly saying: "Social media did not impact us. We followed the evidence. We didn't take into account anything outside [the courtroom]. We only looked at the evidence… They were very serious accusations and a lot of money involved. So we weren't taking it lightly." Or we could just remove unfounded claims that the jury broke the law by violating their jury instructions from the article entirely. That'd be the safest bet. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 22:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Guthrie's Conflict of Interest
Should Savannah Guthrie's conflict of interest be mentioned in the "Heard's reaction section? Insider Article
Comment Guthrie gave disclosure to both Heard and her viewers on her indirect associations with the case and Heard chose to take the interview. GregKaye 06:17, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it matters, she's just a post-trial interviewer, it's not as if she took part in the trial. starship.paint (exalt) 02:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GregKaye: - I would say try not to use Insider because according to WP:RSP there is no consensus on the reliability of Insider, except for culture topics it is considered reliable, but in its culture sub-website I saw no such listing of your link of this article. starship.paint (exalt) 02:47, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But generally, there's more content on reactions on the trial article than there is about the trial which may also considered consider when looking at the article worthiness of this interview - one that, in a context, Heard chose to take. GregKaye 11:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of celebrities who support Heard vs. Depp
Unless I’m missing something, here, that part of the article has been removed. Why? Aardwolf68 (talk) 20:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the section as it isn't content that is meant to be on an encylopedia and because just because a person is notable does not guarantee that their opinions on every issue should be included on an article. A complete list of celebrity opinions would also be next to impossible to do. Originalcola (talk) 00:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Me too, but comments on this journalist said this can be less notable. At least the celebrities had varying levels of insider understanding. GregKaye 01:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Social Media Reactions Edit Warring
Pinging potentially interested editors: @Rusentaja, TheTimesAreAChanging, Starship.paint, HurricaneHiggins, and GregKaye:
Recently there has been edit warring between TheTimesAreAChanging and Rusentaja over what should be included in the social media section. Disputes between editors should be resolved on talk pages so interested editors should state their opinions on what should and shouldn't be included that is presently in the social media section.
I would also like to note that it's been generally agreed that a lot of the content on the reactions section needs to be rewritten or removed. Originalcola (talk) 00:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
The reality reported virtually unanimously in reliable sources is that social media, especially TikTok, witnessed a huge outpouring of support for Depp whereas Heard (and people associated with her) were targeted with viral falsehoods and sustained, often misogynistic, personalized attacks, some of them originating in coordinated efforts by right-wing activists (such as The Daily Wire), others perhaps merely a reflection of the misogynistic rhetoric and rape/death threats that are a systemic problem in many corners of the Internet (especially for prominent women and women of color). The smear campaign has been compared to Gamergate and other recent examples of online harassment. Obviously, this phenomenon tells us very little (or nothing) about the actual facts of the Depp v. Heard case, but reliable sources have identified it as significant and likely to a have a major downstream effect on society, as future victims of domestic violence or sexual abuse will have to consider the risk of being subjected to similar online harassment, perhaps amplified by alt-right figures, bots, and trolls.
That said, it bothers me that Rusentaja has evidently sought to be less-than-transparent about his edits. For example, Rusentaja initially retained most of the "Social media" subsection but moved it further down in the article to the "Reactions#To the verdict" subsection (despite virtually none of the material being about reactions to the verdict), seemingly in an attempt to break up the existing paragraphs, bury the information, and possibly create a pretext for its later removal on "relevance" grounds. After that edit was challenged, Rusentaja resorted to a unilateral 12,880 byte deletion which he characterized as a mere "trimming" and vaguely implied (, ) that the redacted content runs afoul of some policy or guideline, perhaps WP:TRIVIA or WP:NOTNEWS, without specific elaboration.
Therefore, while Rusentaja is in no way responsible for the many other attempts to whitewash the "Social media" subsection—for example, by moving unflattering reporting on The Daily Wire's activities (along with some minor filler) to a new subsection on "POTENTIAL misleading information" (emphasis added) solely to introduce unsourced doubt not found in the sources (and with the edit summary "c/e," which may as well have been left blank), or whoever drafted the text to read as though Heard doing cocaine on the stand was a more or less credible "claim" that simply happened to be incorrect, rather than a malicious falsehood—his unilateral mass removals are problematic, and related to a broader series of edits that are also (independently) problematic. The root of the problem seems to be that the "Social media" subsection in particular, even if not absolutely perfect in every way, adheres to WP:RS, whereas some highly-motivated volunteers (who, logically, may not get their news/information from sources that we recognize as reliable) disagree with those sources, but cannot say so openly or present equally reliable sources with a different perspective. Needless to say, under normal circumstances at least, this should not be a problem at all: Wikipedia is not a democracy and article content is not determined by what individual editors personally like or dislike. The only reason that I'm here at all is because I have seen in real-time how vulnerable these principles are to sustained pressure.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I perceive here is that a significant number of mainstream publications — such as Vogue (e.g., "Why It's Time to Believe Amber Heard"), the New York Times (e.g., "TikTok's Amber Heard Hate Machine"), the Guardian (e.g., "The Amber Heard-Johnny Depp trial was an orgy of misogyny"), and others — have taken a party line on the trial consistent with #MeToo and #BelieveAllWomen. Repeatedly insinuating that Amber Heard is a bona fide victim of domestic violence and the victim both of her powerful ex-husband and a social media "hate machine," these publications suggest that the social media narrative has been conditioned by systemic misogyny and shaped by orchestrated right-wing manipulation.
Meanwhile, organic commentators on social media — including large numbers of women, one should note — have watched the trial for themselves, assessed the evidence, documented the inconsistencies in Heard's testimony, and come to the conclusion that she has been lying for years, that she was the true abuser in the relationship, and that she has done a huge disservice to genuine victims of domestic violence. The Guardian and the New York Times will never admit that a woman could get on the stand and lie about domestic abuse or sexual violence, because their ideological bias in favor of #MeToo and #BelieveAllWomen precludes any such possibility. This means that concentrating only on what these "reliable sources" say will inevitably misrepresent the organic social media coverage of the trial — which does not all emanate from ignorant masses brainwashed by misogyny and The Daily Wire. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 09:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As TrueHeartSusie3 previously noted,"I'm pretty sure it's a MRA myth that this hashtag (#BelieveAllWomen) has ever been used by #MeToo or any other intersectional feminist movement." Regardless, I can at least appreciate your honesty and forthrightness in denigrating mainstream reliable sources for supposedly taking a "party line" and being unwilling to acknowledge that "a woman could get on the stand and lie," although these assertions are certainly open to question—you can probably imagine it might be difficult for people with a different worldview (e.g., The New York Times journalists) to accept that the aforementioned "rape joke" TikTok memes have anything to do with protecting either male or female victims of abuse, notwithstanding the WP:TRUTH of the matter. As other users before me have pointed out, though, WP:NPOV does not require turning every article into a "he-said, she-said" with equal space for all viewpoints. Rather, it states: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." In other words, you cannot point to a TikTok reaction that has not been reliably published to "refute" The New York Times, not even to right great wrongs, or engage in your own original research to declare, e.g., that since many women undeniably took part in the anti-Heard campaign, then, by golly, it could not possibly have had misogynistic undercurrents, The Guardian be damned! To return to your first sentence: Mainstream sources being "wrong" is not a "problem," at least not one that Wikipedia can solve.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's evident that "mainstream reliable sources" such as the New York Times and the Guardian took the view that Heard simply had to be believed — because to suggest otherwise would discredit the #MeToo movement of which both publications have been vocal proponents. Representing their perspective, and only their perspective, while attempting to denigrate a huge volume of good-faith social media commentary as amounting to "rape joke memes," does not exemplify a neutral point of view. It's possible to look neutrally at the social media commentary around Heard's testimony and acknowledge that much of it highlighted inconsistencies in her story, rather than being motivated by misogyny or right-wing manipulation. If a man claimed during an assault case that he had been punched numerous times in the face, but had no evident bruises in photos taken after the alleged incident, surely similar doubts would be raised. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 11:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Originalcola for making this section. My primary issue with the social media section of the article is that it is mostly a long list of reactions by journalists that aren't particularly noteworthy on their own. There are hundreds of such takes in the media, so what we could do is to summarize the main points without adding every opinion separately and keep the section concise. The reason for the trimming was to check that if same type of opinions were written previously in the article and avoiding repetition of virtually similar opinions by different journalists. For example, once we've said that "Journalist Amelia Tait of The Guardian referred to the case as "trial by TikTok" and stated that on social media, the case had become "a source of comedy"", do we really need to add that "other journalists at BuzzFeed News, The Independent, and Vanity Fair." agreed with her, that Amanda Hess, a critic writing for The New York Times said basically the same thing, that Sherr and Carson cited media professor Paul Booth saying that social media can be problematic, that Shannon Keating, a culture writer and editor for BuzzFeed News, was also concerned about social media and how Bill Goodykoontz, a media critic from The Arizona Republic was also critical of social media's coverage of the trial. Speaking of "unanimously reliable sources", The Arizona Republic isn't even on the WP:RSP list. I believe that trimming the section would make it much more readable without losing any of the relevant content. --Rusentaja (talk) 12:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rusentaja, I thought that you would bring up the "This was also noted by other journalists at BuzzFeed News, The Independent, and Vanity Fair" sentence, since it is the only line in the subsection with any clear duplication (and likely exists in order to preempt bad-faith suggestions that the preceding comment by Tait was somehow cherrypicked, rather than representative of a wide swathe of media analysis). Using that sentence to justify a mere "trim," and then redacting almost 13,000 bytes(!) of content, begs the question of what other unstated objections you might have to the remainder of the material. For future reference, "trim" has a pretty specific, generally-accepted meaning on Wikipedia—usually closer to a copyedit than a blanking—as seen in, e.g., this trim by Starship.paint. Your previous edits go well beyond what most editors habitually understand "trim" to mean.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have stated all the objections in my previous reply as well as the reason for them. However, if we want to keep the long list list of journalists reactions in the article I think GregKaye's solution of splitting them to their own section is adequate. Currently as it stands, the subtopic is just "social media", it doesn't differentiate between reactions by social media and to social media. It contains a mix of data, statistics, actions by of social media users, content from social media, critique of social media and journalists opinions about social media coverage of the trial. The reason for the first move was to put the journalists opinions to other reactions to differentiate between reactions coming from social media and reactions to social media reactions by journalists. I believe that separating the topics into their own sections like GregKaye tried to do would make the article considerably more readable and clear, and be a good compromise that doesn't remove any content. The topic discussing social media currently is longer than any other subtopic in the article, and the reactions section is considerably larger than the section discussing the trial itself. Rusentaja (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had not really planned to give an opinion but I think I have to now. The sources used didn't explicitly state that Depp was not likely to win the trial and the statement itself was "weird" in the sense that it was written in a non-encylopedic format. I had not read the prior discussion prior to my edit but there doesn't seem to be a consensus that the statement was true. Originalcola (talk) 14:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@HurricaneHiggins: - Wikipedia is not interested in sourcing content from "organic commentators on social media" or "organic social media coverage of the trial". Wikipedia is more interested in mainstream sources. I would suggest that you look for mainstream sources that have similar viewpoints to your "organic" ones. This is to not provide a false balance of 50:50, but to avoid a false balance of 100:0. starship.paint (exalt) 14:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't edited this section at all. However, a section titled "Commentary on social media response" that represents almost exclusively the commentary of outlets such as the New York Times, the Guardian, the Independent, Buzzfeed News, and Vice News — and which even suggests that anti-Heard sentiment on social media is a product of the "alt-right" — is inherently biased. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 15:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, and if we are to bloat the article about theDepp v. Heardtrial with opinions about social media, then it might be worth using tools like https://www.google.co.uk/advanced search(other domain bases for the likes of google also available) and conducting RS specific searches for a variety of providers so as to gather opinions from a range of publishers and potentially better fit with WP:Due. (breath) I might just hope those involved might be bothered. We've got to present fact based content rather than opinion led content - and, if we do include opinions, let's present them honestly and, where possible, with a range of them. GregKaye 17:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve done some trimming to Hess’ and Goodykoontz‘ opinions, which I believe was actually my own writing. Reading the section, these two opinions were too long and prominent. Hess was trimmed from 103 words to 60 words, while Goodykoontz was trimmed from 82 to 56 words. I think 55 words would be a good upper limit for an individual opinion. starship.paint (exalt) 14:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When I went through the living hell of accusation, without a contextualisation presented for the edits of a supposed crime, TheTimesAreAChanging raised issue with the quantity of discussion edits I had made. Now we get complaint about "drive-by edits including those by Rusentaja, who has made12 contributionsto this page". The fact is that it's the quality and relevance of any individual input that matters regardless of numbers involved. From an initial look I think that Rusentaja's interventions were good! It's not Wikipedia's role to WP:Soapbox the WP:Primary source opinions of ANYONE whether that person is a journalist or not. Are we the only WP:Secondary source for various of the contents being promoted? GregKaye 18:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you entirely on all points. Recently there's been an uptick in personal attacks and uncivil behaviour on this article's talk page and edit summaries which was to be expected due to how opinionated editors are on this matter. I think the main thing that needs to be addressed is the lack of civility as we should all be assuming that other editors are acting in good faith. Originalcola (talk) 14:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Guys I'm sorry. But some editors here show that they do not understand some crucial elements about how Wikipedia works. Calling "journalists" primary sources is completely wrong (unless the article is an opinion piece). A statement like the one GregKaye made above is potentially disqualifying from editing such a contentious page. Just like calling "us" or Wikipedia a "secondary source". Wikipedia is not a source! WP:COMPETENCE is required on Wikipedia. Greg as I've told you before you need to slow down and listen to the other editors trying to help you out or your editing will keep causing problems. ((u|Gtoffoletto))talk 15:15, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also: what is this and thisGregKaye and starship.paint?! Using edit summaries as a chat is not a good idea (See WP:REVTALK). Especially on this page where edit warring is already making the history section unusable. Let's help each other make this page editable. We all need to slow down and reduce the noise. ((u|Gtoffoletto))talk 15:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gtoffoletto, If a person expresses an opinion, that person is the primary source for that opinion. GregKaye 16:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is your point? Please read carefully my comment above. This talk page is full of complaints about edit warring (always involving you). I am wasting my time trying to help you out here. ((u|Gtoffoletto))talk 16:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(If I have it would have been to comment on the edit warring of others but you're going off the topic, as presented above, of "edit warring between TheTimesAreAChanging and Rusentaja". insert: Ways you can help me in this are by sticking to topic as we work with policy. (non-reactionary, though belated response). GregKaye 00:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)).[reply]
My point is policy, specifically: WP:PRIMARY"Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts .."GregKaye 19:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gtoffoletto: - please calm down. WP:REVTALK is against creating an atmosphere where the only way to carry on discussion is to revert other editors! This wasn't happening here, these were null edits... starship.paint (exalt) 12:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Starship.paint: Exactly. "Null edits" as you call them in a page that is already a mess is insane. The talk page is made for discussion. Edit summaries are made for describing edits. ((u|Gtoffoletto))talk 21:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's calm down, we shouldn't agonise over 2 null edits. Besides you aren't being forced to use wikipedia and you can't exclude others from wikipedia without a good reason. Try to remain civil at all times and avoid personally attacking other editors on any grounds. Originalcola (talk) 23:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gtoffoletto: - if you think that two null edits are insane then I think you're too emotionally invested in this article, I'm not sure whether it's on fixing this mess or something else, but please do not overburden yourself, whether mentally or emotionally. starship.paint (exalt) 12:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Starship.paint: maybe my tones sounded more extreme then what I intended. "Insane" was a bit of an hyperbole obviously :-) It's not about this article. It's just a general malpractice I think. Continue doing it if you think it's a good idea. I've stopped editing this page some time ago. It's a battlefield and I don't care enough. ((u|Gtoffoletto))talk 11:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TheTimesAreAChanging: "misogynistic"??? The hate was directed to Heard for all her lying. It (generally) wasn't directed at women as a gender. Making this about all women is exactly how Heard tries to frame it, when in fact she's hurting the cause of actual female victims.PizzaMan♨♨♨ 21:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main issue is that some editors have tried to write the social media section in such a way that either supports Depp or Heard based on their own personal beliefs. Wikipedia isn't a place to right wrongs, it's just meant to be an encylopedia. You can think that other people's opinions are right or wrong but you can't make edits with the intention of proving your viewpoint if that viewpoint isn't a consensus one. Originalcola (talk) 23:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying the majority of reliable sources (not op-eds) call the hate against Heard misogynist? In that case j stand corrected of course, much as i personally don't agree. PizzaMan♨♨♨ 07:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have also seen a few statements from experts and universities labelling the hate as misogynistic but I haven't seen enough to say that with a high degree of confidence. My reply was more aimed at the recent discussions in the talk page then at any individual point raised.
It should probably also be noted that an op-ed can be a reliable source and a non-neutral/opinionated source can still be used in an article although it would obviously require judgement. Originalcola (talk) 10:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TBH this case and how people are able to dominate editing WP articles without understanding the basic tenets of Wikipedia or just general source criticism, methods of analysis or summary is making me realise that Wikipedia is not at all different from Reddit and IG, sadly. Dunning-Kruger effect on steroids here, esp with @GregKaye,@Rusentaja, @PizzaMan and @HurricaneHiggins (who I seriously doubt watched the trial without commentary or has much understanding of the facts or evidence in the case or in the UK one). This is a volunteer effort and I just don’t think this endless fighting with people who simply do not want to or are not capable of getting the big picture (eg considering/researching both/all sides of the case and wanting to represent the facts fairly, because it takes reading (often dry texts with no fun conspiracy theories) and not listening to funny TikToks or sensationalistic YT videos engineered to rile people up) making tons of bold edits is worth my time. WP was a nice idea, but in the era of social media, it really does not work. Until there’s some kind of change in WP that reigns in editors like the ones listed above and in general stronger moderation, this article is never going to be a good representation of the facts of the case. And after Depp v Heard, it will be the Evan Rachel Wood v Manson trial, Jolie v Pitt, FKA Twigs v Shia LaBeouf… Not to even mention what’s going on in the Roe v Wade article right now. Thank you for trying to be the voice of reason, @TheTimesAreAChanging, please don’t burn yourself out in the process of trying to reason with MRAs and conspiracy theorists! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TrueHeartSusie3, thank you for raising issue of "the basic tenets of Wikipedia", an encyclopedia build on a pillar of WP:NPOV that, "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias". Allied to this, MOS:INSTRUCT says that we should "Simply present sourced facts with neutrality and allow readers to draw their own conclusions." What we've found though is editors fighting over presenting the two Depp trials, while being similar, as having specifically presented differences of having a jury rather than a judge and being broadcast and with protestations of balancing content in the article body. This was all proven to be an nonsense when a juror came forward saying how they took their role in impartiality seriously and paid no attention to outside influences.
As per the above, WP:PRIMARY specifies that "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source." and "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts .." To which "tenets" do you reference? GregKaye 12:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TrueHeartSusie3 Calling other editors MRAs and conspiracy theorists without merit constitutes as WP:Personal attack. Please remember to be WP:CIVIL. Enouraging people not to reason with others does not help anyone going forward. Rusentaja (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since this potential bite your tongue topic has been broached, please can I remind editors of WP:Talk page guidelines, "The purpose of an article's talk page...is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article ..." Cordial but frank discussion on user talk pages could help as a suggestion. GregKaye 20:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your frustration, Wikipedians have to balance sources and be neutral yet in this article a lot of people have tried to make edits to support their own opinions rather than presenting objective analysis. There are always other pages to edit and you can always not engage or take a break from editing on this page if you feel like you're getting nowhere. Originalcola (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Back to policy: there is policy permitting use of opinion pieces in articles as per WP:RSOPINION"... For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the readers that they are reading an opinion. Thanks greatly to Starship.paint for clarifying this for. This still leaves the questions as to what extent it would be encyclopedic to present opinion pieces in the the Wikipedia text? and what level of notability should we expect from content we present for opinions that haven't stood a secondary source test of time? GregKaye 16:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FRAN HOEPFNER and WILLY WOMP-A in gawker
Insert: WikiVirusC makes a good point below that I was looking at the comments section rather than chat. 14:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The gawker article by Fran Hoepfner and Willy Womp-a  that's been used as the first citation in our article's response to social media content is (insert: arguably) fallacious. (GregKaye 13:45, 25 June 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Hoepfner and Womp-a state, "Thelive feed of the Depp/Heard trialis less like a CNN feed and more like the VMAs or a Twitch stream. That’s because, for a reason I can’t quite determine, a variety of Gen Z internet users have taken an active, if not aggressive, interest in the case, ..." (quick comment: the article's title posited the question "WHAT DOES GEN Z SEE IN JOHNNY DEPP?" which it doesn't answer) and continues: "The comments in the chat function of the live feed alternate between “I LOVE YOU JOHNNY” to “AMBER’S COOKED.” Every now and then, one person will say something along the lines of, “Amber looks so sad,” to which everyone will respond by telling that person to shut the fuck up. Rinse, repeat. One comment on the trial’s live feed said: “Why is the lawyer so nosy???” Another said: “Amber looks EXACTLY like my high school nemesis.”"
So I went to the cited livestream, scrolled down the comments section (which is certainly long) and did some page searches to find: just the one reference to "I love you Johnny", no references to "cooked", no references to "shut the"or"fuck up", no references to "nosy" and no references to "high school"or"nemesis".
Top replies were: "I’ve never seen a more honest testimony than Isaac’s. This man deserves everything Johnny graciously gave him & more! He didn’t give a crap who was asking or what they were asking, it was his honest answer" 1.1K likes; "TV shows have led us to believe that lawyers are smart, slick and well-spoken. This changes all that." 1.6K likes; "It's not "AMICA" cream, it's "ARNICA" cream and it's used to HEAL bruises OVER TIME not immediately and not HIDE them. Arnica will do nothing to a non bruised face, that lawyer was obviously trying to confuse Isaac and the jury which is hilarious and ironic to me considering she keeps saying it wrong. And by the way, you CAN tell when someone's wearing makeup or not, no matter how light the product is." 1.3K likes; "TIMESTAMPS:
Video actually starts at 39:26
Court begins at 46:45
Break starts 2:10:09 ..." 1.1K likes; and "Isaac is such a legend! This man was so honest and he told only the truth. I really hope Johnny wins this. He truly deserves it. 2K likes.
Our article does not reference any Twitch streams though it does now mention the (previously misrepresented) content where, "Journalist Amelia Tait of The Guardian said that Heard v Depp had turned into "trial by TikTok" stating that on social media, the case had become "a source of comedy". Amelia Tait at least more fairly comments that "One recent TikTok trend ... saw TikTokersacting out Heard’s abuse testimony,". This more legitimate commentary links there to a Rolling Stone article that cites description/wording of the videos brought into question. Comments sections on these videos, suffice it to say, do not greatly compare to the comments section of the Law&Crime video.
There is no valid reasons why a section of Wikipedia content should begin by quoting commentary by Fran Hoepfner and Willy Womp-a, writers whose content is proven falacious. GregKaye 09:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gawker is also red on WP:RSP and is deemed generally unreliable. I see no reason not to get rid of the statement. --Rusentaja (talk) 10:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I'd presumed that involved editors had at least checked things like that. I checked because I've followed lawyer reacts livestreams and know how well mannered they are. Current content is effectively worked as a WP:Personal attack on a general public response. GregKaye 10:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rusentaja: - I just realized that the red for Gawker in RSP was referring to its previous incarnation before 2021. But still, it's now being owned by Bustle's media group, and Bustle itself has "consensus that the reliability of Bustle is unclear", so we should, still avoid using Gawker when better sources are available. starship.paint (exalt) 15:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I went to the cited livestream, scrolled down the comments section (which is certainly long) and did some page searches. The article said he was reading chat not the comments. Chat is on the right, and a lot(or all depending on mode your in) chat message will be replayed while watching the livestream. The comment section is completely different than the chat section. 38:14 in video there are multiple ""I love you Johnny" or variations of it. I'm sure there are more through video. The live feed chat is different from normal comments, and is more similar to something like twitch chat(sidenote WP does have an article that talks more about twitch streamers covering the trial ). The chat messages only show when you are at or around that period of time in video, so you unfortunately can't search it all at once. None of it matters in regards to Gawker RS reliability, but I wouldn't call the writers fallacious. Other publications covered some of the chat like NYT and Mashable. Mashable has a screenshot of the chat when it was live, rather than the replay version that we only can view now. WikiVirusC(talk) 13:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining live chat, and that it is not the YouTube comments section, WikiVirusC. Original research can be permissible on talk if a source is demonstrably wrong, but hopefully Greg will now admit his error based on a clear misunderstanding. The source has not, in fact, been "proven falacious" [sic]—if anything, a cursory examination of the live chat suggests that the source is highly accurate, but perhaps there are more reputable sources we can use instead. Either way, Greg should be more careful before accusing living journalists by name of being liars and falsely disparaging other editors by repeatedly invoking policies that do not apply, such as his reference to WP:Tendentious editing above. As there is no evidence that whoever added this source was engaged in editing tendentiously, Greg should withdraw his baseless aspersion.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:43, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TheTimesAreAChanging Similarly, one of my first actions following WikiVirusC edit was to click thanks for the 13:02, 24 June edit. This was quickly followed by my addition of the Insert: WikiVirusC makes a good point ..." at the top of the section. (Also, following WikiVirusC's helpful comment, and as much as anything for my own peace of mind, I downloaded 33070 chats via the Save Live Streaming Chats for YouTube app from the chrome store and found one reference to "is cooked" and one for "is a cooked" with no other cooked references. I found 31 "I love you" references but with a significant proportion about "Issac"). The claims in the FRAN HOEPFNER, WILLY WOMP-A article are far from represented even in the screenshot presented in the Mashable article presented above. You accused me of WP:Tendentious editing in relation to my edits here. Regardless, I'm happy to withdraw my previous not directly visible reference to tend and strike my proven fallacious comment per this edit. GregKaye 09:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether or not the claims stated are actually in the comments or not, your analysis still constitutes orignal research. That being said, I agree that the Gawker article shouldn't be used as a source as it's clearly a questionable source. Originalcola (talk) 14:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interlinking the verdicts
I don't see how emphasizing (See also) the respective verdict subsections of the other trial is relevant or helpful. As I'm sure anyone is aware, the verdicts succeed two vastly different trials that each require different context to understand their contents. The UK verdict is not even mentioned under Depp v. Heard#Verdict. Seems like an editorial choice to encourage readers to compare the two verdicts without basis in the body of the article or in reliable sources. Should be removed, at least from the subsection on this article, per WP:DUE. Throast (talk | contribs) 21:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I put both in: ((See also|Depp v. Heard#Verdict)) <!--mutually applied link between articles --> and ((See also|Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd#Verdict)) <!--mutually applied link between articles -->
I'm not really fussed about their inclusion but thought some readers might find the links useful in a two-way set up. GregKaye 22:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The UK verdict is already covered quite extensively above, so emphasizing it again, especially in comparison to the US verdict, seems like overkill imo. Would you be fine with removing the link? Throast (talk | contribs) 22:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]