This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | 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 is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
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 sourced must 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. |
There have been concerns that this article relies too heavily on primary sources. I am in the process of adding more secondary/media sources, but would like to point out two things: 1.) There is no blanket ban on using court docs in BLPs, see for example Irving v Penguin Books Ltd, which I have used as the model for editing this article. 2.) There is a difference between using court docs filed by either party (which are naturally biased) and using the actual verdict. The verdict is done by a neutral court, and as such is one of the best sources for how the court ruled on the case, especially when it comes to details on why they ruled one way or another, which media usually doesn’t go into as it would bore readers. Finally, I would like to stress that I am in the process of adding even more secondary sources to the article within the next couple of days. TrueHeartSusie3 ( talk) 09:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
TrueHeartSusie3 Its the references to the transcript that seem to me to be particularly problematic. They don't even have accompanying links and, if guy are happy, I'll delete them. The citations for Judge Nicol's Judgement document I think can have use, if nothing else, as a kind of footnote so that when readers mouse over, they can access further reference. In comparison the following seem near worthless.
^ Opening statement – Depp, pp. 5–6; 10–11. Skeleton argument – Depp, p. 7
^ Opening statement – Depp, pp. 17-24. Skeleton argument – Depp, pp. 5-14
^ Opening statement – Depp, p. 8
^ Opening statement – Depp, pp. 6–10. Skeleton Argument – Depp, pp. 6–14
Greg
Kaye
18:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Please remember
MOS:LEADCITE, Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead.
. --
Emir of Wikipedia (
talk)
22:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Since I don't want to continue a budding edit war, I'm taking this here. Emir of Wikipedia finds the following sentence to be controversial, without explaining why:
The trial date and place, Depp and Heard testifying in person, and that it received a lot of publicity, are all discussed and cited in the article body. I fail to see anything controversial about the sentence that would warrant repetition of the cites in the lede.
Emir also wants this added to the lede or at least in the article body: "The recasting was considerd a bummer by the fandom. Depp intends to have his name cleared." He insists on this even though I have pointed it out to him that he cannot claim an overall public/media opinion based on one statement in a Cinemablend article, and that 'intends to clear his name' is highly biased wording, and doesn't belong in the lede. Furthermore, he uses the gossip rag OK Magazine as a source for the latter. Finally, the wording 'bummer' is colloiqual, not encyclopedic.
Could Emir of Wikipedia clarify yourself here?
TrueHeartSusie3 ( talk) 17:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead.. You were the one who reverted this by {[u|Jienum}}. with this claiming you were reverting POV. It is not POV to follow the sources that are there. If someone has not put the sources there then that is their fault, not mine or Jienums. -- Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 17:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
It failed WPs criteria on many fronts, as you can see above. It’s on you to fix the problems with it. Stop adding the redundant tag to the article. TrueHeartSusie3 ( talk) 07:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
To be honest, I've tried to avoid get too involved in contentious topics like these when I don't know enough on what is/isn't true to comment on the matter. All I really know for sure is that both parties have insisted "I was the victim and did not get abusive myself" or something to that effect while it varies on which side other people believe and there's lots of debate over who's telling the truth. As for the recent edits here, I'm fine with removing "Claim of", but I don't see a problem with using "hitting Depp" since it's theoretically possible for people to hit both for defending themselves and as a form of aggression. SNUGGUMS ( talk / edits) 23:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Feel free to ping others to comment! AFAIK, there's no other way to bring a page with problems between editors to the attention of other editors who may not follow the page, unless one wants to go to ANI, and we're not there yet.What about places like Wikipedia:Third opinion and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard? Do not try to attack my conduct, just because you can't defend your edits/reverts. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 18:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
This editor is quite clearly trying to push their POV to the articles, which is what I was talking about. Are you talking about multiple "issues"/questions or just one? A talkpage section called "Emir of Wikipedia's recent edits" is not really helpful if the edits are about different things. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 18:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
I think given that there were some articles written about the corruption involved in this case, there should be mention of the fact that Judge Andrew Nicol's son works for TalkRadio, which employs Dan Wootton, and therefore gave him a direct conflict of interest. He also co-published a book with the employer of one of Amber Heard's lawyers so there was also conflict of interest within his own professional circle. 72.136.95.67 ( talk) 02:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring § User:72.136.95.67 reported by User:Amadeus1999 (Result: ).
★Ama
TALK
CONTRIBS
01:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
I think people need to know the truth I thought wiki was about telling the truth but it won't let me add the facts anything concerning Depp losing the uk court case is slander due to all the evidence in that case was fake Amber heard created it all to destroy her ex husband's life cause she didn't get what she wanted she was the abuser not him and yet wiki is obviously a Amber heard lover since they refuse to allow the truth to be told its sickening that low life scum like wiki are still abusing Johnny by spouting fabricated lies and refusing point blank to clear the record by making then accurate 5.68.13.71 ( talk) 07:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
I agree with the sentiment on WP:THETRUTH which can often be enabled both by helping people see summary while also enabling them to look into the details. Also, if WP:RELIABLE sources aren't helping us with WP:THETRUTH, we're f***ed. Greg Kaye 17:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I suggest roll-backing GregKaye’s edits in this article. He took a well-sourced article and replaced it with a quote wall. Even worse, the quotes are misrepresenting the case. Eg. ’Consideration of the evidence as a whole’ discusses everything but the topic in the title. He is seriously misrepresenting the verdict because he wants to bend the article to his version of the ’truth’, ie a conspiracy theory. TrueHeartSusie3 ( talk) 13:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
"Nicol judged that something of Depp's feelings towards Heard can be seen in a 15th August 2016 text in which he said, 'She's begging for total global humiliation. She's gonna get it. ... I have no mercy, no fear and not an ounce of emotion or what I once thought was love for this... I'm so fucking happy she wants to fight this out!!! She will hit the wall hard!!! And I cannot wait to have this... out of my life!!! I met fucking sublime little Russian here ... Which makes me realize the time I blew on that 50 cent stripper ... I wouldn't touch her with a goddam glove. I can only hope that karma kicks in and takes the gift of breath from her ... Sorry man ... But NOW I will stop at nothing!!! Let's see if Mollusk has a pair ... Come see me face to face ... I'll show him things he's never seen before ... Like the ...' "
I've definitely made errors here and must certainly offer my apologies. Sorry especially to
TheTimesAreAChanging who was faced with the hassle of the reversions which should have been my responsibility. My thought had been to supply neutral information to let people take considerations into their own hands. On the quote above I ended it "... the ..." Nicol's edited version of the text, further edited."
with Depp's language being uglier than even I presented. Motivation still got the better of me, it was granular and yes with salacious content as well. I was wrong.
Greg
Kaye
05:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
This section title is quite misleading. The court made a verdict on "Ms Heard's admission to violence in recorded conversations contrasted with her evidence in which she denied being the violent party". The title should reflect that. In these recordings she is not admitting to self-defence but to beeing violent and intiating violence against Depp.
The description of Heard's statements is quite vague. The verdict deals with quite a few statements that should be listed.
Furthermore, the section adds quite a bit of explanation which is not part of the rulling as such. The verdict is quite clear that the court regarded the recorded admissions as irrelavant because Heard denied that behaviour in court. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IheardTheShot123 ( talk • contribs) 13:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
? I had edited to
Heard's admission to self-defence. with a full edit description
(→Heard's admission to self-defence on record: Shortening ===Heard's admission to self-defence on record=== to ===Heard's admission to self-defence=== the paras 169-176 referenced are titled: vii) Ms Heard's admission to violence in recorded conversations contrasted with her evidence in which she denied being the violent party)
Would a title like "Heard's stated admission to self-defence"
work? To my mind "... on record" adds distraction leaving questions "when? and "how?" The
Judgment reference is in para 169 which reads: "In her witness statements and in her evidence, Ms Heard maintained that it had always been Mr Depp who had been the aggressor. She said that the only occasion when she had hit him back had been in the course of incident 9 ..., in defence of herself and her sister,.."
"for reference (from para 171), quoted sections taken from an audio recording include: |
"AH: ... hit you across the face in a proper slap, but I was hitting you, it was not punching you. Babe, you're not punched." |
"AH: You didn't get punch. You got hit. I'm sorry I hit you like this. But I did not punch you. I did not fucking deck you. I fucking was hitting you. I don't know what the motion of my actual hand was, but you're fine. I did not hurt you. I did not punch you. I was hitting you." |
"AH: ... Just because I've thrown pots and pans does not mean you can come and knock on the door." |
"AH: I did start a physical fight." |
Greg Kaye 06:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
AknolIikiW I've cleaned up the Sun's article title to always report the original title as that is the one that "caused" the whole dispute in the first place. Reliable sources mostly report the original title because if you remove the words "wife beater" from it isn't clear why Depp would have sued them. We can clarify in the body that the title was changed (but it is a very minor detail). {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 15:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Reliable sources do mention the term "wife beater" as do we. But they mostly do not use the whole defamatory title. The reliable sources obviously think it's clear enough. AknolIikiW ( talk) 21:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
"title ... "caused" the whole dispute in the first place"and of
"cleaned up". Justice Nicol even stated,
"79 I have already noted that neither party sought to distinguish between the articles. The notable difference was that the original online article in its headline referred to the Claimant as a 'wife beater'. The amended online article and the print version instead referred to the 'assault claim'. However, as I have said, neither party treated the differences as material."[2] He had previously noted such things as the extreme rapidity with which the online article was changed. On claim to the
"Original title of the Sun's article", the "wife beater" version of the title didn't make it into the tabloid in print and it disappeared from the online version, in the UK overnight, after a mere 10 hours. Nicol indicated it to be practically an irrelevance in regard to his judgement of the Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd trial.
"wife beater". It's easy to check the publishers from the listings and that are from RS. If anything it maybe the trashier sources that use this reference more. Greg Kaye 06:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
"wife beater"any yet it's the less reputable publications that seem to use the reference more readily. It's a sensationalist reference that even The Sun rejected.
"Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively"and that
"it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist". Greg Kaye 16:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
"I haven't found a single WP:RS that DOESN'T use the original title"of the The Sun's article. Even Starship.paint, who has defended you several times in the past, inquired as to
"why you're so touchy about the 'wife beater' stuff. There is plenty of reliable source coverage to support it, including the Holy Trinity of news agencies - Associated Press / Reuters / AFP, and reliable sources - BBC / NYT / WaPo. I'm sure I could find many more sources. Regardless of how many hours that term appeared, it did appear online, and Depp sued for it in London, and lost. As such, it would be wrong for Wikipedia to not include it."In fact, it seems clear that you also have been unable to find even one secondary source noting the title change, considering that you have not presented any over the course of numerous talk page discussions and your edits in article space instead relied on the deprecated source itself (along with Nicol's judgement).
"I have already noted that neither party sought to distinguish between the articles. The notable difference was that the original online article in its headline referred to the Claimant as a 'wife beater'. The amended online article and the print version instead referred to the 'assault claim'. However, as I have said, neither party treated the differences as material."[emphasis added] You added a lengthy digression and footnote trying to distinguish between the two versions of The Sun's article to Depp v. Heard, but Nicol is stating that the specific label used in the headline was not a material issue in the case. In other words, neither the interested parties nor Justice Nicol shared your concern that
"wife beater"is any more "defamatory" than
"assault claim".
"visible references"to
"wife beater". Still, why must we play along with this
"visible"game in the first place, given that the rules are entirely of your own making? Simply put, there is no basis in Wikipedia policy for your stipulation that any particular phrase must be
"visible"(i.e., from the headline or preview, without actually clicking on the article itself to see what it says) in raw Google search results to be included in a Wikipedia entry. This completely made-up "rule" tends to obscure the fact that
"wife beater"would be
"visible"in many, many, many more articles—if only GregKaye could be bothered to read them! (Again, none of the articles on the first page of the Google search results mentions The Sun's title change.)
"Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively"and that
"it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist".
"Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery"and
"An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic."
"You should...know..."that the Starship.paint quotation you use was taken prior to our looking at the Depp "News Group Newspapers"
andDepp "The Sun" searches with there notable absence of readily apparent "wife beater" references. (It's just a matter of fairly presenting quotations in context.
"Reliable sources do mention the term "wife beater" as do we."Greg Kaye 11:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
"Even while you reply to me without a ping, you'll still WP:CANVASS other editors."GregKaye, your excessive pinging comes across as WP:BADGERING and is driving me crazy. I do not need to be pinged multiple times every day about articles that I have on my Watchlist already. When I posted nearly identical replies ( [3], [4]) to your comments on Talk:Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Talk:Depp v. Heard, I pinged you only once, Gtoffoletto only once, and Starship.paint only once, as a courtesy, as I sincerely doubt that any of you require multiple duplicative pings. Even that is a lot of pinging for me! I am not a constant pinger, as I consider it to be poor decorum. Your assumption of bad faith is noted, and far from the mark. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 04:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
"Even while you reply to me without a ping, you'll still WP:CANVASS other editors."So, even though I've repeatedly requested you to ping me when talking about me, you retain the
"duplicative pings"just for the editors you're canvassing and not for me, the editor you're replying to? (Elsewhere, in places where you had said or inferred things about me or similar I had pinged you to ensure you received notification of such things as broader understanding of the situations of which you spoke. I understand you keep notes. I'd like to ensure those notes are fair and accurate).
"Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively"and that
"it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist". Following repeated pings to Starship.paint at Talk:Depp v. Heard, it strikes me that you have a selective concern in claim of "badgering" 06:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC) Greg Kaye 18:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
"Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively"and that
"it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist". You continue to be more sensationalist than The Sun. Greg Kaye 14:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | 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 is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
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 sourced must 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. |
There have been concerns that this article relies too heavily on primary sources. I am in the process of adding more secondary/media sources, but would like to point out two things: 1.) There is no blanket ban on using court docs in BLPs, see for example Irving v Penguin Books Ltd, which I have used as the model for editing this article. 2.) There is a difference between using court docs filed by either party (which are naturally biased) and using the actual verdict. The verdict is done by a neutral court, and as such is one of the best sources for how the court ruled on the case, especially when it comes to details on why they ruled one way or another, which media usually doesn’t go into as it would bore readers. Finally, I would like to stress that I am in the process of adding even more secondary sources to the article within the next couple of days. TrueHeartSusie3 ( talk) 09:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
TrueHeartSusie3 Its the references to the transcript that seem to me to be particularly problematic. They don't even have accompanying links and, if guy are happy, I'll delete them. The citations for Judge Nicol's Judgement document I think can have use, if nothing else, as a kind of footnote so that when readers mouse over, they can access further reference. In comparison the following seem near worthless.
^ Opening statement – Depp, pp. 5–6; 10–11. Skeleton argument – Depp, p. 7
^ Opening statement – Depp, pp. 17-24. Skeleton argument – Depp, pp. 5-14
^ Opening statement – Depp, p. 8
^ Opening statement – Depp, pp. 6–10. Skeleton Argument – Depp, pp. 6–14
Greg
Kaye
18:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Please remember
MOS:LEADCITE, Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead.
. --
Emir of Wikipedia (
talk)
22:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Since I don't want to continue a budding edit war, I'm taking this here. Emir of Wikipedia finds the following sentence to be controversial, without explaining why:
The trial date and place, Depp and Heard testifying in person, and that it received a lot of publicity, are all discussed and cited in the article body. I fail to see anything controversial about the sentence that would warrant repetition of the cites in the lede.
Emir also wants this added to the lede or at least in the article body: "The recasting was considerd a bummer by the fandom. Depp intends to have his name cleared." He insists on this even though I have pointed it out to him that he cannot claim an overall public/media opinion based on one statement in a Cinemablend article, and that 'intends to clear his name' is highly biased wording, and doesn't belong in the lede. Furthermore, he uses the gossip rag OK Magazine as a source for the latter. Finally, the wording 'bummer' is colloiqual, not encyclopedic.
Could Emir of Wikipedia clarify yourself here?
TrueHeartSusie3 ( talk) 17:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead.. You were the one who reverted this by {[u|Jienum}}. with this claiming you were reverting POV. It is not POV to follow the sources that are there. If someone has not put the sources there then that is their fault, not mine or Jienums. -- Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 17:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
It failed WPs criteria on many fronts, as you can see above. It’s on you to fix the problems with it. Stop adding the redundant tag to the article. TrueHeartSusie3 ( talk) 07:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
To be honest, I've tried to avoid get too involved in contentious topics like these when I don't know enough on what is/isn't true to comment on the matter. All I really know for sure is that both parties have insisted "I was the victim and did not get abusive myself" or something to that effect while it varies on which side other people believe and there's lots of debate over who's telling the truth. As for the recent edits here, I'm fine with removing "Claim of", but I don't see a problem with using "hitting Depp" since it's theoretically possible for people to hit both for defending themselves and as a form of aggression. SNUGGUMS ( talk / edits) 23:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Feel free to ping others to comment! AFAIK, there's no other way to bring a page with problems between editors to the attention of other editors who may not follow the page, unless one wants to go to ANI, and we're not there yet.What about places like Wikipedia:Third opinion and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard? Do not try to attack my conduct, just because you can't defend your edits/reverts. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 18:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
This editor is quite clearly trying to push their POV to the articles, which is what I was talking about. Are you talking about multiple "issues"/questions or just one? A talkpage section called "Emir of Wikipedia's recent edits" is not really helpful if the edits are about different things. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 18:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
I think given that there were some articles written about the corruption involved in this case, there should be mention of the fact that Judge Andrew Nicol's son works for TalkRadio, which employs Dan Wootton, and therefore gave him a direct conflict of interest. He also co-published a book with the employer of one of Amber Heard's lawyers so there was also conflict of interest within his own professional circle. 72.136.95.67 ( talk) 02:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring § User:72.136.95.67 reported by User:Amadeus1999 (Result: ).
★Ama
TALK
CONTRIBS
01:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
I think people need to know the truth I thought wiki was about telling the truth but it won't let me add the facts anything concerning Depp losing the uk court case is slander due to all the evidence in that case was fake Amber heard created it all to destroy her ex husband's life cause she didn't get what she wanted she was the abuser not him and yet wiki is obviously a Amber heard lover since they refuse to allow the truth to be told its sickening that low life scum like wiki are still abusing Johnny by spouting fabricated lies and refusing point blank to clear the record by making then accurate 5.68.13.71 ( talk) 07:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
I agree with the sentiment on WP:THETRUTH which can often be enabled both by helping people see summary while also enabling them to look into the details. Also, if WP:RELIABLE sources aren't helping us with WP:THETRUTH, we're f***ed. Greg Kaye 17:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I suggest roll-backing GregKaye’s edits in this article. He took a well-sourced article and replaced it with a quote wall. Even worse, the quotes are misrepresenting the case. Eg. ’Consideration of the evidence as a whole’ discusses everything but the topic in the title. He is seriously misrepresenting the verdict because he wants to bend the article to his version of the ’truth’, ie a conspiracy theory. TrueHeartSusie3 ( talk) 13:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
"Nicol judged that something of Depp's feelings towards Heard can be seen in a 15th August 2016 text in which he said, 'She's begging for total global humiliation. She's gonna get it. ... I have no mercy, no fear and not an ounce of emotion or what I once thought was love for this... I'm so fucking happy she wants to fight this out!!! She will hit the wall hard!!! And I cannot wait to have this... out of my life!!! I met fucking sublime little Russian here ... Which makes me realize the time I blew on that 50 cent stripper ... I wouldn't touch her with a goddam glove. I can only hope that karma kicks in and takes the gift of breath from her ... Sorry man ... But NOW I will stop at nothing!!! Let's see if Mollusk has a pair ... Come see me face to face ... I'll show him things he's never seen before ... Like the ...' "
I've definitely made errors here and must certainly offer my apologies. Sorry especially to
TheTimesAreAChanging who was faced with the hassle of the reversions which should have been my responsibility. My thought had been to supply neutral information to let people take considerations into their own hands. On the quote above I ended it "... the ..." Nicol's edited version of the text, further edited."
with Depp's language being uglier than even I presented. Motivation still got the better of me, it was granular and yes with salacious content as well. I was wrong.
Greg
Kaye
05:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
This section title is quite misleading. The court made a verdict on "Ms Heard's admission to violence in recorded conversations contrasted with her evidence in which she denied being the violent party". The title should reflect that. In these recordings she is not admitting to self-defence but to beeing violent and intiating violence against Depp.
The description of Heard's statements is quite vague. The verdict deals with quite a few statements that should be listed.
Furthermore, the section adds quite a bit of explanation which is not part of the rulling as such. The verdict is quite clear that the court regarded the recorded admissions as irrelavant because Heard denied that behaviour in court. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IheardTheShot123 ( talk • contribs) 13:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
? I had edited to
Heard's admission to self-defence. with a full edit description
(→Heard's admission to self-defence on record: Shortening ===Heard's admission to self-defence on record=== to ===Heard's admission to self-defence=== the paras 169-176 referenced are titled: vii) Ms Heard's admission to violence in recorded conversations contrasted with her evidence in which she denied being the violent party)
Would a title like "Heard's stated admission to self-defence"
work? To my mind "... on record" adds distraction leaving questions "when? and "how?" The
Judgment reference is in para 169 which reads: "In her witness statements and in her evidence, Ms Heard maintained that it had always been Mr Depp who had been the aggressor. She said that the only occasion when she had hit him back had been in the course of incident 9 ..., in defence of herself and her sister,.."
"for reference (from para 171), quoted sections taken from an audio recording include: |
"AH: ... hit you across the face in a proper slap, but I was hitting you, it was not punching you. Babe, you're not punched." |
"AH: You didn't get punch. You got hit. I'm sorry I hit you like this. But I did not punch you. I did not fucking deck you. I fucking was hitting you. I don't know what the motion of my actual hand was, but you're fine. I did not hurt you. I did not punch you. I was hitting you." |
"AH: ... Just because I've thrown pots and pans does not mean you can come and knock on the door." |
"AH: I did start a physical fight." |
Greg Kaye 06:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
AknolIikiW I've cleaned up the Sun's article title to always report the original title as that is the one that "caused" the whole dispute in the first place. Reliable sources mostly report the original title because if you remove the words "wife beater" from it isn't clear why Depp would have sued them. We can clarify in the body that the title was changed (but it is a very minor detail). {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 15:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Reliable sources do mention the term "wife beater" as do we. But they mostly do not use the whole defamatory title. The reliable sources obviously think it's clear enough. AknolIikiW ( talk) 21:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
"title ... "caused" the whole dispute in the first place"and of
"cleaned up". Justice Nicol even stated,
"79 I have already noted that neither party sought to distinguish between the articles. The notable difference was that the original online article in its headline referred to the Claimant as a 'wife beater'. The amended online article and the print version instead referred to the 'assault claim'. However, as I have said, neither party treated the differences as material."[2] He had previously noted such things as the extreme rapidity with which the online article was changed. On claim to the
"Original title of the Sun's article", the "wife beater" version of the title didn't make it into the tabloid in print and it disappeared from the online version, in the UK overnight, after a mere 10 hours. Nicol indicated it to be practically an irrelevance in regard to his judgement of the Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd trial.
"wife beater". It's easy to check the publishers from the listings and that are from RS. If anything it maybe the trashier sources that use this reference more. Greg Kaye 06:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
"wife beater"any yet it's the less reputable publications that seem to use the reference more readily. It's a sensationalist reference that even The Sun rejected.
"Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively"and that
"it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist". Greg Kaye 16:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
"I haven't found a single WP:RS that DOESN'T use the original title"of the The Sun's article. Even Starship.paint, who has defended you several times in the past, inquired as to
"why you're so touchy about the 'wife beater' stuff. There is plenty of reliable source coverage to support it, including the Holy Trinity of news agencies - Associated Press / Reuters / AFP, and reliable sources - BBC / NYT / WaPo. I'm sure I could find many more sources. Regardless of how many hours that term appeared, it did appear online, and Depp sued for it in London, and lost. As such, it would be wrong for Wikipedia to not include it."In fact, it seems clear that you also have been unable to find even one secondary source noting the title change, considering that you have not presented any over the course of numerous talk page discussions and your edits in article space instead relied on the deprecated source itself (along with Nicol's judgement).
"I have already noted that neither party sought to distinguish between the articles. The notable difference was that the original online article in its headline referred to the Claimant as a 'wife beater'. The amended online article and the print version instead referred to the 'assault claim'. However, as I have said, neither party treated the differences as material."[emphasis added] You added a lengthy digression and footnote trying to distinguish between the two versions of The Sun's article to Depp v. Heard, but Nicol is stating that the specific label used in the headline was not a material issue in the case. In other words, neither the interested parties nor Justice Nicol shared your concern that
"wife beater"is any more "defamatory" than
"assault claim".
"visible references"to
"wife beater". Still, why must we play along with this
"visible"game in the first place, given that the rules are entirely of your own making? Simply put, there is no basis in Wikipedia policy for your stipulation that any particular phrase must be
"visible"(i.e., from the headline or preview, without actually clicking on the article itself to see what it says) in raw Google search results to be included in a Wikipedia entry. This completely made-up "rule" tends to obscure the fact that
"wife beater"would be
"visible"in many, many, many more articles—if only GregKaye could be bothered to read them! (Again, none of the articles on the first page of the Google search results mentions The Sun's title change.)
"Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively"and that
"it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist".
"Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery"and
"An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic."
"You should...know..."that the Starship.paint quotation you use was taken prior to our looking at the Depp "News Group Newspapers"
andDepp "The Sun" searches with there notable absence of readily apparent "wife beater" references. (It's just a matter of fairly presenting quotations in context.
"Reliable sources do mention the term "wife beater" as do we."Greg Kaye 11:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
"Even while you reply to me without a ping, you'll still WP:CANVASS other editors."GregKaye, your excessive pinging comes across as WP:BADGERING and is driving me crazy. I do not need to be pinged multiple times every day about articles that I have on my Watchlist already. When I posted nearly identical replies ( [3], [4]) to your comments on Talk:Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Talk:Depp v. Heard, I pinged you only once, Gtoffoletto only once, and Starship.paint only once, as a courtesy, as I sincerely doubt that any of you require multiple duplicative pings. Even that is a lot of pinging for me! I am not a constant pinger, as I consider it to be poor decorum. Your assumption of bad faith is noted, and far from the mark. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 04:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
"Even while you reply to me without a ping, you'll still WP:CANVASS other editors."So, even though I've repeatedly requested you to ping me when talking about me, you retain the
"duplicative pings"just for the editors you're canvassing and not for me, the editor you're replying to? (Elsewhere, in places where you had said or inferred things about me or similar I had pinged you to ensure you received notification of such things as broader understanding of the situations of which you spoke. I understand you keep notes. I'd like to ensure those notes are fair and accurate).
"Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively"and that
"it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist". Following repeated pings to Starship.paint at Talk:Depp v. Heard, it strikes me that you have a selective concern in claim of "badgering" 06:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC) Greg Kaye 18:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
"Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively"and that
"it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist". You continue to be more sensationalist than The Sun. Greg Kaye 14:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)