Talk:Depp v. Heard/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Guthrie's Conflict of Interest

Should Savannah Guthrie's conflict of interest be mentioned in the "Heard's reaction section? Insider Article

Comment Guthrie gave disclosure to both Heard and her viewers on her indirect associations with the case and Heard chose to take the interview. GregKaye 06:17, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it matters, she's just a post-trial interviewer, it's not as if she took part in the trial. starship.paint (exalt) 02:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

@GregKaye: - I would say try not to use Insider because according to WP:RSP there is no consensus on the reliability of Insider, except for culture topics it is considered reliable, but in its culture sub-website I saw no such listing of your link of this article. starship.paint (exalt) 02:47, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Starship.paint, that's a fair shout.

The Independent had a 08 June 2022 article on Savannah Guthrie admits husband works for Johnny Depp’s team after welcoming attorneys on Today show showing that the topic had reached the public domain at least to this extent.

But generally, there's more content on reactions on the trial article than there is about the trial which may also considered consider when looking at the article worthiness of this interview - one that, in a context, Heard chose to take. GregKaye 11:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Removal of celebrities who support Heard vs. Depp

Unless I’m missing something, here, that part of the article has been removed. Why? Aardwolf68 (talk) 20:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I removed the section as it isn't content that is meant to be on an encylopedia and because just because a person is notable does not guarantee that their opinions on every issue should be included on an article. A complete list of celebrity opinions would also be next to impossible to do. Originalcola (talk) 00:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree, it's gossip basically. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Me too, but comments on this journalist said this can be less notable. At least the celebrities had varying levels of insider understanding. GregKaye 01:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

How should we organise the text?

I've moved this section, which was previously between sections "Not neutral. Sources biased." and "Not neutral. Sources biased.", down in the page as it relates to a now recently applied article hatnote. GregKaye 05:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a lengthy trial with dozens of witnesses, and as a result, the section on the trial is getting intimidatingly long. Although there is most likely some space for tightening the text, we can't cut that much of the content if we want to present the case in a balanced way. This is why I think it would be useful to find a way to organise the text in some way. Splitting it by person seems to me the easiest and clearest way of doing this (then if someone finds their way to this article because they are looking to find out what witness X said, they can easily find them) but some of the testimony is brief and does not need more than a sentence or two, so it would feel weird if they also had their own sections. Could using bolding for the names of who is giving the testimony work? Any ideas? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the need for organization but I think, messy as it is, the current format is still the lesser of evils. Mainly because the chronological ordering gives context to specific statements or testimony. People can always use CTRL+F to find where else a person's statements or testimony came up. Week 5 is definitely a gigantic section at this point but I think the developments are best managed by generous splitting of paragraphs so readers can latch onto new ideas or events more easily. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 17:45, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

@Jasonkwe@TrueHeartSusie3, We could make subsections inside the weeks per witness. >>> Extorc.talk 14:24, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

For the start of the jury deliberations should it be a sub section from the trial section or its own section?Leaky.Solar (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Subsection of Trial. >>> Extorc.talk 20:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I think having subsections by Weeks is fine, I think the current format, subsections by person, is too much? starship.paint (exalt) 07:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it makes really easy for a reader to jump to a particular witness considering there are 10s of them each with a paragraph dedicated to them. >>> Extorc.talk 14:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Recent mass blanking

I've recently reverted mass-blanking by RandomCanadian since I think that the detailed, well-sourced content about the testimony is worth keeping in the article. I think the conversation here points towards a working agreement that the content should generally be preserved and I don't understand the motivation for nuking all of the witness testimony. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 23:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

The reason most of the content was removed is because of the ITN thread where this is being discussed. Far too much of this is trivial stuff which fails WP:NOT and WP:RECENTISM. We don't have a day-by-day, event-by-event account of stuff as pivotal as the Battle of Stalingrad. Or even for stuff like the Nuremberg trials; or the O. J. Simpson murder case (which does include a detailed account, but not a witness-by-witness quote farm). The trend in doing so seems really like undue focus on (and unability to distance oneself from) recent events - i.e. recency bias. People really need to look up the WP:10YEARTEST. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Regardless, completely blanking the section and not mentioning any of the testimonies should not be the ultimate solution. There should at least be an abridged version of what we had before, as even the OJ Simpson and Nuremberg trials mentioned at least some of the proceedings. --WuTang94 (talk) 02:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

It is better to have no content than to have bad content because the bad content sets a bad example; whereas no content may actually serve the purpose of driving forward the creation of new, better, more meaningful stuff. There should indeed be "an abridged version" of the description of the proceedings (in the same way the description of the Stalingrad battle is a much abridged documentation of main events). Simply said, what was in the article was not "an abridged version"; and is in fact so excessive I am not sure it is a useful basis from which to write a summary, hence the blanking. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I mean, there's gotta be a way to write about someone's point of view without presenting it as fact, and this stuff can be summarized in a few paragraphs instead of being drawn out, right? Instead of having full sections of each witness, we could probably lump certain witnesses into corresponding paragraphs. --WuTang94 (talk) 02:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to that. I'm just saying the interim non-solution of keeping blatantly excessive stuff is, well, not a solution. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I've moved the content to Talk:Depp v. Heard/temp where it can be worked on without making the main article look so ridiculously silly. I'll note that the overly detailed coverage should probably be replaced with reference to sources more distant from the events, or, given those probably don't exist yet, at least ones which try to make a summary and not give a "play-by-play" account of the thing (as the latter would be almost WP:PRIMARY, being original materials that are close to an event). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for doing that. That way we can trim it down and put it back when it's ready. WuTang94 (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Seeing as that talk page has amounted to basically a split that left zero coverage of the testimony in the appropriate section, I've tagged the page with {{NPOV}} for having WP:BALASP issues. Each aspect of this article—including testimony—needs to be treated with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. The article abjectly fails to do so at the moment, especially in light of all of the coverage that the testimony received. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

The solution is to go and undertake the hard task of fixing that by writing a proper encyclopedic summary; not abdicating and keeping the WP:NOTNEWS trivia in a separate place. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Now moved to Draft:Testimony in Depp v. Heard, where the issues with it can be resolved without being a massive thorn in article space. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Witness lists and links to the testimony article

I'm looking to develop some collapsible boxes for lists of witnesses to give some filling, with accompanying sub-section titles, to the Depp v. Heard#Testimony article section:

====Witnesses for Depp====

Witnesses for Depp Christi Dembrowski, Depp's sister and personal manager.

Isaac Baruch, Depp's neighbor during his marriage to Heard
...

Other subsections/collapsible boxes would be for: Witnesses for Heard, Witnesses for Depp in rebuttal and Witnesses for Heard in rebuttal and I'm hoping this can increase the directly trial related content in the article.

As an alternative move, I'd raised the, prior to going live, question Talk:Testimony in Depp v. Heard#Where should the content be published? Is there a case for just moving the content into the main article?

I'm also ploughing on with the Testimony article following great work by RandomCanadian, but there are still gaps such as for Shannon Curry and Johnny Depp on rebuttal. All the same, it's getting there.

ping also Mhawk10 WuTang94

GregKaye 14:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Social Media Reactions Edit Warring

Pinging potentially interested editors: @Rusentaja, TheTimesAreAChanging, Starship.paint, HurricaneHiggins, and GregKaye: Recently there has been edit warring between TheTimesAreAChanging and Rusentaja over what should be included in the social media section. Disputes between editors should be resolved on talk pages so interested editors should state their opinions on what should and shouldn't be included that is presently in the social media section.

I would also like to note that it's been generally agreed that a lot of the content on the reactions section needs to be rewritten or removed. Originalcola (talk) 00:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

The reality reported virtually unanimously in reliable sources is that social media, especially TikTok, witnessed a huge outpouring of support for Depp whereas Heard (and people associated with her) were targeted with viral falsehoods and sustained, often misogynistic, personalized attacks, some of them originating in coordinated efforts by right-wing activists (such as The Daily Wire), others perhaps merely a reflection of the misogynistic rhetoric and rape/death threats that are a systemic problem in many corners of the Internet (especially for prominent women and women of color). The smear campaign has been compared to Gamergate and other recent examples of online harassment. Obviously, this phenomenon tells us very little (or nothing) about the actual facts of the Depp v. Heard case, but reliable sources have identified it as significant and likely to a have a major downstream effect on society, as future victims of domestic violence or sexual abuse will have to consider the risk of being subjected to similar online harassment, perhaps amplified by alt-right figures, bots, and trolls.

Now, as we all know, there are many relatively inexperienced or completely new editors who have come to this highly-topical article to make WP:BOLD changes (resulting in an exceptionally chaotic revision history), some of whom may see Wikipedia as just another social media platform to vent their personal views, rather than an encyclopedia. It is evident (including from their talk page comments and edit summaries) that the majority of these users are (more or less openly) critical of the mainstream reporting of reliable sources on this topic and other aspects of the trial, as well as of the (relatively) long-standing article text crafted by experienced editors following the RS, for being "biased." Again, this is largely orthogonal to the actual fact of whether Depp, Heard, or some mixture of the two were the "primary" aggressor in their (by all accounts) toxic relationship, although genuine advocates for male victims of domestic violence should (I would think) be disgusted by "people making aroused facial expressions over an audio clip of Heard testifying about her alleged sexual assault by Depp" or "acting out Heard's abuse testimony, twisting and turning like pantomime actors in an attempt to point out supposed inconsistencies in her account," both of which became viral "trends" on TikTok for a time.

If there is another view, specifically of the "Social media" aspect of this case, that can be substantiated by reliable sources, no evidence for such a contention has yet been produced. Instead, we see drive-by edits including those by Rusentaja, who has made 12 contributions to this page (and fewer than 200 edits overall), most of them removing sourced content for reasons that are doubtless well-intentioned, but come across as spurious or poorly-explained in their respective edit summaries. Rusentaja is not representative of the larger pattern by any means, and his edits should be considered on their own merits, despite the frustrating nature of a chaotic revision history that leaves experienced editors blindsided and unable to locate the diff wherein a crucial part of the lede was gutted without discussion. (As an aside, Gtoffoletto, it was actually this thread's OP, Originalcola, who cut any mention of Depp v. NGN from the lede, explaining that he found it to be "weird (and) out of place" in an edit summary that simultaneously disregarded a previous discussion which firmly established that "Many legal experts doubted that Depp would win the case" and "many legal experts suggested that Mr Depp had a weaker chance of winning than he did in the UK," as recounted by Time and the BBC—suggestions which Originalcola called "false".)

That said, it bothers me that Rusentaja has evidently sought to be less-than-transparent about his edits. For example, Rusentaja initially retained most of the "Social media" subsection but moved it further down in the article to the "Reactions#To the verdict" subsection (despite virtually none of the material being about reactions to the verdict), seemingly in an attempt to break up the existing paragraphs, bury the information, and possibly create a pretext for its later removal on "relevance" grounds. After that edit was challenged, Rusentaja resorted to a unilateral 12,880 byte deletion which he characterized as a mere "trimming" and vaguely implied ([1], [2]) that the redacted content runs afoul of some policy or guideline, perhaps WP:TRIVIA or WP:NOTNEWS, without specific elaboration.

Therefore, while Rusentaja is in no way responsible for the many other attempts to whitewash the "Social media" subsection—for example, by moving unflattering reporting on The Daily Wire's activities (along with some minor filler) to a new subsection on "POTENTIAL misleading information" (emphasis added) solely to introduce unsourced doubt not found in the sources (and with the edit summary "c/e," which may as well have been left blank), or whoever drafted the text to read as though Heard doing cocaine on the stand was a more or less credible "claim" that simply happened to be incorrect, rather than a malicious falsehood—his unilateral mass removals are problematic, and related to a broader series of edits that are also (independently) problematic. The root of the problem seems to be that the "Social media" subsection in particular, even if not absolutely perfect in every way, adheres to WP:RS, whereas some highly-motivated volunteers (who, logically, may not get their news/information from sources that we recognize as reliable) disagree with those sources, but cannot say so openly or present equally reliable sources with a different perspective. Needless to say, under normal circumstances at least, this should not be a problem at all: Wikipedia is not a democracy and article content is not determined by what individual editors personally like or dislike. The only reason that I'm here at all is because I have seen in real-time how vulnerable these principles are to sustained pressure.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

The problem I perceive here is that a significant number of mainstream publications — such as Vogue (e.g., "Why It's Time to Believe Amber Heard"), the New York Times (e.g., "TikTok's Amber Heard Hate Machine"), the Guardian (e.g., "The Amber Heard-Johnny Depp trial was an orgy of misogyny"), and others — have taken a party line on the trial consistent with #MeToo and #BelieveAllWomen. Repeatedly insinuating that Amber Heard is a bona fide victim of domestic violence and the victim both of her powerful ex-husband and a social media "hate machine," these publications suggest that the social media narrative has been conditioned by systemic misogyny and shaped by orchestrated right-wing manipulation.

Meanwhile, organic commentators on social media — including large numbers of women, one should note — have watched the trial for themselves, assessed the evidence, documented the inconsistencies in Heard's testimony, and come to the conclusion that she has been lying for years, that she was the true abuser in the relationship, and that she has done a huge disservice to genuine victims of domestic violence. The Guardian and the New York Times will never admit that a woman could get on the stand and lie about domestic abuse or sexual violence, because their ideological bias in favor of #MeToo and #BelieveAllWomen precludes any such possibility. This means that concentrating only on what these "reliable sources" say will inevitably misrepresent the organic social media coverage of the trial — which does not all emanate from ignorant masses brainwashed by misogyny and The Daily Wire. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 09:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

As TrueHeartSusie3 previously noted, "I'm pretty sure it's a MRA myth that this hashtag (#BelieveAllWomen) has ever been used by #MeToo or any other intersectional feminist movement." Regardless, I can at least appreciate your honesty and forthrightness in denigrating mainstream reliable sources for supposedly taking a "party line" and being unwilling to acknowledge that "a woman could get on the stand and lie," although these assertions are certainly open to question—you can probably imagine it might be difficult for people with a different worldview (e.g., The New York Times journalists) to accept that the aforementioned "rape joke" TikTok memes have anything to do with protecting either male or female victims of abuse, notwithstanding the WP:TRUTH of the matter. As other users before me have pointed out, though, WP:NPOV does not require turning every article into a "he-said, she-said" with equal space for all viewpoints. Rather, it states: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." In other words, you cannot point to a TikTok reaction that has not been reliably published to "refute" The New York Times, not even to right great wrongs, or engage in your own original research to declare, e.g., that since many women undeniably took part in the anti-Heard campaign, then, by golly, it could not possibly have had misogynistic undercurrents, The Guardian be damned! To return to your first sentence: Mainstream sources being "wrong" is not a "problem," at least not one that Wikipedia can solve.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

It's evident that "mainstream reliable sources" such as the New York Times and the Guardian took the view that Heard simply had to be believed — because to suggest otherwise would discredit the #MeToo movement of which both publications have been vocal proponents. Representing their perspective, and only their perspective, while attempting to denigrate a huge volume of good-faith social media commentary as amounting to "rape joke memes," does not exemplify a neutral point of view. It's possible to look neutrally at the social media commentary around Heard's testimony and acknowledge that much of it highlighted inconsistencies in her story, rather than being motivated by misogyny or right-wing manipulation. If a man claimed during an assault case that he had been punched numerous times in the face, but had no evident bruises in photos taken after the alleged incident, surely similar doubts would be raised. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 11:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Originalcola for making this section. My primary issue with the social media section of the article is that it is mostly a long list of reactions by journalists that aren't particularly noteworthy on their own. There are hundreds of such takes in the media, so what we could do is to summarize the main points without adding every opinion separately and keep the section concise. The reason for the trimming was to check that if same type of opinions were written previously in the article and avoiding repetition of virtually similar opinions by different journalists. For example, once we've said that "Journalist Amelia Tait of The Guardian referred to the case as "trial by TikTok" and stated that on social media, the case had become "a source of comedy"", do we really need to add that "other journalists at BuzzFeed News,[78] The Independent,[79][83] and Vanity Fair.[84]" agreed with her, that Amanda Hess, a critic writing for The New York Times said basically the same thing, that Sherr and Carson cited media professor Paul Booth saying that social media can be problematic, that Shannon Keating, a culture writer and editor for BuzzFeed News, was also concerned about social media and how Bill Goodykoontz, a media critic from The Arizona Republic was also critical of social media's coverage of the trial. Speaking of "unanimously reliable sources", The Arizona Republic isn't even on the WP:RSP list. I believe that trimming the section would make it much more readable without losing any of the relevant content. --Rusentaja (talk) 12:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Rusentaja, I thought that you would bring up the "This was also noted by other journalists at BuzzFeed News,[81] The Independent,[88][91] and Vanity Fair[92]" sentence, since it is the only line in the subsection with any clear duplication (and likely exists in order to preempt bad-faith suggestions that the preceding comment by Tait was somehow cherrypicked, rather than representative of a wide swathe of media analysis). Using that sentence to justify a mere "trim," and then redacting almost 13,000 bytes(!) of content, begs the question of what other unstated objections you might have to the remainder of the material. For future reference, "trim" has a pretty specific, generally-accepted meaning on Wikipedia—usually closer to a copyedit than a blanking—as seen in, e.g., this trim by Starship.paint. Your previous edits go well beyond what most editors habitually understand "trim" to mean.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I have stated all the objections in my previous reply as well as the reason for them. However, if we want to keep the long list list of journalists reactions in the article I think GregKaye's solution of splitting them to their own section is adequate. Currently as it stands, the subtopic is just "social media", it doesn't differentiate between reactions by social media and to social media. It contains a mix of data, statistics, actions by of social media users, content from social media, critique of social media and journalists opinions about social media coverage of the trial. The reason for the first move was to put the journalists opinions to other reactions to differentiate between reactions coming from social media and reactions to social media reactions by journalists. I believe that separating the topics into their own sections like GregKaye tried to do would make the article considerably more readable and clear, and be a good compromise that doesn't remove any content. The topic discussing social media currently is longer than any other subtopic in the article, and the reactions section is considerably larger than the section discussing the trial itself. Rusentaja (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I had not really planned to give an opinion but I think I have to now. The sources used didn't explicitly state that Depp was not likely to win the trial and the statement itself was "weird" in the sense that it was written in a non-encylopedic format. I had not read the prior discussion prior to my edit but there doesn't seem to be a consensus that the statement was true. Originalcola (talk) 14:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• @HurricaneHiggins: - Wikipedia is not interested in sourcing content from "organic commentators on social media" or "organic social media coverage of the trial". Wikipedia is more interested in mainstream sources. I would suggest that you look for mainstream sources that have similar viewpoints to your "organic" ones. This is to not provide a false balance of 50:50, but to avoid a false balance of 100:0. starship.paint (exalt) 14:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  I haven't edited this section at all. However, a section titled "Commentary on social media response" that represents almost exclusively the commentary of outlets such as the New York Times, the Guardian, the Independent, Buzzfeed News, and Vice News — and which even suggests that anti-Heard sentiment on social media is a product of the "alt-right" — is inherently biased. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 15:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Yep, and if we are to bloat the article about the Depp v. Heard trial with opinions about social media, then it might be worth using tools like https://www.google.co.uk/advanced search (other domain bases for the likes of google also available) and conducting RS specific searches for a variety of providers so as to gather opinions from a range of publishers and potentially better fit with WP:Due. (breath) I might just hope those involved might be bothered. We've got to present fact based content rather than opinion led content - and, if we do include opinions, let's present them honestly and, where possible, with a range of them. GregKaye 17:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@HurricaneHiggins and GregKaye: - then find less biased mainstream sources. That is how we can progress. Just complaining about it isn’t progress. starship.paint (exalt) 12:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• I’ve done some trimming to Hess’ and Goodykoontz‘ opinions, which I believe was actually my own writing. Reading the section, these two opinions were too long and prominent. Hess was trimmed from 103 words to 60 words, while Goodykoontz was trimmed from 82 to 56 words. I think 55 words would be a good upper limit for an individual opinion. starship.paint (exalt) 14:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Comment When I went through the living hell of accusation, without a contextualisation presented for the edits[3] of a supposed crime, TheTimesAreAChanging raised issue with the quantity of discussion edits I had made. Now we get complaint about "drive-by edits including those by Rusentaja, who has made 12 contributions to this page". The fact is that it's the quality and relevance of any individual input that matters regardless of numbers involved. From an initial look I think that Rusentaja's interventions were good!
It's not Wikipedia's role to WP:Soapbox the WP:Primary source opinions of ANYONE whether that person is a journalist or not. Are we the only WP:Secondary source for various of the contents being promoted? GregKaye 18:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely on all points. Recently there's been an uptick in personal attacks and uncivil behaviour on this article's talk page and edit summaries which was to be expected due to how opinionated editors are on this matter. I think the main thing that needs to be addressed is the lack of civility as we should all be assuming that other editors are acting in good faith. Originalcola (talk) 14:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Guys I'm sorry. But some editors here show that they do not understand some crucial elements about how Wikipedia works. Calling "journalists" primary sources is completely wrong (unless the article is an opinion piece). A statement like the one GregKaye made above is potentially disqualifying from editing such a contentious page. Just like calling "us" or Wikipedia a "secondary source". Wikipedia is not a source! WP:COMPETENCE is required on Wikipedia. Greg as I've told you before you need to slow down and listen to the other editors trying to help you out or your editing will keep causing problems. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 15:15, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Also: what is this and this GregKaye and starship.paint?! Using edit summaries as a chat is not a good idea (See WP:REVTALK). Especially on this page where edit warring is already making the history section unusable. Let's help each other make this page editable. We all need to slow down and reduce the noise. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 15:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Gtoffoletto, If a person expresses an opinion, that person is the primary source for that opinion. GregKaye 16:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

What is your point? Please read carefully my comment above. This talk page is full of complaints about edit warring (always involving you). I am wasting my time trying to help you out here. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 16:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

(If I have it would have been to comment on the edit warring of others but you're going off the topic, as presented above, of "edit warring between TheTimesAreAChanging and Rusentaja". insert: Ways you can help me in this are by sticking to topic as we work with policy. (non-reactionary, though belated response). GregKaye 00:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)).

My point is policy, specifically: WP:PRIMARY "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts .." GregKaye 19:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto: - please calm down. WP:REVTALK is against creating an atmosphere where the only way to carry on discussion is to revert other editors! This wasn't happening here, these were null edits... starship.paint (exalt) 12:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: Exactly. "Null edits" as you call them in a page that is already a mess is insane. The talk page is made for discussion. Edit summaries are made for describing edits. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 21:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Let's calm down, we shouldn't agonise over 2 null edits. Besides you aren't being forced to use wikipedia and you can't exclude others from wikipedia without a good reason. Try to remain civil at all times and avoid personally attacking other editors on any grounds. Originalcola (talk) 23:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto: - if you think that two null edits are insane then I think you're too emotionally invested in this article, I'm not sure whether it's on fixing this mess or something else, but please do not overburden yourself, whether mentally or emotionally. starship.paint (exalt) 12:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: maybe my tones sounded more extreme then what I intended. "Insane" was a bit of an hyperbole obviously :-) It's not about this article. It's just a general malpractice I think. Continue doing it if you think it's a good idea. I've stopped editing this page some time ago. It's a battlefield and I don't care enough. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: "misogynistic"??? The hate was directed to Heard for all her lying. It (generally) wasn't directed at women as a gender. Making this about all women is exactly how Heard tries to frame it, when in fact she's hurting the cause of actual female victims.PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 21:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I think the main issue is that some editors have tried to write the social media section in such a way that either supports Depp or Heard based on their own personal beliefs. Wikipedia isn't a place to right wrongs, it's just meant to be an encylopedia. You can think that other people's opinions are right or wrong but you can't make edits with the intention of proving your viewpoint if that viewpoint isn't a consensus one. Originalcola (talk) 23:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Are you saying the majority of reliable sources (not op-eds) call the hate against Heard misogynist? In that case j stand corrected of course, much as i personally don't agree. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 07:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I have also seen a few statements from experts and universities labelling the hate as misogynistic but I haven't seen enough to say that with a high degree of confidence. My reply was more aimed at the recent discussions in the talk page then at any individual point raised.

It should probably also be noted that an op-ed can be a reliable source and a non-neutral/opinionated source can still be used in an article although it would obviously require judgement. Originalcola (talk) 10:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

TBH this case and how people are able to dominate editing WP articles without understanding the basic tenets of Wikipedia or just general source criticism, methods of analysis or summary is making me realise that Wikipedia is not at all different from Reddit and IG, sadly. Dunning-Kruger effect on steroids here, esp with @GregKaye,@Rusentaja, @PizzaMan and @HurricaneHiggins (who I seriously doubt watched the trial without commentary or has much understanding of the facts or evidence in the case or in the UK one). This is a volunteer effort and I just don’t think this endless fighting with people who simply do not want to or are not capable of getting the big picture (eg considering/researching both/all sides of the case and wanting to represent the facts fairly, because it takes reading (often dry texts with no fun conspiracy theories) and not listening to funny TikToks or sensationalistic YT videos engineered to rile people up) making tons of bold edits is worth my time. WP was a nice idea, but in the era of social media, it really does not work. Until there’s some kind of change in WP that reigns in editors like the ones listed above and in general stronger moderation, this article is never going to be a good representation of the facts of the case. And after Depp v Heard, it will be the Evan Rachel Wood v Manson trial, Jolie v Pitt, FKA Twigs v Shia LaBeouf… Not to even mention what’s going on in the Roe v Wade article right now. Thank you for trying to be the voice of reason, @TheTimesAreAChanging, please don’t burn yourself out in the process of trying to reason with MRAs and conspiracy theorists! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

TrueHeartSusie3, thank you for raising issue of "the basic tenets of Wikipedia", an encyclopedia build on a pillar of WP:NPOV that, "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias". Allied to this, MOS:INSTRUCT says that we should "Simply present sourced facts with neutrality and allow readers to draw their own conclusions." What we've found though is editors fighting over presenting the two Depp trials, while being similar, as having specifically presented differences of having a jury rather than a judge and being broadcast and with protestations of balancing content in the article body. This was all proven to be an nonsense when a juror came forward saying how they took their role in impartiality seriously and paid no attention to outside influences.

As per the above, WP:PRIMARY specifies that "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source." and "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts .." To which "tenets" do you reference? GregKaye 12:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@TrueHeartSusie3 Calling other editors MRAs and conspiracy theorists without merit constitutes as WP:Personal attack. Please remember to be WP:CIVIL. Enouraging people not to reason with others does not help anyone going forward. Rusentaja (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Since this potential bite your tongue topic has been broached, please can I remind editors of WP:Talk page guidelines, "The purpose of an article's talk page...is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article ..." Cordial but frank discussion on user talk pages could help as a suggestion. GregKaye 20:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, Wikipedians have to balance sources and be neutral yet in this article a lot of people have tried to make edits to support their own opinions rather than presenting objective analysis. There are always other pages to edit and you can always not engage or take a break from editing on this page if you feel like you're getting nowhere. Originalcola (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Back to policy: there is policy permitting use of opinion pieces in articles as per WP:RSOPINION "... For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the readers that they are reading an opinion. Thanks greatly to Starship.paint for clarifying this for. This still leaves the questions as to what extent it would be encyclopedic to present opinion pieces in the the Wikipedia text? and what level of notability should we expect from content we present for opinions that haven't stood a secondary source test of time? GregKaye 16:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Interlinking the verdicts

I don't see how emphasizing (See also) the respective verdict subsections of the other trial is relevant or helpful. As I'm sure anyone is aware, the verdicts succeed two vastly different trials that each require different context to understand their contents. The UK verdict is not even mentioned under Depp v. Heard#Verdict. Seems like an editorial choice to encourage readers to compare the two verdicts without basis in the body of the article or in reliable sources. Should be removed, at least from the subsection on this article, per WP:DUE. Throast (talk | contribs) 21:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I put both in: {{See also|Depp v. Heard#Verdict}} <!--mutually applied link between articles --> and {{See also|Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd#Verdict}} <!--mutually applied link between articles -->

I'm not really fussed about their inclusion but thought some readers might find the links useful in a two-way set up. GregKaye 22:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

The UK verdict is already covered quite extensively above, so emphasizing it again, especially in comparison to the US verdict, seems like overkill imo. Would you be fine with removing the link? Throast (talk | contribs) 22:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I think the verdicts should not be interlinked. We can mention the UK verdict in background in this article, and in the UK article we can mention the US verdict in some sort of an Aftermath. starship.paint (exalt) 14:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

FRAN HOEPFNER and WILLY WOMP-A in gawker

Insert: WikiVirusC makes a good point below that I was looking at the comments section rather than chat. 14:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

The gawker article by Fran Hoepfner and Willy Womp-a [4][5] that's been used as the first citation in our article's response to social media content is (insert: arguably) fallacious. (GregKaye 13:45, 25 June 2022 (UTC))

Hoepfner and Womp-a state, "The live feed of the Depp/Heard trial is less like a CNN feed and more like the VMAs or a Twitch stream. That’s because, for a reason I can’t quite determine, a variety of Gen Z internet users have taken an active, if not aggressive, interest in the case, ..." (quick comment: the article's title posited the question "WHAT DOES GEN Z SEE IN JOHNNY DEPP?" which it doesn't answer) and continues: "The comments in the chat function of the live feed alternate between “I LOVE YOU JOHNNY” to “AMBER’S COOKED.” Every now and then, one person will say something along the lines of, “Amber looks so sad,” to which everyone will respond by telling that person to shut the fuck up. Rinse, repeat. One comment on the trial’s live feed said: “Why is the lawyer so nosy???” Another said: “Amber looks EXACTLY like my high school nemesis.”"

So I went to the cited livestream, scrolled down the comments section (which is certainly long) and did some page searches to find: just the one reference to "I love you Johnny", no references to "cooked", no references to "shut the" or "fuck up", no references to "nosy" and no references to "high school" or "nemesis".
Top replies were:
"I’ve never seen a more honest testimony than Isaac’s. This man deserves everything Johnny graciously gave him & more! He didn’t give a crap who was asking or what they were asking, it was his honest answer" 1.1K likes;
"TV shows have led us to believe that lawyers are smart, slick and well-spoken. This changes all that." 1.6K likes;
"It's not "AMICA" cream, it's "ARNICA" cream and it's used to HEAL bruises OVER TIME not immediately and not HIDE them. Arnica will do nothing to a non bruised face, that lawyer was obviously trying to confuse Isaac and the jury which is hilarious and ironic to me considering she keeps saying it wrong. And by the way, you CAN tell when someone's wearing makeup or not, no matter how light the product is." 1.3K likes;
"TIMESTAMPS:
Video actually starts at 39:26
Court begins at 46:45
Break starts 2:10:09 ..." 1.1K likes; and
"Isaac is such a legend! This man was so honest and he told only the truth. I really hope Johnny wins this. He truly deserves it. 2K likes.

Our article does not reference any Twitch streams though it does now mention the (previously misrepresented[6]) content where, "Journalist Amelia Tait of The Guardian said that Heard v Depp had turned into "trial by TikTok" stating that on social media, the case had become "a source of comedy". Amelia Tait at least more fairly comments that "One recent TikTok trend ... saw TikTokers acting out Heard’s abuse testimony,". This more legitimate commentary links there to a Rolling Stone article that cites description/wording of the videos brought into question. Comments sections on these videos[7], suffice it to say, do not greatly compare to the comments section of the Law&Crime video.

There is no valid reasons why a section of Wikipedia content should begin by quoting commentary by Fran Hoepfner and Willy Womp-a, writers whose content is proven falacious. GregKaye 09:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Gawker is also red on WP:RSP and is deemed generally unreliable. I see no reason not to get rid of the statement. --Rusentaja (talk) 10:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Sure. I'd presumed that involved editors had at least checked things like that. I checked because I've followed lawyer reacts livestreams and know how well mannered they are. Current content is effectively worked as a WP:Personal attack on a general public response. GregKaye 10:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Leaky.Solar: - please avoid using Gawker in the future. starship.paint (exalt) 12:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Rusentaja: - I just realized that the red for Gawker in RSP was referring to its previous incarnation before 2021. But still, it's now being owned by Bustle's media group, and Bustle itself has "consensus that the reliability of Bustle is unclear", so we should, still avoid using Gawker when better sources are available. starship.paint (exalt) 15:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I went to the cited livestream, scrolled down the comments section (which is certainly long) and did some page searches. The article said he was reading chat not the comments. Chat is on the right, and a lot(or all depending on mode your in) chat message will be replayed while watching the livestream. The comment section is completely different than the chat section. 38:14 in video there are multiple ""I love you Johnny" or variations of it. I'm sure there are more through video. The live feed chat is different from normal comments, and is more similar to something like twitch chat(sidenote WP does have an article that talks more about twitch streamers covering the trial [8]). The chat messages only show when you are at or around that period of time in video, so you unfortunately can't search it all at once. None of it matters in regards to Gawker RS reliability, but I wouldn't call the writers fallacious. Other publications covered some of the chat like NYT and Mashable. Mashable has a screenshot of the chat when it was live, rather than the replay version that we only can view now. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining live chat, and that it is not the YouTube comments section, WikiVirusC. Original research can be permissible on talk if a source is demonstrably wrong, but hopefully Greg will now admit his error based on a clear misunderstanding. The source has not, in fact, been "proven falacious" [sic]—if anything, a cursory examination of the live chat suggests that the source is highly accurate, but perhaps there are more reputable sources we can use instead. Either way, Greg should be more careful before accusing living journalists by name of being liars and falsely disparaging other editors by repeatedly invoking policies that do not apply, such as his reference to WP:Tendentious editing above. As there is no evidence that whoever added this source was engaged in editing tendentiously, Greg should withdraw his baseless aspersion.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:43, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging Similarly, one of my first actions following WikiVirusC edit was to click thanks for the 13:02, 24 June edit. This was quickly followed by my addition of the Insert: WikiVirusC makes a good point ..." at the top of the section.[9] (Also, following WikiVirusC's helpful comment, and as much as anything for my own peace of mind, I downloaded 33070 chats via the Save Live Streaming Chats for YouTube app from the chrome store and found one reference to "is cooked" and one for "is a cooked" with no other cooked references. I found 31 "I love you" references but with a significant proportion about "Issac"). The claims in the FRAN HOEPFNER, WILLY WOMP-A article are far from represented even in the screenshot presented in the Mashable article presented above. You accused me of WP:Tendentious editing[10] in relation to my edits here[11]. Regardless, I'm happy to withdraw my previous not directly visible reference to tend and strike my proven fallacious comment per this edit. GregKaye 09:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not the claims stated are actually in the comments or not, your analysis still constitutes orignal research. That being said, I agree that the Gawker article shouldn't be used as a source as it's clearly a questionable source. Originalcola (talk) 14:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Originalcola All editors should make every reasonable effort to ensure that content in our articles is WP:NOTFALSE. It's by this valid form of original research that WP:RS/P etc. were developed. The specific prescription of WP:OR is that "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research". This does not mean that we have to add any provably fallacious nonsense to articles just because it's been researched elsewhere. GregKaye 06:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Juror's statement

A juror has come forward to explain the rationale behind the verdict, this should be included in the article IMHO, but where?

• Deadline
• The Independent
• Entertainment Weekly
• Variety
• Yahoo Entertainment

TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

possibly with:
3Reactions
3.1To the trial
3.1.1Social media
3.1.2Camille Vasquez
3.1.3Companies
3.1.4Court spectators
3.2To the verdict
3.2.1Depp's reaction
3.2.2Heard's reaction
3.2.3Other reactions
3.2Juror comments
GregKaye 06:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Don't think this comment should be included. Hasn't gotten broad enough coverage and is essentially fluffing up commentary by a single juror member, easy to take out of context (I haven't watched to interview, though). Ovinus (talk) 16:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Should the RfC above be successful, I believe any one of these sources could be used to counter the allegations that jurors were influenced by social media when deliberating their verdict. This is a claim made several times in this article, and none of the sources provide any proof to support this. If evidence ever came to light that the jury disobeyed their instructions, this could cause a mistrial, even now, or provide grounds for an immediate appeal, well in to the future.

We should've been very careful about repeating these claims in the first place. So since the claims remain on the article, in the interest of WP:BALANCE we should include a juror explicitly saying: "Social media did not impact us. We followed the evidence. We didn't take into account anything outside [the courtroom]. We only looked at the evidence… They were very serious accusations and a lot of money involved. So we weren't taking it lightly." Or we could just remove unfounded claims that the jury broke the law by violating their jury instructions from the article entirely. That'd be the safest bet. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 22:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:Consensus looks to be achieved by means such as WP:DETCON "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." The arguments of Homeostasis07 alone are enough. Then we have first post "this should be included in the article IMHO"; second post supporting even suggesting a location; third post questioning coverage (which has been substantial) and fourth post quoting WP:5P, WP:NPOV in support. GregKaye 17:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Edit Warring(Again)

Once again there has been edit warring, this time between TheTimesAreAChanging and GregKaye over the inclusion of fact-checks. Snopes and Politifact are both generally considered to be reliable although, as with all sources, care should be taken when using them. Disputes between editors should be resolved on talk pages so I'm creating a section for this very purpose.

Personally I think the content in question should be removed as Wikipedia isn't a place to right wrongs and covering fact check articles is inappropriate for an encylopedia in this specific case, regardless of the reliability of the fact checker. @TheTimesAreAChanging and GregKaye: Originalcola (talk) 13:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Snopes isn’t opinion. starship.paint (exalt) 14:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can see, GregKaye is not edit warring because he is not reverting TheTimesAreAChanging's reverts. Throast (talk | contribs) 15:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Where to begin? A single revert is normal under the WP:BRD cycle and not an "edit war" (how many "edit wars" have you been a party to if each one of your many individual reverts qualify, Originalcola?). Moreover, the dispute was over unnecessary heavy-handed editorial attribution (e.g., "Dan Evon from Snopes is among journalists with views such that"; "Nur Ibrahim of Snoops [sic] is one of several journalists observing"), not inclusion per se. (The existence of viral falsehoods about the case and the corresponding fact checks is clearly notable enough for at least a single short sentence: It is long-standing content backed by implied consensus, content which I did not author, and which has never been previously challenged.) GregKaye thought that WP:RSOPINION applies to fact check organizations, but in general practice it applies to op-eds and clearly labelled opinion pieces, and it is rare to see the level of attribution that GregKaye proposed. (At most, we might mention the fact checking agency: e.g., "claims disproven by fact checkers at Snopes and PolitiFact.") Additionally, it is not an "opinion" that Heard was/was not doing cocaine or reciting movie quotes on the stand—those were falsehoods, plain and simple. We have four separate sources to prove it—not just the two that GregKaye name-dropped more or less arbitrarily—and we should not pretend otherwise or assign the falsehoods any legitimacy.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

We could attribute the agency. Author isn’t needed for fact-checks. starship.paint (exalt) 15:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Totally agree with the 2 comments above. The author is absolutely not needed here. There seems to be a recurrent WP:TENDENTIOUS attempt by some (...) editors to discredit reputable sources by giving the impression that articles are nothing more than the opinions of specific journalists. This behaviour must stop. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 16:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia should certainly be wary against implying an extrapolation across the entirety of Heard's testimony as a general indication that "falsehoods that Heard was passing off film quotes as her own thoughts ... were disproven." That would be a bit like us stating whether Heard did or didn't borrow from Rihanna's account of abuse survival.[12]

There are definitely strong things that we can say per WP:PRIMARY still states that "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts .." but we can't comment on things we don't know. To say one way or the other and to imply an extrapolation would require WP:OR, WP:CRYSTALBALL mindreading. Something should get more specific but I apologise for opting for my previously erroneous approach. I'd suggest that the lies within the social media post memes can be very fairly noted based on texts in the Snoops citation such as: "Heard did not say these words during the trial." This kind of thing seems concrete. Various operators across social media spread lies and these people should rightly be outed.

I made a number of I think positive contributions among edits here.[13] Two of them were rightly reverted for good reason and I thanked the editors concerned. Reverts were made. No further action was taken. There was no edit warring. I totally agree with the WP:PROFRINGE argument and further think that it should be specifically applied. GregKaye 05:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I didn't understand a thing here Greg. What's your point? That diff of yours you linked contains many different changes that are totally unrelated. Among others it seems you removed reliable sources and entire paragraphs without a clear justification. I would have entirely reverted such an edit if I had seen it. I think editing like that such a contentious article falls into the "WP:RECKLESS, not bold" category. Try making smaller edits with clear edit summaries explaining your actions. You need to slow down and build consensus for your edits. As you can see from this thread and many others on this page, your edits are often not supported by the community. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 09:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@GregKaye: - I understand what you meant by Wikipedia should certainly be wary against implying an extrapolation across the entirety of Heard's testimony as a general indication - and have reworded that quote you presented above to Many social media users falsely alleged that Heard copied film quotes from The Talented Mr. Ripley in her testimony, while other social media users alleged that Heard was copying film quotes from other movies, from which Snopes concluded that many of the supposedly copied phrases were "brief" and "generic language that also happens to have turned up in movies", presenting a phenomenon of confirmation bias starship.paint (exalt) 15:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, @Starship.paint:. It seemed odd that people were making a thing out of movie stars potentially referencing movie themes when I heard of this on social media. Even if it had happened, it can work.[14] =D GregKaye 17:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

GregKaye just confirmed that he is making edits to this article to contradict or undermine reputable fact-checkers such as Snopes and PolitiFact based on a fringe YouTube video with 8,000 views. He previously expressed a desire to be personally involved in helping Heard (whom he addresses on a first-name basis as "Amber") obtain "some level of psychological help," and he reiterated above that his edits (and his accusations that Heard stole her testimony of sexual abuse from another source) are based on things he "heard of ... on social media." Additionally, he has been shown to misrepresent reliable sources to mean the exact opposite of what they actually say, as in this diff, presumably influenced by these unreliable sources of information. In light of the above, GregKaye should voluntarily step aside from this topic area, or his conduct will need to be taken to an appropriate administrative forum.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: - (1) no, Greg isn't making edits to this article to contradict or undermine reputable fact-checkers. the diff [15] clearly shows he simply attributed and in fact expanded upon the overly broad strokes of the original text that passing off film quotes as her own thoughts was essentially 100% disproven, which even Snopes does not actually commit to. Regardless of where Greg may have heard things from, if there is an error in our article, then he is free to correct it. (2) Neither did he misrepresent reliable sources to mean the exact opposite of what they actually say, your single diff has no context of the other contemporary diff [16] that shows that he made an error in changing the body by adding additional content and references, then going to change the lede without changing the references in the lede, and in so doing, clumsily introduced the contradiction. (3) Certainly, wanting Heard to get professional help is inappropriate, and indeed I've told him not to do any such thing again, but whether he calls her "Heard" or "Amber" on a talk page is absolutely trivial. starship.paint (exalt) 01:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Starship.paint, this is not the first time that you have suggested without evidence that GregKaye "accidentally" "forgot" to provide "his sources" and therefore "change(d) the lede without changing the references in the lede," but to this day no reliable sources have ever been presented to support GregKaye's erroneous statement that "Legal experts considered Depp's chances of winning to be better in the US than the UK." I see no reason to assume a priori that such sources will eventually be provided in the future, and that is only one of many examples of misconduct. WP:ANI is likely to take a different view, especially given the sensitive WP:BLP implications of this topic area. I will leave further comments to that forum.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I hadn't seen this before, but now that I have, I am disappointed. It's fine that you think that Greg was deliberately misrepresenting reliable sources to mean the exact opposite of what they actually say, presumably influenced by these unreliable sources of information - that's your opinion and you are entitled to have it. But when I propose a different opinion, you dismiss it as without evidence, ignoring the context I already presented. Separately, you've had your shot at WP:ANI for almost a week now. I think it's time to move forward and edit collaboratively. Of course, Greg will have to greatly reduce the number of mistakes he is making here, which the incident I am discussing in this post definitely was. starship.paint (exalt) 03:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Starship.paint, you are responding to a week-old comment, which does not reflect my current views and is based on a mutual misunderstanding. At the time, your apparent suggestion that there actually are sources to support GregKaye's contention that "Legal experts considered Depp's chances of winning to be better in the US than the UK" seemed so bizarre (like something from an alternate universe!) that I could not make enough sense of it to do anything besides noting that neither you nor GregKaye had produced sources explicitly saying anything of the kind. Based on the evidence that you later presented at ANI, however, I modified my view to allow for the possibility that GregKaye misinterpreted and misapplied retrospective sources examining possible reasons for Depp's victory as establishing a (pre-verdict) consensus that defamation is easier to prove in the U.S. than the U.K., which would be an incorrect inference using WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Because this inference (if it existed) only existed in the minds of individual editors and was not stated by any source, you will have to forgive my lack of mind-reading ability, which rendered your comment incomprehensible to me until you further elaborated at ANI. This is also why I removed a portion of my comment related to you shortly after you clarified your argument in terms that I could understand.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging your "current views" aren't changing over time for everyone's benefit.
Please see: A quickly fixed mix-up between the "UK" and the "US" made within approaching 10,518 character edits, WP:AGF per stellar example of starship.paint,[17] related discussion opened with you,[18] WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:HARASS and WP:REDACTED.
You have wasted more than enough valued editor time with your WP:FORUMSHOP misrepresentations.
GregKaye 09:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging:, thank you, I appreciate your latest comment and explanation, and consider this particular matter (my post of 03:17, 9 July 2022) settled. @GregKaye:, you've had your shot too, at WP:ANI against TheTimesAreAChanging. That attempt, in my view, will not result in TheTimesAreAChanging being removed from the topic area. I would suggest, with an analogy, for a mutual ceasefire. starship.paint (exalt) 09:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I've not initiated inter-editor "fire", I didn't ask for a "shot" and I'm satisfied with the motivations behind what I state as being my NPOV editing[19][20]... We're all able to make our own enquiries into edits and editors:
Gtoffoletto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
GregKaye (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Otherwise perhaps we can all, myself included, get back to WP:Talk page guidelines, "The purpose of an article's talk page...is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article ..."
GregKaye 20:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

RFC: Reactions

Should the Reactions section be present in the article (as in diff)? Please answer Yes or No and why. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Pinging potentially interested editors: @RandomCanadian, GregKaye, Starship.paint, 173.56.203.56, There-being, TheTimesAreAChanging, TrueHeartSusie3, Gtoffoletto, GregKaye, Gtoffoletto, and X-Editor: Originalcola (talk) 22:49, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• NO, entire pointless, out of date, NOTNEWS and NOTGOSSIP content. Sure, many figures voiced some fleeting response, however this has no lasting significance. The article, instead of covering the trial, is covering these silly soundbites of responses. TikTok videos are on the net one moment and are gone the next. This article should cover the legal case, not these trivial reactions. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
• Yes and No. (I came here from the RfC notice and have not previously followed this page.) Sorry, but as asked, this RfC is not a yes-or-no matter; that diff removes a massive amount of content. I see this as: yes, some of this content belongs on the page, and no, not all of it does. I do think that it's very WP:DUE to cover the prominent online coverage, how it included misleading information, and how it may have influenced the verdict, as well as Depp's and Heard's reactions to the verdict. But a blow-by-blow account of every online bloviation is unencyclopedic. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
• Yes. Whilst there are still a lot of issues with the reactions section, there doesn't seem to be a clear reason why the entire section on reactions to this trial should be removed. I did not know that this issue was contentious as, to my knowledge, only 1 editor had previously suggested it's total removal whilst there appeared to be a consensus that the reaction article needed to be improved, not removed.Originalcola (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
• Somewhat. I think what needs to be kept in mind is long-term significance as to what is noteworthy. Broader strokes rather than individual examples. The quotes are really good to have. A possible avenue for prose is a section on the role social media played in swaying the public. "Reactions" from the 'spectators' should be reduced to "disruptions from court spectators". Stuff about Depp and Heard should be under the 'Verdict' section. Finally, wrap up with analysis of the implications of the trial ("other reactions" should do). I know this is comment is scatterbrained, sorry. SWinxy (talk) 23:39, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, covering what secondary reliable sources deem notable is non-negotiable on Wikipedia, although over time we may want to look for more authoritative academic sources.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, many sources indicate the trial has a broader meaning. If nothing else, victims of domestic violence who don't have hard evidence might be less inclined to come forward, but so will victims who made it all up. So no more #BelieveAllWomen blindly without looking at the facts and a little more innocent until proven guilty. This is a conclusion that was reflected in multiple good sources. Since the trial had an impact on society, this should be mentioned. I'm not too fond of the "reactions" heading, which suggests it's like movie reviews. Also, considering BLP, i think that any op-eds that state Heard was the victim despite the trial outcome, should at least argue why they think so (as i also stated above). Aside from those ponts, i think the section is in a pretty good state at the moment. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 10:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
• Strong Yes, ample and important coverage by reputable sources. Can be improved but should definitely be there. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC) p.s. the section is getting out of hand though. Editors are adding way too much detail and trivia. The "to the trial" section should be reduced to a few paragraphs maximum. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
• Not as written, though we should have something about the trial's significance in some form. That version puts far too much focus on the opinions of individual talking heads (often ones with no relevant expertise), and generally feels like it has fallen into the WP:QUOTEFARM problem where editors with different views on the topic have been trying to stuff as many opinions into it as possible to bludgeon the weight and focus of the overall section. It should have less focus on individual opinions (especially individual opinions by columnists, which I feel should get no space at all when there's already so many better sources available), and should instead focus on broad strands of high-quality coverage about the trial's significance. I also feel that retitling it to something like impact or significance would be better than just reception - this isn't a movie; we don't need people reviewing it. The trial was significant for these reasons and had this impact, cited to high-quality sources that can be used for that sort of thing in the article voice, that makes sense. But we should avoid stuff like "0/10 trial, totally awful, would not watch again" said Grindy McBigmouth, opinion columnist for Talk Magazine. --Aquillion (talk) 04:31, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
• Yes Its inclusion is due weight considering the massive amount of RS. Yet, I would support trimming it down a bit. ~ HAL333 03:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
• Yes because the reaction was as important as the trial–we know this. But it's too damn long. Trillfendi (talk) 03:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
• Yes I agree that the reactions were important. A summary of the sources, without too much detail, would good enough I think. Iraniangal777 (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
• Yes - The section should exist, as reliable sources have covered that the reactions themselves are noteworthy. I make no further comment as to the SPECIFC content of the section, how much it should include, etc... but the section should absolutely exist in general. Due to the weight reliable sources give, I'd say that a section on it is basically mandated by wikipedia policy. Fieari (talk) 05:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
• Yes so long as the reactions are notable, are supported by WP:RELIABLE, and are not gossip WP:NOTGOSSIPWritethisway (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment While not overly caring what neutral content gets used, it may be worth noting what's done in other articles such as of broadcast cases. I can't call the cases parallel as higher levels of violence were evident in regard to O. J. Simpson murder case#Media coverage with a following section on #In popular culture and Trial of Oscar Pistorius#Notable media coverage inclusive of subsection #Social media. GregKaye 10:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

and if the body content indicated is removed, the following lead content would be unsupported.

"... The livestreamed trial attracted large numbers of viewers as well as considerable social media commentary, the majority of which was sympathetic to Depp and/or critical of Heard. Large numbers of Depp's supporters gathered at the courthouse, contributing to what was widely described as a "circus-like atmosphere" and a significant public spectacle. In the United States, news articles about the case generated more social media interactions per article than all other significant news topics of that time period. Clips of the trial were widely used to create compilations and reaction videos, with multiple such videos, on platforms such as TikTok, going viral. Videos carrying the hashtag #justiceforjohnnydepp had attained over 18 billion views on TikTok by the trial's conclusion."

It depends which topics we think should be covered. GregKaye 11:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Parts that I'd say are less warranted are the first para of Potential misleading information due to containing unsubstantiated? accusation and speculation all of which might go into controversies sections of related articles. The second para may have valid criticism of social media and might be attached at the end of that subsection. The Camille Vasquez section. If wanted the content could go into her article. The Companies section ironically lacks value. GregKaye 12:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I think that the opinion poll at the end of the Other Reactions section may also be unwarranted. Originalcola (talk) 13:09, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of differences between UK and US trials

Pinging potentially interested editors: @RandomCanadian, GregKaye, Starship.paint, 173.56.203.56, There-being, TheTimesAreAChanging, TrueHeartSusie3, Gtoffoletto, GregKaye, Gtoffoletto, and X-Editor:

I'm not entirely sure why this section has been included. There has been limited media coverage on this topic but it seems out of place on an encyclopedia and not very notable so I think it should be removed from the article or be shortened and moved to the Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd section of this article. I previously made the mistake of deleting this section without trying to gauge pre-existing consensus or seek one so I would like to recieve input from any interested parties.Originalcola (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I think the choice is between whether the article presents a content on differences between the trials or not. WP:Lead says "...The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. ..." There can be difficulties if editors WP:Cherrypick items to reference in the Lead without having related content in the body text. I think the choice is between the article making no comment on Differences between the trials or doing so properly as per WP:Due which says, "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." As per open talk topic above, Differences between the Depp trials, I conducted a Google news search on US UK difference depp trials and attempted, in various ways, to present an NPOV reflection on the response. GregKaye 04:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

A potential solution could be to leave a sentence or two about differences in the lead and remove the other section from the article Originalcola (talk) 13:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@Originalcola: I don't think this should be a standalone section. Not sure why it turned out that way... unfortunately the edit history of this article is a mess. I would keep the content but move it into some other subsection for sure. The Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd section might be ok although this is more of an analysis to te verdict and why it was so different. So the notorious "reactions" section might be more appropriate. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Gtoffoletto, as per the above, it turned out that way to in relation to and support content on difference between the trials in the WP:Lead, a part of the article intended to serve as a summary its most important article contents which should covered in accordance with WP:Due. Edit summaries on the section have generally been pretty clear. GregKaye 12:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I believe that something can be briefly summarised in the lead but not have it's own section if warranted if the information isn't significant, like a brief line mentioning differences. Originalcola (talk) 13:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Can you show policy for that? WP:Lead is pretty clear. Also, with AknolIikiW's constructive edit, the lead reads "Differences between the US and the UK trials included the decision being made by a jury rather than a judge, and the fact that Heard was the defendant in the US trial, whereas in the UK the newspaper group was the defendant. Another difference is the cultural response to the live broadcast US trial." which, at least, presents more rounded reference. Best to follow policy but the important thing it that editors agree on WP:NPOV content compliant with WP:DUE. GregKaye 13:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Nowhere in WP:LEAD does it say that every sentence in the lead should have it's own section. I'm not sure what you mean when you say that it is "pretty clear", as it doesn't say what you think it does anywhere. Also a lot of your other points are definitely not very clear... you point out several policies which seem unrelated to this discussion. I agree with Originalcola we should merge this content elsewhere. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 17:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Also: that content is pretty poor sourced, gives WP:UNDUE weight and reflects the sources poorly... needs a rewrite in addition to the merge. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

The content is extremely well represented in RS and was gathered by methods corresponding with WP:NPOV by working impartially through the searches adding information as it was proven notable according to Reliable Sources.

And, on top of issues previously mentioned, is the issue of WP:Balance that, "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence." and goes further even to say that "... when reputable sources both contradict one another and also are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint." There's not even a contradiction here. There's just multiple factors involved which should be relevantly presented with WP:Balance.

Then there's WP:IMPARTIAL that, "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes."

Factors involved in the outcome of the Depp v. Heard trial include:

• that Heard was the defendant in the US trial, whereas in the UK a publisher and its editor were the defendants,
• that additional witnesses came forward in the US trial and
• that courtroom discussion in the US included new information including on issues like what happened to the divorce settlement money that Heard had pledged to donate.

They were all prominent among the relevant factors. It's just not WP:Honest imply that it was just down to having a jury instead of a judge or (despite the fact that the jury was told not to engage with the media) that it was down to the trial being broadcast. WP:Due content can't be supressed. We must present relevant issues with WP:Balance. GregKaye 20:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Woah, "can't be supressed"? In all seriousness, the factors in the outcome of the trial can simply be stated without stating them as differences; the relevant factors that led to the verdict don't need to be framed in the context of differences between the two trials. Originalcola (talk) 02:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

It states on the wikipedia page on leads that "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article". The differences between the trial would probably fall under basic facts in this case. I was trying to avoid excessively quoting rules and guidelines as I felt that many editors, including myself, have been doing this too much which has hampered actual discussion on improving this article. Originalcola (talk) 02:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Was asked to comment, here's my ¢2: Before we actually have relevant sources comparing the two cases in detail, these types of sections are bound to attract serious Original Research. I think GregKaye's list above is a prime example of that. Yes, there are differences between the two cases that would be interesting to discuss (jury v. judge; tv v no tv; Heard's medical evidence, messages not being allowed v allowed; pledge/donation discussion; Stephen Deuters; changes in Depp's and Kate James' statements; the focus on Heard's credibility instead of evidence, etc.), but before there are several pieces of academic/journalistic analysis, it simply does not meet Wikipedia guidelines and just invites half-truths and opinions. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 21:10, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

TrueHeartSusie3 That's a good argument which is appreciated. My research added Anti-SLAPP and freedom of speech issues into the article so it had some good outcomes whatever you may think. It was also conducted in an RS search at the time of the trial which gave a some list articles cited. But I've looked for more but haven't been able to find further substantiation. You're right about editing. I know the section has been moved around since I set it up with a move of Heard as a defendant at the in first place of the list which is substantiated to an extent by being the first item listed in the first google result in the insider listing. I've done a deeper dive and the listing type articles do dry up.

IF then we can't cover a topic properly and find a balance on all the relevant topics in an encyclopaedic way, why do we touch it at all? Why do we present content on editor chosen topics regarding the differences. Isn't that original research? Shouldn't we just state that the Virginia trial had a jury and was broadcast and be done with it? GregKaye 00:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Because the primary purpose of this defamation trial was for both parties to try and protect their reputations and thus has been centered on public reactions. These reactions were even brought up in the trial and have been discussed by both parties.

Let's try to get back to the main matter at hand. Originalcola (talk) 03:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with TrueHeartSusie3 and GregKaye that virtually any attempt to comprehensively list all of the differences between the legal proceedings in the U.K. versus those in the U.S. is likely to run afoul of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH and therefore that such a direct comparison should be avoided. It is not necessary for us to directly compare or contrast the two trials, as there are separate articles on each one; readers may examine the articles/sources independently and come to their own conclusions, but I am deeply concerned that editors (on both sides) would almost inevitably turn a dedicated section on differences between the two cases into a WP:COATRACK for endless argument about how the U.K. judge and/or the U.S. jury got it wrong. My analysis might change if higher-quality academic sources become available in the future and help to clarify this topic (and if the passage of time results in a more stable editing environment), but that hardly seems imminent.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

And again, TheTimesAreAChanging, In the same way that I said to Suzie "You're right about editing." I'll say to you, you are very right about coatrack and the same rules need to apply to all. The initial OR coatrack, if anything, was the initial lead comment on differences between the trials in the lead. IF it's OR to attempt produce a balanced account of differences between the trials isn't it also OR to cherrypick select examples of differences between the trials to publish? Fundamentally, on the valid argument you present, it's this OR chosen initial content that should go. We can simply talk of having live broadcast (done) and the trial having a jury (also done). As I said from my first reply: "the choice is between whether the article presents a content on differences between the trials or not." How is that not so? personal comment: While I maintain the content to be good and balanced I recognise contextual problems. I had a valid point but it could have been tackled in other ways. GregKaye 06:04, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Well I'd prefer to remove the whole section as I stated at the beginning so if there were only the two options you stated then I would support the removal of the section and any mention of it in the lead. Originalcola (talk) 23:31, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Select comment on differences must be removed especially when not given balance such as in the lead. Going back to 10 June the 5th paragraph of that lead began with a relatively NPOV "Both parties faced challenges in the defamation case and there were legal experts that doubted whether Depp could win his case having lost a similar libel suit in the UK." From then and to now, the 5th paragraph has become written in an far less impartial way.

MOS:LEADLENGTH suggests long articles might have lead length of "three or four paragraphs" with purpose as a "summary of the topic". The Lead for Depp v. Heard has five with much of the fifth being barely represented in the body. I think the third paragraph worked both better and more neutrally with chronologically based mention of the Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd trial. In this case a fourth paragraph could neatly continue from "In the United States, news articles about the case generated more social media interactions per article than all other significant news topics of that time period." with "The trial has renewed debates on topics relating to domestic violence, as well as the #MeToo movement and women's rights." It would fit with WP:Rules. GregKaye 14:06, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

GregKaye I'm sorry but you do not seem to understand what WP:NPOV means. The methods you use to ensure "your neutrality" are substantially biased and problematic. You need to base content on what reputable sources say. Not make it up. e.g. Going back to 10 June the 5th paragraph of that lead began with a relatively NPOV "Both parties faced challenges. Who said that? What does it mean? 1. It is a terrible sentence that doesn't add anything to the article. 2. Saying "both parties" does not mean NPOV... I'm sorry but I think you are making editing this article very hard for everyone. The current article lead has lost all references to the previous trial!? How the hell did that happen? What are we doing here... we are having this discussion and then you go ahead with stuff like this where you remove it all altogether? And I don't even know when all the content from the lead was removed but it is gone once again. This is tendentious and unconstructive as many other editors have pointed out above (for example here) but you keep acting like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. This is a problem. I think that either you understand the consensus on this page and how the relevant policies work or you need to stop editing here. Please restore the article with the relevant mentions of Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd.

I'll leave here the sources that we have removed form the article so they can be restored into the article:

- https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/jun/02/johnny-depp-amber-heard-libel-outcomes-differ-us-uk

- https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61673676

- https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2022/06/01/johnny-depp-libel-law-uk-us/

- https://time.com/6184072/johnny-depp-amber-heard-trial-appeal/

- https://www.insider.com/depp-head-trial-reasons-won-us-lawsuit-lost-uk-2022-6

Just the last one is not a major WP:RS and they are all saying the same. I think this definitely represents what TrueHeartSusie3 was asking: several pieces of academic/journalistic analysis. Also for reference the previously agreed upon lead is here: [21]. We should go back to this ASAP and stop degrading the text by removing reputable sources and adding WP:OR. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

In my WP:Rules based edits I removed https://www.insider.com/depp-head-trial-reasons-won-us-lawsuit-lost-uk-2022-6 and https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2022/06/01/johnny-depp-libel-law-uk-us/ and four non WP:Cherrypicked citations that I had added. Also, as I stated above, "The initial OR coatrack, if anything, was the initial lead comment on differences between the trials in the lead." I don't know about other great "stuff like this" but that was one particular edit that TheTimesAreAChanging thanked me for. The improved, more chronologically based lead I developed included reference to the Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd trial. A different editor from this particular discussion decided to follow on from my edits to remove it from the lead. GregKaye 18:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is. We all agree that not even mentioning the previous trial in the lead is absurd, right? So whatever was done, it was done poorly at best and tendentiously at worst. No matter how many policies and guidelines we quote. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

"I removed https://www.insider.com/depp-head-trial-reasons-won-us-lawsuit-lost-uk-2022-6 and https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2022/06/01/johnny-depp-libel-law-uk-us/ and four non WP:Cherrypicked citations that I had added" ...this is wrong on so many levels... you removed a Wapost article on the subject that is supported by "the Guardian",BBC,Time... why!? And what are the other "non cherrypicked" sources that you added and what do they say? Why should they disqualify other WP:RS!? That's not how Wikipedia works. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Well at least you didn't quote a policy or guideline. In all seriousness, the trial's verdict should be mentioned in the lead as the verdict of the UK trial is a crucial piece of context for the US trial. Originalcola (talk) 23:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Heard, at 3m23s of her Guthrie recording,[22] speaks of "another trial that dealt with the same substantive issues." I think think mention of something like "similar substantive content" could be encyclopaedic while not going far into subjective interpretation of similarity and difference. GregKaye 02:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@GregKaye: this is original research. We need to restore the article content to how it was and in accordance with the sources. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 14:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Various sources speak of similarity and various sources speak of various differences. The question is what should we do to present encyclopedic content. GregKaye 05:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

• @Gtoffoletto: - please avoid WP:RSP#Insider unless found from [23] or unless it's for an opinion. starship.paint (exalt) 13:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

  I'm confused, according to the list of frequently discussed sources there isn't a consensus for it's usage whilst for culture it is generally reliable. Is there any specific reason why it's not a reliable source in this case? Originalcola (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Starship.paint: I'm pretty sure we are talking about "culture" here. SO it should be fine. In any case, I would stick to the other sources which are definitely better (BBC, Guardian, Wapost etc.). {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 14:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  "culture" is so broad that virtually anything would be "culture", isn't it? That's why I rely on a listing in [24]. starship.paint (exalt) 14:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  Not sure how you do that though. You can only see the recent articles. I would just avoid the source. We don't need it. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 21:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)