This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Low-importance). United States: Texas / Austin C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Texas - Austin (assessed as Mid-importance). LGBT studies C‑class This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Women C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Template:BLP noticeboard

There seems to be no mention of allegations of domestic abuse perpretated by the subject of the article, as discussed in this link https://www.geo.tv/latest/230905 . Is this intentional? The page is semi-protected due to persistant vandalism but the edit history has been deleted (I didn't even know that was possible) so we editors cannot make this judgement ourselves. Are the reverted edits concerning this matter? RobbieM13 (talk) 08:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geo TV is a "Pakistani pay television channel", so we should probably wait until more reputable sources report on this. However, I do find it a bit bizarre that ALL recent page revisions were deleted, as I can only assume that at least some of them were serious edits. Soronast (talk) 11:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have found some other sources: https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/celebrities/johnny-depp-sues-ex-wife-for-50-million-in-defamation-suit/2019/03/02/4dc41ce4-3d2e-11e9-b10b-f05a22e75865_story.html?utm_term=.65eca136b5da https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3741910/Photo-Johnny-Depp-s-ghastly-finger-cut-tip-fit-rage-wrote-blood-wall-Amber-Heard-affair-Billy-Bob-Thornton.html and https://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/johnny-depp-cut-fingertip-rampage-amber-heard-claims-article-1.2752121Nuitdepapillon (talk) 12:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Mail and NYDN sources both reference TMZ as a source. I'm not sure TMZ is considered a reputable source for Wikipedia purposes. -- MidnightSoldier (talk) 05:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There should at least be some kind of mention that Depp has accused her. It's a pretty clear case of bias if her allegations get to take up several sections on Depp's and Heard's page but his won't even get mentioned. Wikipedia is supposed to be objective, this isn't even the first time allegations against her have been made.★Trekker (talk) 13:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are the accusations in the media or in the actual lawsuit? Because Adam Waldman (Depp's lawyer) has been making quite a few claims in the media lately, but at least I'm not sure what's actually contained in the lawsuit. I'm under the impression (but could be wrong) that Depp's actual case hinges on the claim that Heard hasn't got proof of the abuse (in which case we should also discuss the types of proof that Heard has provided in both her divorce case, deposition and her pretty extensive response to this lawsuit) and/or that it's all a huge, elaborate hoax against Depp. I'd say we stick to what's stated in the court documents and wait until there's a decision and/more credible information. Otherwise these personal life sections are gonna be very, very bloated soon.

As for your claim that "this isn't the first time that allegations against her have been made", source please? Unless you mean the Tasya Van Ree case, which I believe was thrown out and which Van Ree herself has publicly stated was misunderstood by the police.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

Found the court doc! So yes indeed it appears that Depp is claiming (contrary to 2016) that Heard is not just breaking their NDA but that she was the abuser and he the victim. Perhaps we should add this, and also list the main types of evidence that each has provided? At least we should then mention Heard's response, so as not to turn this into an incel convention. Otherwise, I'd wait for this to play out.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

Incel mention alone should get you removed from this site, this is not a place to spread your personal believes and ideologies but to provide facts. Also it's been a year and you're still reverting edits, are we to wait indefinitely until you reach your predetermined conclusion not to edit the page mentioning new facts?Anetherion (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you just mentioned it too, so when will you be leaving? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.191.251.51 (talk) 13:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this page locked down with Heard's side of the abuse story but not Depp's? She is on tape admitting to abusing him. Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7947733/Amber-Heard-admits-hitting-ex-husband-Johnny-Depp-pelting-pots-pans-tape.html

I guess even wikipedia is protecting known abusers like heard and falling prey to the gender argument.Pity Hpdh4 09:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4 (talk • contribs)

I usually don't take part in discussions about Wikipedia articles, but I would like to add that the German, French, Italian and Danish versions of this article already include those informations (so do most of the other languages I'd assume). The French page for example mentions how none of the policeman who came to her house that night noticed those severe bruises she later claimed to have. The English version finally got updated a few days ago as well, but still seems incredibly biased. Her allegations to Depp take up 2 paragraphs while the allegations against herself are only mentioned in 2 sentences. It says that Depp's team published "alleged evidence" against her, while her evidence against him is just called "evidence". No mention of the abuse allegations from former lovers and assistants, no mention of the audiotapes, the cut-off finger, the police reports and how the lies she told under oath that are already proven to be lies. Also, what kind of weak argument is that her violence is discussed only in short sections of the recordings? It IS discussed, that's the important thing. That's like saying someone is not an abuser because he is violent only for 5 minutes a day. And no, I'm neither an Incel nor a Johnny Depp fangirl, but I'm disturbed about how everyone was talking about her allegations against him, how she got to write articles for some of the most important US-newspapers and became a spokesperson for abuse victims, and now that there is overwhelming evidence against her, the media is just not touching the subject. The only ones who will profit from that are right-wing-populists who now got another reason to shame the press. 84.150.141.215 (talk) 07:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to present the reliable sources that demonstrate the claims you make. Thus far, there's tabloid (The Daily Mail being chief with their multiple 'exclusive' articles) articles with sensational, clickbaity headlines and very little substance behind the claims. I'm sad to hear such unreliable material has gotten into other language versions, but this is once again demonstrating how a lot of editors lack basic skills in media literacy and source criticism.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

Good on those editors of those alternate versions for including information that is backed by evidence and not agendas like rest of most of wikipedia editors Unreliable more like don't like so don't include. Might as well turn this into WikiSJW were agendas masked as unreliable/reliable is more important than truth . Hpdh4 00:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4 (talk • contribs)

I read that she is set to do additional filming as Mera for the Snyder Cut. Should it be added to her filmography? PinpointJoker57 (talk) 10:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As most of us following this case will know by now, the verdict on the libel case that Depp had brought against The Sun is out. Depp has now not only lost his libel case but the judge rules that “I have found that the great majority of alleged assaults of Ms Heard by Mr Depp [12 out 14 incidents] have been proved to the civil standard.”^[1] The case should have been mentioned here even if Depp had won, as the trial attracted worldwide media interest for three weeks this summer; in fact it has been called the most significant libel trial in 21st c. English legal history.^[2]

In other words, there needs to be some additions made to this page. Given how contested this issue has been, I wanted to bring this up here before proceeding with the edits. I propose that the following paragraph be added to the 'Personal life' section:

"Depp also brought a libel lawsuit in the UK against News Group Newspapers, the company publishing The Sun, which had called him a "wifebeater" in a 2018 article.^[3][4] Heard was a key witness for NGN during the highly-publicized trial in London in July 2020.^[5] On November 2, 2020, the High Court of Justice ruled that Depp had lost his claim and that "the great majority of alleged assaults of Ms Heard by Mr Depp [12 out 14] have been proved to the civil standard."^[3][4] The verdict also found that Heard's career and activism had been negatively affected by Depp's accusations.^[3][4] Depp plans to appeal the case.^[4]"

I also propose that the bit in the lede about this ruling be altered so that it's clear that this is a separate libel case. I've used The Guardian and the BBC as sources, given their good reputation as reliable British sources and the fact that neither is behind a paywall.--TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

Pinging @Schazjmd: and @Flyer22 Frozen:.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Refs look reliable. This is also covered in Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd, as well as Depp's article. Schazjmd (talk) 01:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted this pending further discussion. I'm fine with the edits proposed by TrueHeartSusie3. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding! I'm going to be bold and add it now, it doesn't seem that this is attracting much discussion.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

---

The info box lists one spouse, Johnny Depp. The BBC article, Inside the Johnny Depp court case (02 Nov 2020), describing the meeting of Heard and Depp, says “Heard's wife at the time was the artist Tasya Van Ree.” These two accounts are self-evidently contradictory: was Van Ree was ever officially married to Heard? Perhaps somebody with certain knowledge, and citations to support that knowledge, could pronounce. JDAWiseman (talk) 21:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since the last time that this was discussed, the Depp v NGN trial and the verdict have cleared quite a few things up and added new evidence to the case:

• The famous 'Amber Heard admits to abusing Depp' tape has been shown to be a snippet of a discussion of an incident in March 2015, where Heard attacked Depp after he had threatened her sister. Heard has admitted to this attack ever since filing for divorce (she even discussed it in the divorce deposition), and the judge found her version credible and considers it to have been in defense. As has been noted in the case, it is common for domestic abusers to claim self-defense to be abuse.
• The judge did not find any other incidents of violence perpetuated by Heard on Depp, and a lot of the leaked 'evidence' was found to not be credible. For example, an image of him with a black eye was again from this same incident (as shown by metadata on the image), but Depp's team tried to claim it was from a year later.
• In fact, Depp's team didn't really seem to present any new evidence, and could not for example produce the multitude of videos which they claimed earlier this year to have.
• Depp's team attempted to hide his text message exchanges, which include a several messages discussing his violent acts (and violent thoughts, e.g. the Paul Bettany texts) towards Heard.
• Heard's team also presented a tape in which Depp admits to for example headbutting her. He claimed in court that this was accidental, but the judge did not find this credible. There were also other new (as in, new to the media and the general public) tapes and images which quite clearly showed Depp in various stages of intoxication and rage.
• The LAPD officers who visited Heard and Depp's property were shown by time stamps to have spent only about 15 min at the property.
• Depp's US lawyer, Adam Waldman (also the lawyer of oligarch Oleg Deripaska, linked to Trump's shady dealings with Russians...), has been thrown off the Virginia case by its judge due to Waldman leaking confidential material to the press. As you may remember, Waldman was the source of all these 'leaks' early this year and the one who made claims about further material (which has not, pun not intended, materialized in the UK libel trial, where it would have been sorely needed). As stated in the article, Heard has now sued Depp for conducting an online campaign against her, involving Twitter bots, fake news websites (e.g. IFOD), and planting articles to IB Times, a content farm also familiar to many Wikipedians.

I could go on, but in short: anyone who has read the publicly available trial transcripts, skeleton arguments and the verdict, or the coverage of this case from reliable sources, knows that Depp's case against NGN (and Heard, even if she wasn't the one sued) didn't have a leg to stand on when it came to presenting actual evidence or facts. If you don't believe me, please, go read these documents. The judge ruled that on 12 of the 14 incidents, Depp was proven to have been abusive. The two incidents that he did not find to be proven were an incident where he could not see that any abuse had taken place, and another which had good evidence to back it up, but for which Depp was not cross-examined. Contrary to what Reddit and other places online would suggest, the verdict also isn't based on Heard's testimony alone, but corroborating testimony from various individuals, tapes, photos, Depp and his team's text and email messages, and both Depp and Heard's medical records.

Ok, thank you for reading this far. The question is: should we delete the mention of the tape, or add a clarification as to the origins of the tape, and more about the other evidence in the case? As it stands, the article is presenting information that was framed by Depp's team to give a false impression of what happened to the public. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

Many articles have been published of Heard lying about donating half of her settlement to charity. Heard claimed that she donated seven million dollars to American Civil Liberties Union and Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, however the children's hospital has claimed to have only received seventy-four thousand dollars. This may erode her case, along with abuse allegations from former relationships. Could this be a worthwhile edition to this page? Traptor12 (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I wanted to put it here recently too, but it was removed again by the user TrueHeartSusie3 (long-term site watcher and probably her lawyer), who doesn't believe it. In any case, in January 2021, it became apparent that she had contributed only max. $ 100,000 of that amount.1,2 TrueHeartSusie3 refers to not-too-trusted sources, but if she do not believe that, then we can wait (I don't think Heard can hide it for long). IMO, she is a liar and this is no surprise. Jirka.h23 (talk) 05:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The other problem is that the sourcing is not blue chip. WP:BLPSOURCES says "The material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism". It all seems to trace back to this article in the Daily Mail, which isn't a suitable source. The other news sources are simply recycling what is in the DM article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding what ianmacm says above. In addition, let me just remind everyone again that the UK High Court found that there was overwhelming evidence that Depp was abusive in this relationship. His ex-lawyer (thrown off the Virginia case by the judge) and Svengali Adam Waldman continues to wage a campaign against her in the tabloids with anything they can get to destroy her career and deflect attention from Depp's abuse and addiction/mental health disorders. This is part of it and for anyone who has followed this case and has any degree of media literacy it should be blatantly clear. This in itself is a continuation of the abuse, and sadly, they are being quite successful in destroying Heard's career and most likely also depleting whatever money she has earned with these ongoing court cases. Wikipedia should be mindful of this and stay out of it. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

You are wrong, Heard is completely destroying Depp's career (for example Pirates of the Caribbean), his past ex-wife stands behind him and most of people who know him, he would never beat any woman, and he never admitted this, unlike her who admitted it, she beat him and threw things at him (and has been accused of this in the past by her past partner). Even her former lawyer withdraw from it because she don't believe her. Second thing, what you say about spending money she earned on courts is absurd, she did not pay any expenses in this regard. Jirka.h23 (talk) 10:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide sources for any of these defamatory claims?

Depp's career is not being destroyed by Heard. His projects have been failing since circa Lone Ranger, see for example this Variety piece from 2016. Had he done what most stars do when facing controversy, and just laid low for a while, he could have repaired his reputation after the divorce, but instead he chooses to continue hounding Heard and making bad PR decisions. Also, the fact that he has a severe, longstanding addiction disorder (which he admits to; see trial transcripts) and has caused issues on set doesn't really endear him to studios, especially if he is no longer delivering the box office returns we saw in the 2000s. See for example these following articles from reliable, quality publications for more on the reasons why Depp's career is ending:

• The Rolling Stone profile from 2018. Remember, RS used to be a very favorable publication for Depp.
• Hollywood Reporter piece from 2017, about another lawsuit –this time against his business managers– that Depp chose to start and with information about how he behaved on the set of the latest Pirates film, which also did not make bank in the same way as the previous installments
• Hollywood Reporter article from a couple of weeks ago, detailing again how he is the only one to blame for his downfall
• The Guardian analysis
• ITV News' piece where two PR experts weigh in on why Depp's reputation is in tatters
• This article on him being sued by a crew member for assault

Finally of course you really should read the High Court judgment and the trial transcripts (e.g. on BBC reporter Nick Wallis's website), you can find both from the Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd article. You can find plenty of material there where Depp both admits to abuse (in text messages and on tape) and that he often blacks out (i.e. has no memory of what has happened) when on drugs / alcohol (admitted in court under cross examination). To argue that Depp was not abusive means dismissing texts from him to others, texts by his team to others, witness statements from people who have no reason to lie, video, photographs, audio clips ... It's absolutely possible for two people to be mutually abusive, but so far Depp has not really delivered evidence that Heard has been abusive (and no, a clip from a therapy discussion where we don't know the context is not evidence). Heard has admitted since the divorce deposition to having hit him in self-defense, and the only evidence Depp's team was able to present in court of any violence on her part stems from this incident. That's why they have to bring up the dog poo in bed, the alleged extramarital affairs, and the charity pledge, none of which have any link to domestic abuse — this case is about making sure Heard has no career after this, about mudslinging. In the process, Depp is destroying the remains of his own career.

I would also encourage you to actually read this Wikipedia article as well, because if you had, you would know that Depp sued Heard in 2019, and the trial is going to be in a couple of months in Virginia. No, Heard did not pay her own expenses directly related to the NGN trial, but that's not the only way in which Depp is continuing to hound her. Who is the ex that you say Heard beat up? If it's Tasya Van Ree, please read her statements from this article and from the UK trial transcripts, she categorically denies this.

As for her lawyer, you probably mean Roberta A. Kaplan, who is no longer representing Heard in the Virginia/WaPo case? She left the case because they lost their bid to get the trial moved from Virginia to California, and COVID-19 makes travelling between states very difficult. Therefore it makes more sense for Heard to be represented by a VA lawyer (law in the US is very different depending on the state you're in). It seems to have first been reported by The Blast, admittedly not the best source, but it also includes a statement from Kaplan and her team and explains why the change happened. Kaplan and her firm are still definitely on Heard's side, see for example this Twitter message she wrote this summer after the trial in London. Of course, if you choose to blindly believe what Adam Waldman says, then I can't help you. Please do read these two articles about him though.

Ok, this is enough for now. My point with all these links (and the time it took the compile this list!) is that there's a lot of misinformation floating around Twitter, Reddit etc. on this case. Given how often people try to add misinformation to this article, it's worth to also provide these links. I have no doubt these same claims will be made here ad infinitum, but maybe I can in the future refer to this message instead of having to write the same arguments over and over again. Please let's all move on to something more productive. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]