Talk:DARVO

Depp v. Heard as an example of DARVO

I've read the prior discussions on this talk page re: removing Depp v. Heard (2022) as an example of a real-world application of DARVO. I respectfully disagree.

Several scholars, including the person who coined the term DARVO, have agreed that it is a textbook example of DARVO. I also don't agree that treating the Virginia case verdict as 'the final word' is the right move here; treating the US jury verdict as 'the final word' requires ignoring the diametrically opposed verdict and evidence in the UK two years prior, which found the complete opposite (that 12 allegations of abuse perpetrated against Amber Heard by Johnny Depp were "substantially true") after several weeks of testimony and a months-long review of evidence. This decision was also upheld on appeal by two separate justices in the UK.

Some of these are opinion pieces and should not be used as citations, and some take concrete sides and some do not, but they are all legitimate discussions of DARVO circling around this case. One of these is even a journal article, and a few were written before the Virginia verdict, so it's weird to insinuate that the discussion of DARVO around this case only started as a reaction to last year's verdict.

1. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15299732.2022.2111510
2. https://www.brethertons.co.uk/site/blog/depp-vs-heard-what-is-darvo
3. https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-johnny-depp-amber-heard-trial-is-not-as-complicated-as-you-may-think
4. https://www.pajiba.com/celebrities_are_better_than_you/johnny-depps-case-against-amber-heard-was-textbook-darvo.php
5. https://dynamic.uoregon.edu/jjf/defineDARVO.html

(I also disagree with the notion that The Guardian cannot be used as a citation for a topic like this. While I personally strongly disagree with their stances on a lot of issues, including the trans/LGBTQ+ community, they are very frequently used as acceptable sources all over Wikipedia, and it would be strange and inappropriate to omit their coverage ONLY in Depp v. Heard. Look at any article about any British topic, and Guardian articles are all over the References section. I wholeheartedly agree with Grorp's analysis of it, that "Guardian is a traditional news organisation, with a full editorial review board. Freyd is only referenced in an editorial quote Reliable independent secondary source, not used to back up a WP:BLP claim.")

If the preexisting examples of DARVO in the article are appropriate, then this one certainly should be as well, especially given the UK verdict. It would not be libelous at all to write that the Depp v. Heard case has been cited by several analysts as an example of DARVO.

I'm not going to add it back to the article because I don't want to get into or spark an editing dispute, or invite even more harassment from familiar users who I have disagreed with in the past... but I do think it should be added back as an example – if, for no other reason, it would be due to the amount of DARVO-related discussion generated by the trial in 2022. Afddiary (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Amber Heard is an example of someone that used DARVO. The fact that a lot of media sided with her doesn't change that fact. 109.231.24.232 (talk) 09:06, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

@Afddiary Why was it removed? Having it in this article is probably better than the example of Donald Trump, which may act as a political POV issue. —Panamitsu (talk) 09:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

If the goal is to provide an illustrative example that promotes the reader's understanding of DARVO, then both Trump and Depp/Herd are poor choices, and the disputes here demonstrate that fact. The editor's opinion of whether these cases ought to be controversial when used as examples of DARVO is irrelevant--the fact is that at they are, and including either distracts from the article's informative purpose.

At the very least, the Herd/Depp/Trump stuff should be moved to a, "Recent alleged examples of DARVA," section, and the discourse should be discussed neutrally (i.e., "Professor Such N. Such points to this as an example of DARVA," instead of, "This is an example of DARVA. Source:<paper by Prof. SNS>). Currently the Herd/Depp example sticks out like a store thumb, to the point that I knew there would be drama over it before I even opened the Talk tab. It's akin to editing the article for suicide to insist that Epstein did or didn't kill himself. Just explain what suicide is, how to recognize the warning signs, etc. Save the rest for the, "Epstein suicide controversy," article. Mp1unk377 (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Examples section

I've been seeing the addition/removal of the examples section so I think we should discuss it instead of just going back and forwards.

The examples section is listed as Some cases where journalists noted examples of DARVO include. I think it is a dangerous way to list them without attribution as journalists can say whatever they want, it doesn't mean it is true. This functions as a weasel and violates our BLP standards.

I've noticed that a few of these appear to be politicised, such as having Bill Clinton and Donald Trump. We'd have to be careful that the examples section does not become a dumping ground to push ideology, which is quite easy in its current weasel state.

Further, I personally do not believe that these examples add much. If the article explains DARVO, we don't really need examples to help explain it as this topic is very easy to understand. —Panamitsu (talk) 01:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

DARVO in other abusive relationships

This is a great article and I appreciate its desire to remain unbiased and neutral as per Wikipedia guidelines.

My discussion that I'd like to put forward is this. The article seems to focus on using sexual harassment and assault as the primary example where this kind of abuse is occurring, but could this also touch upon other aspects of its application?

Specifically I'm very surprised that this article doesn't mention the connection between those with NPB (Narcissistic Personality Disorder) and their expanded usage of Gaslighting, Narcissistic Rage and other forms of attack. Skippingrock (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Historic relation between D.A.R.V.O. and F.M.S.F.

Seemingly off-topic content. Collapsed by IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not even sure how to start this request.... basically any time one is aware of before D.A.R.V.O. an acronym had been most often a way scholars, journalists, or members of the public would abbreviate the full name of an organization that had become common parlance -- often in parallel with the organization becoming accepted or even sometimes prized.

The D.A.R.V.O. acronym is unprecedented as a reply to an ordinary acronym F.M.S.F. which people had used to refer to the False Memory Syndrome Foundation.

Here is where I'm a bit over my head about what responsibility a Wikipedia editor has here. The history relates to a small family story that daughter Jennifer was hoping for tenure at the same university dad Peter had a decades long Mathematician career, and Jennifer's publications related to notions she may have been abused without having remembered it. The charitable False Memory Syndrome Foundation was started by the two parents, Peter and Jennifer's mother, to reduce damage they believed their daughter's career was starting to cause.

When F.M.S.F. became established and known, the notion was, the acronym itself accuses Jennifer (and colleagues?) of "False Memory Syndrome" and the retaliatory acronym D.A.R.V.O. is Jennifer's conceptually original reply: if *your* acronym can accuse *me* I can just as easily invent an acronym whose sole purpose is to accuse *you* or, to be more npov, to neutralize the false accusation impicit in FMSF.

The concept is new and it is a big notion. I don't know of any other instane where a scholarly concept was invented along with its own acronym.

I mean, in many powerpoint type lectures a lecturer will say "A way to remember the concept is.." and form first letters into a word. Yet, here, the starting point was an existing acronym F.M.S.F. and then an edit to, or reply to, the phrase, so that DARVO is like the return salvo in a battle of acronyms .. sorry if this makes little sense... ~2026-11574-85 (talk) 10:13, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

What does this have to do with this Wikipedia article? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 10:31, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I never heard of this False Memory Syndrome Foundation (false memory syndrome) connection. Sounds like you're trying to say it's a modern thought-terminating cliché when it's not. – The Grid (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2026 (UTC)