Talk:Depp v. Heard

Correcting Inaccuracies/Vague Statements

Hello all, there are a number of inaccuracies/vague statements in the Article that require amendment imo. I will detail below, if anyone has concerns please reply by date shown in individual statements - if no response I will assume you are happy with my proposals and amend - does that sound OK? A fragment of your life (talk) 08:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

1. The jury verdict was handed down on 1 June and formally entered into the record on 27 June, therefore the trial ended in June and not July (will amend after 1 Oct if no queries raised). — Preceding unsigned comment added by A fragment of your life (talk • contribs) 12:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

2. Under Civil Action the statement that Heard sued over an harassment campaign in addition to the Waldman statements is incorrect. An alleged harassment campaign did not form any part of the trial and I propose removing that statement (responses by 1 Oct please) — Preceding unsigned comment added by A fragment of your life (talk • contribs) 12:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

3. Unsure why the Amazon Prime series “Surviving Amber Heard” is not listed under the TV element, planning to add - any problems please reply by 1 October. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A fragment of your life (talk • contribs) 22:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

4. The 50,000 spousal support was denied - intend to update statement to reflect, comments by 10 Oct please if you have any issues with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A fragment of your life (talk • contribs) 09:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

5. The pre trial developments does not mention the calif court case concerning CHLA, will update to reflect if no concerns raised by 10 Oct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A fragment of your life (talk • contribs) 09:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

6. “ Heard later confirmed in the 2022 Virginia trial, with the support of the organizations she donated to, that she was scheduled to pay the entire pledged donation within 10 years and that she was behind her payment schedule because of Depp's suits against her.”.

This statement has many errors, there was no support from CHLA re delayed payment as there was no contact from heard to them, there was no scheduled 10 year plan as shown in evidence, the full monies was received 13 months before court case as revealed at trial. Intend to update on 15 October if no concerns raised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A fragment of your life (talk • contribs) 09:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

7. 3. In addition to the money paid to ACLU, Ms Heard also paid 350,000 to CHLA as at 2022, will update to reflect after 10 October if no concerns raised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A fragment of your life (talk • contribs) 09:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Podcast still too detailed

Hi all, I know this issue has been relatively extensively discussed, I believe I raised some initial concerns about length in early 2024 before something of an edit war erupted between the majority of editors and one who seemed to have a vested interest in a lengthy podcast section. Despite various revisions, compared to the descriptions of the other media in the article (books, tv etc), there is still no basis for the length and detail of the podcast section- no other media has its content expanded on at all. I’m not sure why the podcast needs such focus, given that the podcast itself is not more prominent than other media about the trial. I propose to crop the podcast section to make it comparable to the other media discussed, whilst containing the bare minimum of information needed to explain the podcast’s allegations (as an aside, the current wording is also dangerously close to describing the allegations as factual). Any issues, feel free to discuss here Cbe46 (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

Given that someone anonymously added POV tag and nothing was discussed further, I've decided to take the initiative and start the discussion. I did a quick review of the article (even added on the insurance lawsuits) and, though I do agree in general with the sentiment against Heard, personally I found the article to be well-sourced and not that impartial towards Heard, though personally once again could use some countering perspective. I'll leave the space here for the nominator to expand on their claim that "Too much in favor of Heard, who is a manipulator (obviously the article, to defend Heard, a terrible person, does not talk about her bullying towards her ex-husband and many other things", and for other editors to chime in. Should there be no response in a week, I will delete the POV tag and mark as resolved. Quangson306 (talk) 11:40, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Welp. Removed it was. Quangson306 (talk) 05:12, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Was this POV the reason the “false accusations of sex crimes” category was added and then deleted? I can’t see any recent mention of adding this category on this talk page. A fragment of your life (talk) 18:23, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

"My dog stepped on a bee" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect My dog stepped on a bee has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 21 § My dog stepped on a bee until a consensus is reached. Suonii180 (talk) 11:05, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Ali Zafar vs. Meesha Shafi

Hi all. A query, related to a similar case in Pakistan, is currently open at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Pakistan#Ali Zafar. Anyone is welcome to participate and contribute for a similar article. Thank you! M. Billoo 20:46, 31 March 2026 (UTC)