Talk:Amber Heard/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Untitled

Non-neutral point of view vanity page? Everything is written in a promotional tone like it was posted by her agent. 140.247.251.213 (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Well, either this is taken from http://www.amber-heard.net/info/bio.php or they took it from here, or maybe it's from somewhere else. It definitely has POV and referencing problems. From the dates, I believe they took it from here (and placed an invalid copyright tag on it), but I'm not sure, since amber-heard.net doesn't have history info (although I will check the Internet Archive later). Either way, this article needs a whole lot of work -- I'll try to take a shot at it tonight. Thanks for the comment! -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 23:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing

This article is in dire need of sourcing, and it's somewhat suspicious in that regard. Articles this well-written yet lacking sources is a big red flag indicating, as has been suggested above this section, that the material has been copied and pasted from that fanpage. Even with someone's rewrite, the content is still obviously from it, so I tagged the article as a close paraphrase.

Also, in regard to the quotes I removed, they made the article sound like an autobio, and if you quote someone word for word, it definitely requires a legit source.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 03:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Gay rights

Her relationship with Tasya van Ree (girlfriend) needs to be mentioned, as well as their activism for gay rights and other acts of philanthropy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.73.138.113 (talk) 12:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Got a reliable source? Tabercil (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Life.com refers to them as girlfriends 3 times (photos from August 19th, 2010):

http://www.life.com/image/103474561

http://www.life.com/image/103474563

http://www.life.com/image/103474548 —Preceding unsigned comment added by EBLCLA (talk • contribs) 00:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Tasya van Ree also posted this article on her blog:

http://tasyavanree.com/news/isabel-lucas-matt-dallas-tasya-van-ree-art-exhibition

- The article says "Tasya was also supported by her girlfriend, Zombieland babe Amber Heard. What a staggering hot couple!". Tasya obviously does not deny this if she posted it.

From one of Tasya's interviews with AfterEllen.com (a website for lesbian and bisexual women): "One of her frequent subjects is actress Amber Heard, who she references as her "muse." She told us that Amber is to her as "Gala is to Salvador Dali, Kiki de Montparnasse is to Man Ray, Beatrice is to Dante Alighieri." All the couples she refers to were lovers.

http://www.afterellen.com/people/2010/8/tasya-van-ree?page=0,1

Amber Heard's "Charity" page on her official website:

http://amberheardofficial.com/charity-3/

Impartiality

The modification: ("She is in a relationship with Arthur Wybrands, a young French-American producer. In April 2009, rumors spread about a supposed engagement but were immediately contradicted by Amber Heard's representative at Hyler Management, to protect their privacy.")

A modification was made by the IP address 78.3.25.0 (was found near Osijek, Osjecko-Baranjska located in Croatia) and Arthur Wybrands, supposed boyfriend (only source: wikipedia) is in Croatia right now (www.twitter.com/tchit). Coincidence ? I don't think so ! If he has proof, we need it to source this allegation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.99.59.96 (talk) 10:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Sexuality

Please refrain from changing Amber Heard's sexuality to "bisexual." The host of Top Gear labeling her as such without giving her a chance to respond does not make it so.

Printed on the invitations to the GLAAD 25th:

"Jonathan Murray, Executive Producer of the Real World and Project Runway, will be presented with the Pioneer Award by Amber Heard – the openly lesbian actress starring with Johnny Depp in Rum Diary and Nicholas Cage in Drive Angry 3D."

http://www.autostraddle.com/who-is-lesbian-amber-heard-68775/

JulianneStenzel (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

As if that information was not given to the BBC in a blurb from her manager? hmmm... There are a variety of ironies having to do with your assumptions, and I wont mention them... suffice it to say that if she genuinely wanted to be mentioned as "a lesbian" as opposed to "a bisexual" it would have been made ABUNDANTLY clear LONG before the previous wednesday when this was filmed.... and AFTER the interview (since the show is NOT live, its filmed a week before hand). I am not debating your claim. At the very least we can say that she is CURRENTLY dating a women, and therefore for all intents and purposes, she is a lesbian "at the moment." but, she is also 24 years old. No matter how vocal she is at the moment, and no matter how great this sounds for lesbians and gay groups, I wouldnt bet the farm on her having a politically outspoken career as a lesbian activist. This kind of hearkens back to that irony I mentioned earlier, lol.68.6.76.31 (talk) 10:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Jeremy Clarkson labeled her as bisexual at the very beginning, and at the very end of the interview, both times she was unable to respond even if she wanted to. The fact that it is filmed in advance is irrelevant, because the way it was said it wasn't possible to edit out. Her coming out at GLAAD was something that was planned far in advance and all of the media information given at the event indicated that she identifies as a lesbian. Coming out as a lesbian could potentially have a much greater negative effect on her career vs coming out as a bisexual, and if they were mistaken in labeling her, GLAAD or Amber would have put out a correction before the news went mainstream. JulianneStenzel (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

You may very well be correct, but I'm not seeing any reliable sources to back up what you're saying, so it's all conjecture or speculation, which on Wikipedia falls under original research and can not be used. Note that I am not saying it would be appropriate for Wikipedia to label her bisexual either. The word of this one host does not carry more weight than the several other outlets who labelled her a lesbian. But the point of the WP:BLP policy regarding sexuality and religion is to allow each individial to define themselves. And since Heard has so far refrained from clearly labelling herself, Wikipedia shouldn't either. Siawase (talk) 12:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

From what I can find, there are no interviews or statements in reliable sources where Heard actually self-identifies as a lesbian (or bisexual for that matter.) GLAAD's website has a good list of media coverage of her coming out (scroll down to the bottom of that page) and most of those sources say she came out as a lesbian, but looking at AfterEllen which was the only outlet that spoke to her directly, the closest she comes to self-identifying is: "I hate the idea of a label just as much as anyone else but I’m with who I’m with, I love who I love." The article text could perhaps be more precise in describing the situation. Also per WP:BLPCAT ("Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question") she probably should not be listed in the lesbian category. Siawase (talk) 13:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Her interview with Metro from yesterday makes it clear that it's not some sort of omission or mistake that she hasn't labelled herself earlier, but rather that this is how she identifies herself: "I don’t label myself one way or another – I have had successful relationships with men and now a woman. I love who I love, it’s the person that matters."[1] I have edited the article accoridngly, removing all labels (and adding that quote.) I removed the lesbian category but left the non-specific LGBT category in place. Siawase (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Bisexual label

Merely having had affairs with men and women does not mean that it is appropriate to label a living person as "bisexual", especially in light of the fact that Heard has stated that she rejects labels. This has already been argued into the sun in the talk page archives of List of bisexual people, and on the talk page archives of the Bjork article. Consensous was already reached that it is not appropriate given wikipedias BLP rules to label someone bi if they did not label themselves bi. I'd really rather not have to go through all that again. Asarelah (talk) 03:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Lol. This is an absolutely ridiculous issue. What difference does it make that she doesn't label herself as bisexual? This quote from the page pretty much sums it up: "She has said about her sexuality: "I don't label myself one way or another – I have had successful relationships with men and now a woman. I love who I love; it's the person that matters."[11] That is the definition of bisexual. I don't label myself as a white male, yet I am one without much debate. I am white. I am male. If you have relationships with both sexes, you are bisexual. From dictionary.com: a bisexual is "a person sexually responsive to both sexes". Um, therefore, without much debate, she's very clearly bisexual. This is absurd. Donmike10 (talk) 05:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Its irrelevant whether or not you find it absurd. She has made it clear that she does not want to label herself, and it is a violation of the biographies of living people rules to label her with something that she rejects. I suggest you read the talk page archives of the two articles I linked to. Wiki consensus on this issue has already been well established. If you feel you must press the issue I will put in a request for comment. Asarelah (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you really think this is not absurd? Really? She is bisexual by the textbook definition. Who cares how one talks about themselves? Are we to go through every single category on this site and only give the labels to those who "label" themselves as such?" This is one of the funniest issues I've ever seen on this site. Did every one of these people label themselves as bisexual: Henry Ainley Lior Ashkenazi B Bai Ling Josephine Baker Tallulah Bankhead Amanda Barrie Drew Barrymore Alan Bates Julian Beck El Hedi ben Salem Brenda Benet Anita Berber Helmut Berger Sandra Bernhard Thane Bettany Bif Naked David Bowie Jeremy Brett Jean-Claude Brialy Joy Brook Erin Brown Carrie Brownstein Kathleen Bryson Horst Buchholz Saffron Burrows C Judy Carne Jack Cassidy Leslie Cheung Margaret Cho Pierre Clémenti Jackie Clune Cyril Collard Alan Cumming D Grover Dale Joe Dallesandro Blyth Daly Ruby Dandridge Bella Darvi Stringer Davis D cont. Andy Dick Marlene Dietrich Marie Dorval Eleonora Duse E Denholm Elliott Eric Emerson Raúl Esparza F Jonah Falcon Peggy Fears Megan Fox G Alison Garrigan Erica Gavin Will Geer Thea Gill Julie Goodyear Jessica Graham Gustaf Gründgens H Laurence Harvey Hurd Hatfield Louis Hayward Anne Heche Josephine Hutchinson J Duncan James Casey Johnson Van Johnson Angelina Jolie K Florina Kaja L Charles Laughton Peter Max Lawrence Sook-Yin Lee Iyari Limon Kristanna Loken M Kenneth MacKenna Mike Manning (actor) Scott Marlowe Christian Marquand Glesca Marshall Inge Meysel Yukio Mishima M cont. Frédéric Mitterrand Albert Mol Megan Mullally Ona Munson N Alla Nazimova Cynthia Nixon Cyril Nri O Blanche Oelrichs Ondine (actor) P Pierre Palmade Anna Paquin Anthony Perkins Brock Pierce Mimi Pollak Dennis Price R James Rado Dack Rambo Mlle Raucourt Gene Raymond Michael Redgrave Jerome Robbins Gabriel Romero Ada Dwyer Russell S Pam St. Clement Maria Schneider (actress) Stephanie Sellars Ramses Shaffy Kate Siegel Ione Skye Ada "Bricktop" Smith T Olivia Thirlby Margaret Tu Chuan V Patricia Velásquez Gore Vidal Jon Vincent W Dreya Weber Mike White (scriptwriter) Evan Rachel Wood

Um - short answer, no. They have sex, or had, with both sexes. Therefore, they are bisexual. Not too complicated. Who cares how people label themselves. With your apples to oranges argument, some help here. If an African American doesn't label himself as such, he still is. The fact is, whatever you are, you are. Donmike10 (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The biographies of living people rule say otherwise. By the way, plenty of porn actresses have sex with women, do you honestly think they are all genuinely bisexual? Plenty of lesbians were married to men before they came out as well. Again, please read the talk page archives that I put up, because like I said, this has been debated into the sun. Furthermore, even if this was analagous to race (which it isn't), race isn't exactly cut and dried either. Ever hear of the One-drop rule? Please also see here [2] for the BLP rules, which clearly state:

"Categories regarding sexual orientation of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question (see WP:BLPCAT)."

Anyway, since you're clearly dead set on this, I'm putting in for an RFC on the issue.

Request for comment: Donmike10 believes that Heard should be in the bisexual category due to her admission of affairs with men and women, whereas I believe she should not be since she has stated that she rejects labels. I am requesting input. Asarelah (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I am 100% behind Donmike10 on this. Everything we write about anyone is a "label", and she may not like to use "labels" in her personal life, but that doesn't mean we should kowtow to her whims. She could say "I don't exist"--would that mean that we should delete her article because there's now no such person? Of course not. What if she said she didn't identify as an actress? She has acted in movies, therefore she is an actress. She has relationships with both sexes, therefore she is bisexual. End of story. --Jtle515 (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

From Daniel Day-Lewis on Inside the Actor's Studio: "I'm an artist, not an actor." I guess we're going to have to remove the actor label from his page. Donmike10 (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• comment What do the sources state? Do any label her as bisexual? If so then yes put her in bisexual category. I agree with Jtle515 that we are not here to edit to others whims. SD (talk contribs) 00:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It isn't a whim, the biographies of living people clearly state that labels pertaining to religion and sexual orientation must be self-identified by the subject in question. Period. This isn't comperable to her stating that she isn't an actress, or that she doesn't exist, this is a matter of the Wikipedia rules. She expressly rejects labeling herself. I would also like to point out that there are people who have relationships with men and women but reject the label of bisexual in favor of pansexual because they regard the term bisexual as being too excluding of people who's gender doesn't fall neatly within the binary. Asarelah (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Looking at WP:RS I'm not seeing any articles in which she is the primary topic of the article in which she is labelled/called bisexual. There are a couple where she's in a list of other people mentioned in passing (i.e.[3]). So we shouldn't use the label. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• I alerted WikiProject LGBT studies about this discussion. Siawase (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• In general, WP:LGBT sticks pretty strictly to BLP on these issues. See Little Richard for an example.

That being said, Heard may not like the *label* "bisexual", but she freely admits to relationships with both men and women. In her case, I think the category is acceptable, though the text of the article should include the full explanation. This seems to be something akin to "I don't call myself a catholic, but I attend St. Mary's Catholic church" - one would be inclined to use the category. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Kind of a bad comparison, my brother attends Jewish relgious services to please my Mom, and he's a Satanist, lol. Asarelah (talk) 00:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: According to [4] she announced (ie self-identified) that she was a "lesbian" - not bisexual. In the absence of a specific reference where she explicitly self-identifies as bisexual, I think that we should categorise here as lesbian, not bisexual. As far as labels go, she "hate[s] the idea of a label" and "don’t label myself one way or another" but she does not reject the label that others apply, so I don't believe her dislike of labels prevents us for using the label. (If she rejected labels, it would be different, but she does not.) Mitch Ames (talk) 12:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

That source labelled her a lesbian based upon her being in a relationship with a woman. And she clarified the error by explaining herself very clearly. Asarelah (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Can we have a citation for "she clarified the error by explaining herself very clearly", preferably one quoting her verbatim. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• • I understand the argument - it's very considerate and takes into account her feelings about the label, but it simply does not work here. Look over every person actor or model, living or dead, who are classified as "bisexual". How many of them really used the label on themselves and how many simply were bisexual (definition: had sex with both sexes)? Many actors do not identify as being actors and instead choose to be called artists. Many others simply say that labels do not define them, but we can not simply adhere to everyone's wishes about how he or she would like to be identified in front of obvious descriptions about who they are? The girl is bisexual. She's had sex (and in her case, relationships, with both sexes. Pretty simple. African-American baseball players may not always identify as such, but we don't really need citations to say that they are. They may prefer biracial if they have mixed blood or say that that does not categorize them properly. We can not look to how people only identify themselves or we would need to make changes on every single page on here to every single category on here if a person never said they are something that, by definition, they are. Donmike10 (talk) 15:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
    • If you disagree with what seems to be a fairly clear BLP rule (do not categorize unless the subject self-identifies), you should probably discuss the matter on the BLP talk page, rather than here. This page is not hte place to discuss changing the rules. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the BLP rules state clearly that specific LGBT labels cannot be used on people who reject them. I have, in fact, personally expounged the bisexual label from countless articles where a living person did not accept the label. If you read the talk pages I linked to at the opening of this dicussion, you'll see the debates I've gotten because of it. Furthermore, I'd like to point out that the BLP rules apply only to religious and LGBT labels, not to race or occupation. Nobody is proposing removing those labels from articles, just religious and LGBT ones. I also reiterate my point that one can have relationships with both sexes and not actually be bi, Wanda Sykes being one such example. Asarelah (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Could you quote the relevant section (that says "specific LGBT labels cannot be used on people who reject them") of the BLP rules please, and point out exactly where it is. I can't find it. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It didn't say that expressly, but that was my interpretation of the rules. It states that the individual "must publicly self-identify with the label in question and it must be relevant to their public life". Its clear that she doesn't identify as a heterosexual, and that it is relevant to her public life, but she doesn't label herself beyond that. I propose a non-specific LGBT label instead. Bisexual actors and bisexual models could be placed in the broader category of LGBT actors and LGBT models. Asarelah (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I realize this discussion is probably done, but I just wanted to say that 'sexual responsiveness' is normally interpreted as positive sexual reaction, such as sexual attraction, not necessarily direct relationships or even sexual activity. I thought this should be pretty obvious. Someone can be sexually attracted only to the same sex but have had minimal to no sexual intercourse with them, but they would still be homosexual. Likewise, someone can be sexually attracted to both sexes but only have had sex with one gender, but they would still be bisexual.

Anyway, in identifying Amber Heard's sexuality, it is imperative that we go by what is explicitly stated, or failing that, what has been said that is relevant enough, but do not label her based on actions which do not necessarily imply anything. So if she never explicitly stated she is a lesbian, we should not write that she is. And if she has dated both males and females, that does not mean she is bisexual. She did make a claim regarding her view on sexual labels, which is relevant enough and so should be included. --Xagg (talk) 15:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Taken to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

I came across this issue several days ago, and finally decided to take it to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Listing Amber Heard in Category:Bisexual actors.[5] I am also of the opinion that we shouldn't label Heard as bisexual, when she doesn't publicly identify as such. I don't see why this article should violate policy, when others, such as Aubrey O'Day, follow it. This is not like labeling someone a "race"/ethnicity, seeing as that is more of a solid listing while sexuality and therefore applying a sexual orientation is more complicated. As Asarelah stated, plenty of gay men and lesbians have had sex and/or romantic relationships with the opposite sex (in fact, most have) and it doesn't make those gay men and lesbians bisexual. If they were to say that those relationships were successful, that doesn't mean that they are bisexual either. Flyer22 (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

All that stated, GLAAD did state that she came out as lesbian. Either they had it wrong, and she came out without specifically naming her sexual orientation, or she soon decided that she didn't want to publicly identify anymore. Flyer22 (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Do we have categories of former religons or sexuality? If so then she should be in Category:Former LGBT. People change religon as well as sexual preference. Removing category until she re-states her sexual preference. As it is now she publicly states that she is not in this category.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Canoe1967, no, we don't have sexuality categories like that (also, most people don't truly change sexual orientation; it's rather that they change sexual identity). Further, Heard is a part of the LGBT community, as she even states in her interviews. See this one, where it was first revealed that she is a part of LGBT. It's just that she doesn't specify whether she is lesbian or bisexual. So I would say that she should stay in these categories you removed her from, although I of course agree with you removing her from the bisexual category since her sexual orientation is not specified by her. Flyer22 (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." From BLP CAT. She has indentified as not being in the categories so they should not be re-added. They are also not relevant to her public life or notability. Wikipedia is not a tabloid.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Canoe1967, I know what WP:BLPCAT states. But I'm saying that Heard rejecting specific sexual orientation labels does not make her not a part of the LGBT community. She came out as part of the LGBT community in 2010, as the source I provided shows, and she has not retracted on that. The fact is...she came out as part of the LGBT community while never specifically stating whether she is bisexual or lesbian. If she did specify as lesbian at that GLAAD event, as sources say she did, she soon only referred to herself as "coming out." This is why Asarelah, Siawase (see here) and myself have stated that it is fine to put her in the LGBT category. She also considers herself a LGBT role model, someone who can help LGBT visibility, which makes her sexual orientation relevant to her public life. I'm not going to press hard to have her in the LGBT category, however. I'm just letting you know why I believe that she fits in that one with regard to WP:BLPCAT. Flyer22 (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Update: The matter was resolved at the BLP noticeboard, and WP:Consensus was for keeping Heard in the LGBT categories...but removing her from the bisexual ones. The discussion goes over why. And this is the date it was archived. Flyer22 (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

awards and nominations

where it says "herself" should that not read the film that was nominated/got the award ? ☭ИΘИ ИΘЬЇS SΘLЦMтдлж^ЅТЦФФ 06:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Personal life

Doesn't she date Johnny Depp now ? I don't follow the gossip press on a regular basis, but it seems that their relationship is now officially confirmed and has been reported by "serious" media (at least that's what I understood ; maybe I'm mistaken). If so, it should be mentioned. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 07:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Johnny Depp

Yes, Depp and Heard are dating. There are plenty of sources to confirm it. I've added 5, and there is plenty more. It doesn't matter if Depp or Heard have confirmed it or not, as long as plenty of 'sources confirm it. That's how Wikipedia works. Now, if they denied it, that could be an issue, but they haven't, so, in it goes... - thewolfchild 23:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

No, what you added (though I reverted it) is not exactly how Wikipedia is supposed to work, which one or more editors at the WP:BLP noticeboard would tell you. Sources, reliable or not, "confirming" something about a living person is not the threshold for inclusion. If that were the case, then the part of WP:BLPCAT that states "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question" would not exist.

And reverting like this again is silly. You were supposed to follow WP:BRD. You want me to do your work, which is to take this matter to the WP:BLP noticeboard? Okay, I might. But I see now that Kww has reverted you. Your re-addition at the Johnny Depp‎ article will likely be reverted as well. Oh, and this, this, this and this are just four of the many examples where this type of material concerning Depp and Heard has been reverted/removed. Flyer22 (talk) 23:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: your four "this" and "this" examples... there's only 2, both repeats. The first pair were poorly written, using the words "it's strongly rumoured...", so, yes... an obvious revert. The second pair cited an unreliable source, so yes... reverts again. Big deal. - thewolfchild 04:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

No, there are three. One editor added text two times, in two different ways; he was reverted by two different editors. Then another editor added text; that editor was reverted. I included the final diff-link to show the complete revert. And the source for that latter part is not actually unreliable, if counting the exclusive interview alone; the reason it needed to be removed is because, like the sources you have provided on this matter, it claims that Depp and Heard are dating...when Depp and Heard have not publicly confirmed a thing about that matter. And all of those diffs-links were also provided to show the different editors who object to this type of material in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 04:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

You are going to review my comments and sources posted, right? You will note that Heard has confirmed the relationship. In the meantime, perhaps you could explain just how you're applying WP:BLPCAT to this issue? And where does it say that one (or is it both) of the parties must confirm a relationship? As opposed to citing enough credible, reliable sources that are reporting and showing the obvious? - thewolfchild 15:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I skimmed your comments that provide sources below; no need to review the sources, since obviously not one of them states that either Depp or Heard have confirmed that they are dating each other. Not to mention that some of those sources should not be used for biographies of living persons. As for WP:BLPCAT, that was an example. You stated, "It doesn't matter if Depp or Heard have confirmed it or not, as long as plenty of 'sources confirm it. That's how Wikipedia works." WP:BLPCAT (in the cases of religion and sexual orientation) is a prominent example of it not mattering how many sources confirm something if the living person has not publicly confirmed it. You would do well to wait, even if for a few days days or a couple of weeks, to see if anyone other than you, me and Kww states something on this matter. There is not much more that I have to state to you about it, and I don't appreciate you possibly having caused this section to be WP:Too long, didn't read; I often don't have a problem reading "too long" discussions, but others do, and seeing such a discussion discourages them from weighing in on it. Flyer22 (talk) 16:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I've commented no more or less than you have, and I will not be barred from a discussion on your say-so. I addressed the overall length on this discussion by collapsing the long, long list of sources that are still apparently not good enough for you. Though I believe they satisfy WP standards, I'm not willing to get into an edit war with you over something so trivial. They are dating, and that *fact* will be added to their bio's soon enough. - thewolfchild 06:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd stated all I needed to state to you on this matter. You are the one who insisted on continuing to add on to this discussion before any outside editor had replied. Pointing out "WP:Too long, didn't read" is not barring you from a discussion or an attempt to do so, as is clear by the #What's all the hoopla? section that an editor started below because of the length of this section, and as is clear by this thread collapse you used soon afterward. And as should be clear with regard to the sources you listed, this matter is not mainly about whether or not they are good enough; this matter is mainly about neither Depp nor Heard having publicly confirmed that they are dating each other. Just because you think that it's our job to state that they are dating each other, when they won't even confirm that matter, does not mean that it is our job to do so. As far your asserting that they are dating, consistently repeating your belief that they are matters not to this discussion. All you are going on are what sources state and your supposedly common sense, without any conformation from these two people that they are dating each other. Like I've made clear, if you think that all we are supposed to go on with regard WP:BLP are what the sources state, you are sorely mistaken. I also care not if this material is eventually added to this article, as long as it satisfies WP:BLP. Flyer22 (talk) 06:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

You yourself said above that a source, which contains a interview in which Heard discusses the relationship is reliable. Yet, at the same time, it isn't good enough for you? And it is you we're talking about here... not WP. There are literally dozens of reliable sources stating that Depp and Heard are dating. As far as I know or are concerned, that satisfies WP policy for inclusion. You keep claiming that either Depp or Heard (or is it both?) "must confirm" the relationship themselves. Where in wiki-policy does it say that? (and please don't say wp:blpcat again) - thewolfchild 07:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. If you are going to keep neglecting what I have actually stated, keep putting your spin on my words and attributing thoughts to me that are not mine, then you might as well refrain from responding to me. WP:BLP is clear, and it is clear that you need to read it. All of it. If you think that "dozens of reliable sources" "confirming" something about a living person is all it takes to include what those sources are reporting, you need a lot more Wikipedia experience. Try doing that with WP:BLPs in general, with regard to who is dating whom, and see how far you get. And for your information, Wikipedia generally discourages the use of the Daily Mail for biographies of living persons. Flyer22 (talk) 07:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

(rolls eyes) If you are going to keep neglecting what I have actually asked, keep putting your spin on my words and attributing thoughts to me that are not mine, then you might as well refrain from responding to me. Yes, I'm new. This is actually my 2^nd day here at Wikipedia, and I missed the first. Since I am only a fresh-faced rookie, perhaps you could stop biting, and try helping this newcomer out? I have read thru BLP. I can't find the policy your referring to. Would you please, (pretty please - with sugar on top), show it to me? Thanks. (oh, and by the way, "Daily Mail" is discouraged, got it. What about the other 30+ sources I provided?) - thewolfchild 10:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's do better to keep WP:Civil in mind. As for the rest, refer to what I've already stated on this matter, since you are displaying WP:I didn't hear that and WP:Refusal to drop the stick behavior. But I will impart this knowledge to you: "Inexperienced" and "newbie" are not always the same thing. Wikipedia has many editors who have been at this site for years and still barely, or don't at all, understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Such editors are most commonly the recluses and/or the ones who barely or don't communicate on talk pages (or through edit summaries) and/or the ones that edit sporadically...without ever having become familiar or very familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. You have been with this site under your Thewolfchild account since 2010, but you barely edited in 2010 or in 2011 and it seems to me that there is a lot about the ways of Wikipedia that you are unfamiliar with; for example, that WP:BLP material concerning who is dating whom, with no public confirmation from the couple(s) involved, is routinely removed from WP:BLPs....especially if the sources are using words such as "rumored to be dating" or "reportedly dating." Flyer22 (talk) 16:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

(Kww: "Sources are primarily reporting rumours, not facts")

• So... you have read all the sources, that have been reporting this for a year and a half, along with tons of photos of the two, dating (dinners, hand-holding, etc., etc.) and they all preface their reports as "rumours only"? It seems to me that many of these RS are reporting this as fact. And... after all this time, not one, single denial from either party? (as usually happens when the press speculates on a pair of celebrities becoming romantically involved). They are dating. There are sources confirming it. What's the big deal? This is no different than many, many other entries on celebrity BLP's here. Why are we taking such a particular, if not... odd stand against this one?

Oh, and Kww ole' buddy... I'm sorry but I have to ask; Have you had any other involvement with Flyer22 prior to this? Have you had any off-wiki contact? Thanks. - thewolfchild 01:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I took this matter to the WP:BLP noticeboard; editors are likely to weigh in on this there and/or at this talk page. And, yes, I have interacted with Kww before. And, no, I did not WP:Canvass Kww to revert you. Again, look to the examples of other times that this type of Depp/Heard material has been reverted/removed. Kww and I have never emailed each other, not yet anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 01:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course not. Your blatantly argumentative edit summary caught my eye on my watchlist.—Kww(talk) 01:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Erm, Kev ole' pal... instead of just giving me the 'stink eye', (or is it the 'crook eye' ?), would you care to comment on this? There are policy issues being raised here and you are an admin... - thewolfchild 07:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

And, actually, Thewolfchild, standard practice on Wikipedia is to not report a living person as dating someone unless the matter has been confirmed to the public by either of those people. For example, information that Beyoncé and Jay-Z were dating, and later information that they were married, was routinely kept out of their Wikipedia articles because neither had publicly confirmed those matters. Flyer22 (talk) 01:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

So... just to be clear, your position is, that if a notable person or persons become married, and reliable sources confirm the marriage, said marriage can not be mentioned in a BLP on either of these persons, IF neither of them has personally confirmed the marriage? Where in wiki-policy does it say that? - thewolfchild 07:19, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

No comment. Flyer22 (talk) 07:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course... - thewolfchild 10:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

OK then...

32 sources commenting on the Depp/Heard relationship

"Amber Heard opens up about Johnny Depp relationship" - wewomen.ca "Johnny Depp’s girlfriend Amber Heard has attracted scores of media attention for her sultry look, intense movie roles and, well, for her relationship with Depp." - foxnews.com "Amber Heard is getting to know the [Depp‘s] kids. The 27-year-old actress, who has been dating her "Rum Diary" co-star Johnny Depp on and off since his split with Vanessa Paradis last year, joined Depp and his children on a quick trip to Japan this week." - nydailynews.com ..."Amber Heard proves that she's a rising star. The 27-year-old, who is dating 50-year-old actor Johnny Depp..." - dailymail.co.uk "Depp and Heard first met on the set of The Rum Diary in 2009, and their relationship was confirmed in June 2012 -- shortly after Depp announced his split from longtime love Vanessa Paradis." - usmagazine.com "The 27-year-old [Heard] has been dating the 50-year-old "Pirates of the Caribbean" star Depp since 2012." - au.ibtimes.com "Depp, 50, and Heard, 27, met on the set of their film "The Rum Diary" in 2009 and announced last year they are dating." - upi.com "The actor has relocated to London with current girlfriend Amber Heard." - entertainmentwise.com "...while Johnny is dating actress Amber Heard following his split from Vanessa Paradis." - belfasttelegraph.co.uk "Johnny Depp Takes Amber Heard and Kids to Japan Depp Makes It a Family Affair with Amber Heard Looks like things are getting serious between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard! Promoting The Lone Ranger in Japan, Depp, 50, brought along his girlfriend, Heard, 27, and his two kids with ex Vanessa Paradis, Lily Rose and Jack, making it a true family affair" - etonline.com "Amber and Johnny met on the set of their 2011 film, The Rum Diary, and began dating shortly after. "It’s not part of my professional life. I want to be an artist. I don’t want to be a celebrity," she recently said of wanting to keep their relationship private." - lifeandstylemag.com These are just some quotes from some sources, that I found in a matter of minutes. There are plenty more... - people.com - suntimes.com - dailymail.co.uk - huffingtonpost.com - huffingtonpost.ca - eonline.com (1) - eonline.com (2) - eonline.com (3) - standard.co.uk - usmagazine.com - express.co.uk - hellomagazine.com - nowmagazine.co.uk - idesigntimes.com - business-standard.com - mumbaimirror.cobusiness-standard.comm - hollywoodreporter.com - starmagazine.com - hollywoodlife.com - metro.co.uk - hollywoodtake

I had to stop a some point, but a point that is none-the-less obvious and well established. I would think the interviews where Heard confirms and discusses the relationship should be enough. Or the articles about them living together in Europe, and travelling with his kids in Japan. This list could go on and on... and that's just in English. There's dozens, if not hundreds of reports of this relationship from other RS/media outlets in many other languages as well. Then there's the photos... Hundreds of them. Clearly showing that they obviously an romantic couple. Many of these articles are supported by these photos.

What else is there to say? They are dating. - thewolfchild 03:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

What's all the hoopla?

A request was made on the BLP board to comment on Depp/Heard dating. On the face of things, it looks reasonable to state this, because it looks like there are sources stating this. Can someone give me a brief explanation of why this shouldn't be included? The section above is too verbose for my blood.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Two kinds of pork. Thanks for participating in this discussion. Basically, the objection to including material with regard to Depp and Heard dating each other is that they have not publicly confirmed that they are dating. In the past, such additions have often included wording, both from the sources and Wikipedia article text, that it is rumored that they are dating. Now it is often that sources are directly stating that they are dating, meaning without words such as "rumored" or "reportedly." Therefore, should we include this material? Flyer22 (talk) 05:17, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

This place is a nest of rules. I noticed you mentioned BLPCAT above, and this could fall in that situation, because stating they are dating implies they are heterosexual (assuming their sex matches their appearance). Implying people are heterosexual isn't contentious, and implying people are homosexual probably is, and fortunately less so than even 10 years ago. I'm leaning in favor of inclusion. Whether we use "rumored or reportedly" should match what the latest sources are using.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

"Could"? Unfortunately, by trying to apply BLPCAT, Flyer has unnecessarily confused the issue. It doesn't apply. This isn't about something so controversial as sexuality or religion. This is a simple matter of two Hollywood actors, who have been openly dating for a year. Even though it has been widely reported and photographed, and other editors have tried noting it here as a simple matter of due course... for some reason, Flyer won't allow this fact to be added to their bio's. He is apparently willing to edit-war over the matter, until Depp and Heard call a joint, world-wide press conference, and officially announce they're dating.

By the way, more sources;

• Amber Heard opens up about her romance with Johnny Depp,
• Amber Heard Reveals Johnny Depp Romance Not Easy,
• Amber Heard admits that dating Johnny Depp is difficult because of hectic work schedules.
  

just sayin'... - thewolfchild 06:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, Thewolfchild has neglected where (above) I stated exactly why I mentioned WP:BLPCAT: Again, WP:BLPCAT is an example. Thewolfchild stated, "It doesn't matter if Depp or Heard have confirmed it or not, as long as plenty of 'sources confirm it. That's how Wikipedia works." WP:BLPCAT (in the cases of religion and sexual orientation) is a prominent example of it not mattering how many sources confirm something if the living person has not publicly confirmed it.

Apparently, Thewolfchild thinks that reporting that people are dating each other when neither of those people has publicly confirmed that they are dating each other is not controversial, despite the fact that such reporting has proved controversial at Wikipedia time and time again...and despite the fact that reporting Depp and Heard are dating has been removed from this article time and time again by more than just me. Apparently, Thewolfchild thinks that "[I] won't allow this [report] to be added to their bio[s]," as though I alone have the power to keep it out and as though I am the only one who has kept it out. Apparently, Thewolfchild thinks that I am a he and that I am consistently willing to WP:Edit war over the matter. Apparently, Thewolfchild is confusing me for himself, considering that I stopped reverting him; I didn't revert him for a second time at the Depp article. And I didn't revert him for a third time at this one; a different editor agreed with me and reverted him (as documented above). And what was Thewolfchild's reaction? The following: "Oooh, they must be in cahoots." Apparently, Thewolfchild believes that there is a conspiracy to keep this material out of the article. Give me a break. Flyer22 (talk) 07:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, Thewolfchild thinks Flyer's rant is amusing. Apparently Thewolfchild thinks Flyer should relax. Apparently Thewolfchild doesn't give a rat's ass anymore about this actual dating nonsense, but... Thewolfchild definitely thinks he would like a clear answer on the policy covering this. - thewolfchild 07:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you criticize others for something you are doing is what is amusing, especially when others are not doing what you have accused them of. Note that two editors thus far in this discussion have noted your ridiculous combativeness. It's doubtful that you don't give a rat's ass anymore. And the policy is WP:BLP, a policy that you need to thoroughly read and understand. Flyer22 (talk) 07:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The fact is you have repeatedly removed any reference to the well-supported and reliably sourced fact that these two people are dating. With the additional sources I supplied and hour ago (#'s 33, 34 & 35, but who's counting), I could add the info to the article again, and be within policy doing so. But you would probably revert it again, hence my comment about your "apparent willingness" to edit war. I haven't edit warred, I reverted you once. That is not edit-warring. Nor is it being "combative" As I have said, I have only contributed as much here as you, (or, been as combative as you), except for a list of sources (to support my position - something you seem incapable of). If anything is "ridiculous" here, it's this bizarre stand your taking, (or your equally bizarre "apparently the wolf thinks" tantrum). Who are the "two editors"... you and Kevin? →pause here for short laugh← Anyways... As for the edit in question, I'll leave it as is, because I know someone else will add it soon, and then you'll just have to deal with it, or argue with them.

Oh, and I've read thru BLP, can't seem to find anything to support your claim. Perhaps you could point it out for us? (Usually when people claim their actions are supported by policy, they actually cite the policy.) I've asked you this several times now, but you keep evading. - thewolfchild 09:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

[Cutting in ahead of Kww's and Two kinds of pork's comments here since Thewolfchild's 09:49 reply is to me, and since I would have replied hours earlier if my Internet connection had been working properly.] Like I stated above, Thewolfchild, let's do better to keep WP:Civil in mind. Like I also noted above, refer to what I've already stated on this matter, since you are displaying WP:I didn't hear that and WP:Refusal to drop the stick behavior. Yes, you have been ridiculously combative with regard to this topic, as is clear to anyone. Also, your counting skills are not right in this case...because this and this count as two reverts. It also counts as WP:Edit warring; see where WP:Edit warring states, "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion. ... The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period." Also see the hidden note that policy has in its lead: "EDIT WARRING CAN ALSO HAPPEN WITH NO FORMAL REVERSION; HENCE 'BY REPEATEDLY OVERRIDING' HERE." And see where the 3RR section states: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." Just because you restored the material with more sources than you used originally does not make it any less of a revert. Just because you brought the matter to the talk page and then reverted again without waiting for anyone to weigh in on the matter, treating your word as the be-all and end-all, does not mean that you initially tried to resolve the disagreement by discussion. The section you started on this talk page (and at the Johnny Depp talk page) was clearly meant to be a "My word goes, so nah!" statement rather than any entertainment of discussion on this topic. And if you cannot properly cite WP:Edit warring, all aspects of it, not just certain parts of it, then it's not encouraging in the that you fully understand WP:BLP.

As for someone else adding the type of information you added and me likely reverting that person and having to argue with them about it, that's a no. It's a no because no one else but you has made a big stink about including this personal information that has yet to be publicly confirmed by the people involved, with one of those people obviously not wanting to discuss the matter at all (yes, indeed, the only tantrums that have been thrown here in this topic discussion are yours). It's a no because if others who reverted on this matter (such as Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Siawase, Rivertorch and Nymf) and others who watch this article but have not yet reverted and/or weighed in on this matter (such as Asarelah), or those who watch the Johnny Depp article, do not care about such an addition, and if the WP:BLP noticeboard is not concerned with it (which seems to be the case, with currently the exception of Two kinds of pork), then I hardly care if the material is re-added. Flyer22 (talk) 16:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not supportive of these various "self reporting is required" things, and think most of them go beyond policy requirements. Spot checking your sources didn't come up with anything that made me think that Flyer22's concerns were obviously without merit, though, so this edit] was a problem: you needed to work it out before re-including the material, not after.—Kww(talk) 15:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but I think this requiring confirmation business is a little over the top. It sure doesn't look like a policy, though I'll trust Flyers claim that this is standard practice. If this has been an issue (and unless people stop having sex drives it will continue to be an issue) then perhaps it she be codified. Start a RFC.Two kinds of pork (talk) 14:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

In light of Kww and Flyer22's comments,might I suggest that anyone interested in adding the dating item propose the exact text here first?Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

It would also be good to keep Siawase's comment at the WP:BLP noticeboard in mind. Flyer22 (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

If wolf wants to try and cobble something together, I'll be happy to review it and keep the quality of the sources in mind.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I think unless Depp and Heard publicly state they are dating, it should be left out. Asarelah (talk) 16:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

That's an overreaching interpretation of verification IMO. If that's how things have been done here in the past, then perhaps it's time to take another look. Regardless, we should wait for wolf to propose some text.Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Information on what celebrities are currently dating each other is often hard to find reliable sources for, besides which it frequently changes and is hard to keep up to date. For those reasons, I'm inclined to be dubious about including it in any article. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, let alone a gossip rag, and trying to maintain comprehensive coverage of recent events in the entertainment world doesn't seem like the best use of our resources, assuming we're still trying to build an encyclopedia here. (This policy and this essay are instructive on those points, I believe.) In this specific case, most of the sources that have been cited aren't reliable, and I'd lean against not including the content were it not for two linked sources in the collapsed list of sources above. If we really must report on who is dating whom, then the UPI and Belfast Telegraph sources seem adequately reliable for our purposes—as long as the wording is careful, particularly with regard to tense—e.g., we can't say so-and-so is somebody's girlfriend or that so-and-so is dating somebody, but we can say that in x month, x year, it was reported that so-and-so was. . . . And if we're shooting for consensus here, this discussion should be linked from Talk:Johnny Depp, with the same conclusions applied to both articles. Rivertorch (talk) 17:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

'uncle'

As far as I'm concerned, WP contains info that is notable and verifiable. While some feel that shouldn't extend to celebrities and their relationships, others here do. This is a fact some people here just need to accept. Heard + Depp is certainly not the first instance where a pair of famous people dating has been noted here - our BLP's are full of such entries. How and why this particular item has become so contentious and controversial, I don't know. And further... I don't care. I have only been involved as far as I have out of sheer incredulity. I have asked one simple question here, repeatedly. Flyer22 has this far refused to answer it, though this has formed the basis of her argument. Where does WP policy state that at least one involved celebrity "must confirm" they are involved with someone? If anyone can answer this... great. Otherwise, please don't wait for any further "wording of a potential entry", or for any further contributions here from me, for that matter... simply because I can't be bothered dealing with any more of Flyer's hysterics. Like I said, they are dating, and that is a fact that will be added sooner or later, just not by me. - thewolfchild 14:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I have answered you, and others above have answered similarly; you simply don't like the answers. And as many times as your history shows that you have failed to, and have had administrative actions taken against you for failing to, abide by WP:Civil and WP:No personal attacks, you should know by now that it is better to not engage in such behavior, especially when such behavior is pointed out to you (above, your unnecessary combativeness and the fact that I suggested that we try harder to abide by WP:Civil). But go ahead and keep being that way on Wikipedia, see how far that gets you. And if you seriously no longer care about reporting Depp and Heard as dating, then you should not care if I or anyone else removes this information (the information you added) from the Johnny Depp article. Flyer22 (talk) 17:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

No... you have not answered that question and it is obvious that you don't intend to (or can't). You want to remove info from an article? Go ahead... just make sure you are adhering to policy when you do it. And, perhaps you should discuss it first with User:Soulparadox, they were the last one to edit that info. That said, perhaps you should read WP:HYPOCRISY. You continually go on and on (have you read wp:stick?), that I have been combative here... why? Because I disagree with you? You consider my contributions here combative, what does that make yours? You keep preaching about wp:civil... as if you have been a paragon of politeness. You try to chide me about my history... because you feel that is somehow appropriate for you to do? I know my faults, do you know yours? In the meantime, you have created quite a workload for yourself. Considering the position you have taken here, and how you are so willing to ardently defend it, it stands that you should now start combing thru every single BLP here, and ensure that every single contribution has been "confirmed" by the articles subject. You should also pop over to the BLP:project page, and lobby to have language added to the BLP policies that actually states that BLP subjects "must confirm all information" added to their articles. That might make life easier for you on your quest. Good luck! - thewolfchild 18:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I already pointed out that the aforementioned confirmation aspect is standard Wikipedia practice (and that aspect is also clear from others' replies above); so, no, I have not created quite a workload for myself in this regard. Not that I would pursue that every article should be done the way that things are done at this one anyway. And if I thought that I was without fault in this discussion with regard to WP:Civil, I would not have made a point of using the words us (as in "let's") and we. It's quite clear what makes your posts unnecessarily combative; trivializing that by suggesting that it is simply because we disagree on this matter does not change that fact. Yes, it is appropriate to remind you of WP:Civil and WP:No personal attacks, and to note that, given your history, you should be especially wary of engaging in such behavior. You consider it chiding you; I don't see it that way. On a side note: Try not to link to a Wikipedia article and WP:Pipelink it as though it is a policy, guideline or essay, as you did in the case of WP:HYPOCRISY; there, that is the page you were looking for, and I already noted that you additionally engage in that behavior. As for everything else, refer to what I've already stated on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I like ice-cream. - thewolfchild 22:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

LOL!! Flyer22 (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

yum... - thewolfchild 01:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Flyer22, you should take note that while you got support for keeping this out based on the fact that reliable sources were still reporting the relationship as a rumour, you got very little support for the idea that it was mandatory that one party confirm the relationship. If reliable sources were reporting the relationship as a fact, there wouldn't be a viable WP:BLP concern about including it.—Kww(talk) 01:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I spoke of nothing about "mandatory," and neither did those supporting my view. I spoke of standard practice, which is something, judging by your commentary above that you are not a fan of this type of practice, you were familiar with before now. And there are WP:Reliable sources reporting the relationship as fact (meaning without any use of "rumored" or "reportedly"), and yet, as you can see, viable WP:BLP concerns have still been expressed. Either way, I am done with this subject. Flyer22 (talk) 02:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Um, Kev... just thought I'd point out a situation to you, (if you weren't already aware). While the notation of this relationship has been removed from this article, it still exists on the Johnny Depp page, the other half of the relationship. While it was I that originally added it, it has since been re-written, and the refs have been modified and enhanced during a "citation review", by another editor. These cites appear reliable and report the relationship as being "confirmed", and made "official". This creates somewhat of a paradox - how can it exist on one page, but not the other? The whole project is lopsided! Just kidding... but really, it should be removed from there, or the rev'd out entry here should be rev'd right back in. (I ain't doing either.)
Just sayin'... - thewolfchild 03:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Came in from the Depp page where an IP is being bothersome. Skimmed over the preceding sections and here are my two cents: It is not necessary for two people to confirm they are in a relationship before we add it to the article if the sources are rock solid and the relationship is biographically relevant. For example, I've been watchlisting two articles of relative famous people who were recently married. They or their publicists hadn't confirmed the marriage yet multiple reliable sources reported on the low-key wedding and marriage certificate so the relationship got added to both their articles, being biographically relevant. In the Heard/Depp situation, I gather that they might be dating. My first thought is: so what? Has this relationship affected what they're notable for or does it fit into the standard basic data every biography should have (birth, parents, legal/long-term partners, etc.)? If not, and even though it might be reported on by multiple sources, there's no need to include the factoid as articles aren't indiscriminate collections of information. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

BLP sources template and Citation needed tags

I have inserted the BLP sources template due to sections of unverified text in the Career section, some of which I have identified with tags. I found several citations, but will need to revisit the page to address the remaining sections.--Soulparadox (talk) 07:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

This edit shows the sources you added and things you have tagged. I was going to state that the only unsourced controversial bit that I see currently in the article is the following line in her Early life section: "Dropping out of school at the age of 17, she went to New York to start a career in modeling, then relocated to Los Angeles to get into acting." And it's the "dropping out" bit that I find controversial, but it can be supported by this source used in that section. The rest of that sentence? No.

As for sourcing any other section, the Magazine rankings section could be sourced the way that the Sophia Bush Image section currently is. Flyer22 (talk) 08:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I only reviewed the Career section, as I believe that statements such as "The show ended on July 4, 2007 two weeks earlier than originally planned." and "In August 2012, Heard was in talks to replace Kristen Stewart, who abruptly dropped out in Nick Cassavetes' upcoming thriller Cali." need to be verified or removed.--Soulparadox (talk) 08:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Dog smuggling material

I feel that this addition by JuanFox is WP:Undue weight. And so I reverted (followup note here). And, yes, I know that the Johnny Depp article currently has an Alleged dog smuggling section in its Controversy section. Flyer22 (talk) 23:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Dog smuggling

Can we please mention the viral video? 78.144.36.170 (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Rabies in Australia

Australia has bat rabies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabies, so I have modified the comment about the country not having rabies johnr_roberts (talk) 22:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.21.36.30 (talk)

Dropped out of high school, has GED: source

http://www.marieclaire.com/celebrity/a16795/amber-heard-december-2015-cover/ "Three years later [age 16], she dropped out of high school, earned her GED, and left home." 107.19.188.76 (talk) 08:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

This article is in the news today

In the Daily Mail here and shows a user warning made by Ponyo. What the DM article doesn't point out is that since this Wikipedia article has had pending changes since January 2014 and Hillstar523 was not autoconfirmed, the edit never actually went live in the article. The media has failed to understand this on other occasions, and it shows that for articles where serious WP:BLP violations are lkely to occur, semi-protection is still the best option. The edit was reverted after eleven minutes by Smallprint84 and no longer exists in the edit history. Some assiduous Wiki-watching by the media here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Heh. That's one seriously low article, even for the Daily Mail. Aside from the fact that the revision was never "published," they might as well have written: "Our investigators found this nasty note left on a bathroom stall. Here's what it says! Oh, and here's the janitor who scraped it off!! Wow!" It's disconcerting that such things as page histories draw outside attention like this. Was it blind luck? an intern tasked with sitting on a watchlist? a scripting solution? It seems to me that short-term semi-protection may be appropriate, with indefinite pending changes left in place for when things go back to normal. Thanks for passing along the news. Rebbing 08:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Frankly I'm surprised and worried that something that was only in the edit history and looks like it was oversighted quickly got into the newspapers. I would hate to think that someone did this and the told the Daily Mail about it immediately. I've thought for a long time that pending changes is a bit of a chocolate fire guard in BLP articles where vandalism occurs, but this is a serious incident. The timestamps suggest that the DM knew about the existence of this edit almost immediately, so there is something fishy here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Given the timeline and the scurrilous nature of the piece, it's not difficult to picture someone making the edit and immediately IMing his tabloid writer friend, but it may have been sheer dumb luck: I noticed Daily Mail's screenshots aren't from Wikipedia but Google's search sidebar—this. Unless those are doctored, Google is using the latest page version, not the accepted one we're serving to visitors. This seems like a serious problem. It also paints a different narrative: a reporter Googling Ms. Heard notices the changed sidebar, screenshots it, and pokes through the article history to learn what he can. (Technical note: the offending edit was revision-deleted, not oversighted (diff); it doesn't appear it would qualify for oversight. Also, I checked the log and confirmed that it was never approved.) Rebbing 09:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

For the record, it has now been oversighted. BethNaught (talk) 11:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I'm stupid here, but I can't understand how the edit would have appeared in the Google Search sidebar if it was never approved. I've come across this sort of thing happening with Google Cache, but not the search sidebar. The only logical explanation would be that the sidebar used the page history rather than the live version, which would be weird.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:30, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Google Knowledge Graph has a specific feature for Wikipedia articles. I don't know how they access the information but I wouldn't be surprised if they do something special like use a recent changes feed, read the edit window or use the API. Reading the page history to get a revision link sounds less likely to me. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I found a discussion about this issue from a few months back. It looks like it's been pointed out repeatedly without getting any traction. Perhaps this would be enough to turn some heads? Rebbing 14:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Amber Laura Depp

Her legal family name is "Depp" as is shown in the restraining request filed in her name, and as corroborated by the CBC. She retains use of "Heard" for professional purposes. Stop removing sourced and correct information. Bueller 007 (talk) 00:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. In most states, there is no single unified concept of "legal name." Many married women assume their husbands' names for some—but not all—purposes, for example, a woman might take her husband's surname for their shared checking account and mortgage but continue to use her maiden name on her Social Security record, drivers' license, employment records, and other legal matters; and many women who wish to change their name for all purposes overlook rarely-used bank accounts, retirement benefits, and other matters. In such cases, both names can fairly be said to be the woman's "legal name." It's plausible that Ms. Head is only legally known as Amber Depp in affairs associated with her marriage, including her divorce, and that her legal name for all other purposes would be Amber Heard or Amber Laura Heard. (If you had a contract unrelated to her marriage that she'd recently signed as Amber Depp, I might be more receptive to your argument.)

Per PRIMARY, it's not our place to wander into such issues, and I believe divorce documents would not be the place to do it. Additionally, the documents, while widely published, contain personal financial information of a sort that's plainly forbidden by BLPPRIMARY (policy): "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses."

As for the CBC News piece (a staff-written piece), it's of questionable accuracy, especially when compared to our other sources.

Please note that, per BLPREQUESTRESTORE (policy), you must develop consensus before re-adding this material. Rebbing 02:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• Disagree per Rebbing - She's always gone by "Heard" so there's no need to change it especially when they're getting divorced.... –Davey2010^Talk 02:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2016

Please change "On May 27, 2016, Heard filed for and obtained a domestic violence restraining order against Depp" to "temporary domestic violence restraining order" as they are two very different things. Please also consider adding that "the hearing has been delayed until August 2016" as I find it very misrepresentative that this should read like she has actually won a domestic violence restraining order, and read that way all the way through August. Temporary orders are issued at almost any claim like this, however, actually winning a restraining order requires having a hearing and showing your evidence, and having a judge determine one should be awarded long term. She has NOT won an actual restraining order against him. What I mean by that is that no judge has decided that Amber Heard has evidence to support a long-term, permanent restraining order. Temporary is the key word here, and you are missing it. 96.40.254.94 (talk) 04:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Please note source (every news outlet) for my previous request to change "restraining order" to "temporary restraining order" is http://www.newsweek.com/amber-heard-drops-spousal-support-request-johnny-depp-divorce-470549 96.40.254.94 (talk) 04:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Done (diff). Thank you for noticing and for your well-written edit request. It was very helpful that you provided another source as our previous source for the restraining order business—a Guardian piece—did not mention that the order was temporary. Rebbing 06:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Additional sentence on Australian quarantine

The reason for adding the extra information which I hope is obvious is that both the content of the video (with Heard and Depp acting weirdly) and in other media coverage of the event at the time neglect to mention the "why" about the "strict biosecurity legislation", not simply its existence, which is obvious to all, with or without mention of it in this piece.

I am adding MORE information i.e. more facts relevant to the whole situation. Why is this potentially problematic with so many at Wikipedia, apparently, I cannot understand. I know myself that I always like MORE information when I look up stuff on wikipedia, not less. I am interested to know the logical basis for this apparent desire to reduce the amount of information in a wiki piece, as I am new to wikipedia as a contributor. Pixelwash (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Pixelwash, am not sure the additional sentence on quarantine laws is needed given the article already refers to the strict bio security legislation, and the entire issue is only one small part of the overall biography. However, as it has now been reverted a few times, it's probably better to bring it to this talkpage to seek a consensus for inclusion rather than to continue adding it directly to the article. If a discussion here leads to broad support for including the sentence, it can then uncontroversially go back into the article itself. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

No reason to include it. I will take it a step further and say -- why do we need to include the incident at all? This is not Twitter or a celebrity gossip page. Kellymoat (talk) 11:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• It did receive a significant amount of coverage so I don't see any reason to not include it. Aoba47 (talk) 13:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The reason why I included it was that the significant coverage i.e. on Jimmy Kimmel and other talk shows, and in articles accompanying the widely posted video of Depp and his then wife's rather weird apology video, fun was also made of the Aussie quarantine requirements, as though they were being silly, and nit-picking, and needlessly bureaucratic about insisting on having the dogs tested in the first place..

Hence I think this a valuable contribution as it is a directly relevant FACT relevant to Amber Heard's public life, not some opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pixelwash (talk • contribs) 20:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I also note that "apology video" was a legal requirement of the settlement Heard made with the Australian government associated with the incident with the dogs. ( I suspect this was done because educating travelers about Australia's unique biosecurity requirements is a handy fact to know if you intend visiting there at any time. )

So this is part of Heard's public life, that was widely reported in the media, and video of the incident remains easily accessible on many places on the web.

I'm thinking perhaps I should write something up that makes everything more directly relevant to Heard's prosecution, and the video she recorded, and includes some of the thoughts I've included here in this discussion. I'm busy on other stuff at the moment, until then, leaving that fact concerning her legal troubles in Australia is only all good surely, I know as a wikipedia reader, I appreciate more relevant facts in an article rather than less. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pixelwash (talk • contribs) 21:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Amber Heard and Elon Musk

Here is what I said earlier on my talk page about why it was reverted: "The reason why this edit was reverted because of concerns about BLP and its overall suitability. The source from People (magazine) is typical glossy supermarket magazine stuff ("they walked arm-in-arm" etc) and doesn't really meet Wikipedia's standard of reliable sourcing. There is also an element of WP:NOTNEWS here. What Amber Heard is doing seems to be a perpetual fascination for the tabloids, but as WP:BLPSOURCES says, "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." Wikipedia isn't People magazine, so this should not be used as a source. All of the other sources mentioning this are citing the article in People magazine.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

And I will just take it a step further (or maybe put into plain english some of the MOS guidelines you listed) and repeat what some of my edit summaries stated - She has dated many people. He has dated many people. We've all dated many people. Not every date is important, certainly not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not WhosDatedWho.com. Also, most of the articles I have seen posted say words like "on a date" or "hanging out". Kellymoat (talk) 11:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Given the "Personal Life" section's celebrity-gossip nature, and the rest of the article's, and the fact that we have biographies like this in Wikipedia at all, I'd go ahead and include a mention of Musk. The Musk connection has been reported in enough places to establish its notability for celebrity observers. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Again, for the "I don't know how many times because it has been so long and so many different places", encyclopedias and gossip mags are not the same thing. Kellymoat (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

If you're worried about WP turning into a gossip mag, I'd first address the amount of dirt-digging in the article about Heard's Australia bust and about her divorce from Johnny Depp. The stuff in the People article isn't controversial and there's not an issue with its factual accuracy. That leaves relevance, which is mostly a matter of whether someone reading the article would find the info relevant. I'd find it more relevant than the salacious details of the Johnny Depp divorce. There's tons of additional sourcing[6] from outlets comparable to the ones in the Johnny Depp section if you're simply being snooty about People mag. IMHO the People article is perfectly ok for this. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 16:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

If one date is significant... Kellymoat (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

It's been going on for a long time and apparently is acknowledged now. I haven't followed it though. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 19:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Just a note: We had a big RfC about People magazine back in 2013 at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard; see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 157#RfC: Is People magazine a reliable source for BLPs?. As seen from reading the RfC, consensus was that the source is reliable for WP:BLP articles. It was not considered a tabloid journalism source by the vast majority of editors. The closer also clarified for anyone who might misinterpret the "contentious" aspect of the close.

That stated, we don't always need to include a current romantic partner in a person's Wikipedia biography. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Even though we agree on the end result (do not include), I think that if People is doing celebrity gossip like "look who's dating", it's still celebrity gossip. That's why most of those type of articles appear in a specialized section of the magazine. But, that's my loss for not participating in the discussion. Kellymoat (talk) 21:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

What do you call the current section (without Musk) if something other than celebrity gossip? The Johnny Depp stuff made me cringe and is far more problematic from a BLP point of view than the Musk thing. Better to shrink it to a sentence or two. Also, People's RS-ness about Musk shouldn't be an issue at this point, because there are so many other sources, per the search link further up. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 03:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I may agree with you that there is way too much tabloid journalism being included in more recent articles that is not found in 1930's articles (people from, not articles started in - obviously), but Depp and Heard were married. The marriage lessens the gossip aspect of it because it was an actual relationship.

Take a step back from Musk and Heard for a minute, and just put it in terms of your own life. Think of every date you have ever been on (date, hook up, hanging out, chillin', study buddy, lab partner, key party - whatever your favorite term may be). Out of all of those dates, how many of those people did you see again. How many did you have a relationship with. How many long term relationships. And finally, really, if you had an article about your life and career, how many of all of those people would you think should be included in your article?Kellymoat (talk) 12:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

By Wikipedia tradition, the notable ones are the ones that are documented by RS, which is definitely the case with Musk. I actually (no pun intended) never heard of Heard before noticing her mentioned in connection with Musk. It's actually more interesting about Musk than it is about Heard. The one unusual thing I noticed in Heard's biography was that she's into Ayn Rand, which suggests that Musk (like Peter Thiel, Alan Greenspan and some others) might also be a follower, which was something I didn't know about him (of course it's not a sure thing now either). I still think there is way too much dirty laundry in the Johnny Depp section. I'd just have a quick summary with links to relevant sources for people who want to study the topic more deeply. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I've now trimmed the personal life section as I was the one to expand it some months earlier. As for Musk, I think Kellymoat is correct. While it is true that the Musk romance has gained a lot of notability in the media, we should only mention a relationship when it's either cemented by an engagement or marriage (or similar legal union), or when it is considered long-standing (i.e. a couple of years, certainly not a couple of weeks or months) and is acknowledged by even "super RS" sources (e.g. NYT, The Times, The Guardian, LATimes...). It's necessary to be very strict about this as otherwise, given the current 24/7 newsfeed on stars' lives, Wikipedia will end up looking tabloid-ish. It's too early to predict how serious this relationship is.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Thanks and no prob: NYT, The Times, LA Times, didn't see anything in the Guardian but the Washington Post had something, etc. I'm bemused by this discussion. The Musk thing is not even slightly controversial or obscure or unflattering. Hollywood celebrities like Heard live for such attention, and let's not kid ourselves, the wiki article is a celebrity biography. Yet we're supposed to clamp down on it more than we would about child abuse allegations or something like that? I don't think we're doing our readers any favors. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct in that it's definitely not controversial, obscure, or unflattering. But to clarify, I meant: "long-standing (i.e. a couple of years, certainly not a couple of weeks or months) and is acknowledged by even "super RS" sources". The NYT page isn't there anymore, and The Times and LAT refer to it as a date. In other words, it's still a trivial factoid when you look at the larger picture; just because it's widely reported in the media doesn't mean it's relevant to be included. What if next month she is seen on a date with someone else? And then two months later with another guy/woman? If we start adding all new relationships and dates, the section becomes tabloid-ish and cluttered with irrelevant details. Why not wait for a bit, what's the rush? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

• Yikes, I wasn't expecting all this. Bottom line to me is if it's good enough for them to put it on their social media accounts and talk about it in the media and what not, then it should be good enough for their wikipedia articles. Her dad told a British fashion magazine that she wants to marry and have kids with him. Well, we'll see about that.Trillfendi (talk) 16:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

References

This entire thread is ridiculous, this has been in the news outlets all over - it was in AP News. Other articles on Wikipedia include long term, celebrity dating information. It seems like WP editors here are purposefully trying to control facts on a BIO, is there any COI here we should know about? They dated for a year - that is a significant relationship. Jooojay (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

References

Same as what I said at Talk:Elon_Musk#About_Amber_Heard. If nobody makes further objections the WP:SILENCE will be taken as to include this information. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Woah, biased much?

This article blows my mind. I've never seen anything remotely close to this on Wikipedia, and I can't believe there are like 230 of you watching this article. Yesterday, a comment about Heard's very real and public emotional abuse of Johnny Depp was removed bc your editor found it not to matter! It's an undeniable fact that two days after his mother died she filed for divorce (and yes, that's about as malicious as it gets). Yet months worth of allegations (a key word) that Amber Heard and her anonymous sources fed to magazines you deride as tabloids every time you feel the need to remove something are left in, rearranged, expounded on and reposted.

The edit before that removed a note that Heard refused to be deposed twice due to lack of citation?! In fact, she refused to be deposed twice and then dismissed the temporary restraining order WITH prejudice, which no one has included anywhere. She indeed refused to be deposed by screaming and yelling and stating out loud that she would not give it.

Johnny Depp was never arrested, charged, or convicted of any crime or any kind of abuse of Amber Heard. That's an absolute fact that was backed up by the LAPD. No one paid attention when they stated it the first time, Amber Heard called the LAPD liars, and the police stated again that there was no indication of any crime. Where is that little tidbit of truth in your article? If I had to guess I would say it was once included and has been edited away repeatedly. I can't prove it though, because you've spent 18 pages of edits just on whether she's a lesbian or a bi-sexual, and I don't have nine days to sift through this monstrosity.There are so many obvious Heard fans or employees changing this article constantly that you have a serious, serious issue in even hoping to approach anything close to objective reality. It took me two seconds of edits to be absolutely disgusted and see the writing on the wall clearly. What are you people thinking? This needs some seriously level-headed oversight, it's absolutely insanely crazy. I'll tell you one thing for sure, I will never, never, never take a Wikipedia article as remotely trustworthy againHadenough3 (talk) 18:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Hadenough3: you need to cite professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources for your claims, especially claims about living persons. We do not engage in rumor mongering. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ian.Thomson I get what you're saying. I cited the "no crime". I've not been on this site but once since way back when it started and frankly who has the time for this? I take issue with your reply to me though. I gave you valid, visible input as to the state of this article, which I have thus far had absolutely nothing to do with. I am not equally anything with any of you, do you understand that? If you, or anyone else is going to edit (be responsible for) the ACTUAL page, not the "talk" page, you have an absolute responsibility to know what is actually going on with that subject. I am not rumor mongering in the least, and took the time to give you the reference for the lack of any kind of arrest, charges, conviction of allegations you see fit to use as verified simply because Amber Heard said it happened, and some paper reported it. Actual witnesses, LAPD no less, said there was absolutely no evidence of any crime. She proved nothing in court, and the temporary restraining order was dismissed. so what you all have included here are simply "allegations". the edits I complained of other people making are simply nitpicking and trying to include as much negative to Depp and favorable to Heard as possible. Do you know I could not even find a way to reply to the comments I saw here about my post. I do not know how to work this site, but that's a far lesser crime than people having that absolute audacity to edit the actual page when they have no idea of the actual facts of the case. An article for Amber Heard has more concern about what she accused someone else of, than what she has actually done in her life. Her assault of Tasya Van Ree was reported in multiple verified news outlets. These things are easily found on court websites. I did it a year ago with no plan to write the official history of this woman on an Encyclopedia website. I'm grateful to the woman who said a brief notation of the marriage and divorceis probably all that should be submitted here. Look up Cary Grant and tell me more than one sentence is written about any of his spouses! They were married for 15 months. You all let this happen and contribute to it daily. There is some really serious women's lib, DV advocate, special interest crap going on here, and you call me a rumor monger? You are affecting a LPB other than this one, and damaging a man's reputation over rumors and gossip mag articles. YOU, and everyone else who has edited this article EXCEPT me. If you can't do due diligence on the actual record of the person before editing, you DON'T BELONG posting on the article AT ALL. Message me, berate me, sandbox me, kick me off the site. I can't actually manage to even reply to a message! But it's all MY fault, and I'm responsible for the mess that's be propagated on this page for years. Okay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadenough3 (talk • contribs)

References

As a matter of fact...

other than maybe looking to see if anyone did anything about this, I doubt I'll ever use Wikipedia again. What intelligent person would after seeing this mess? I'm not saying that to be insulting, I'm saying it because I'm trying to have enough respect for it to be completely and totally honest about how disappointing and disillusioning this really is.Hadenough3 (talk) 18:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Hadenough3: cite professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources for your claims. That's what determines article content, especially for claims about living persons. We do not engage in rumor mongering. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I stand with Hadenough3. The way Wikipedia has handled this situation is shameful and makes the bias against male victim of domestic violence clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.24.191.238 (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Here's what you missed.

On Amber Heard's own Wikipedia page you have her allegations against Depp, but do not have a section about her trouble with the law. The 230 special interest only "watchers" on the article conveniently failed to include Amber Heard's own arrest for domestic violence against Tasya Van Rae in 2009! You also failed to note her trouble with the law in high school! That's not even taking into consideration the fact that she plead guilty to falsifying documents in Australia but you still didn't see fit to mention it as anything other than "personal life". She also "married" Tasya in a state where it was not legal and changed her last name to Van Rae to subvert the law in that issue. This woman obviously needs an entire separate section on her criminal history. Where is it?

Every single editor on this article has just been proven to be only concerned with tweaking the spin on Amber's public image into a favorable light! I have an idea. Why don't you go back and see if you can add/delete/re-add/edit/fix language on another ten pages about whether or not you can state outright that she was ever dating Johnny Depp.

You should all be ashamed of yourselves. What you have done here is not what Wikipedia was EVER intended to be. You all need some real supervision.Hadenough3 (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Hadenough3: you need to cite professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources for your claims, especially claims about living persons. We do not engage in rumor mongering.

You also need to assume good faith. By posting here, you've proven a capacity to edit here and so you are just as responsible for this article as anyone else. This is a volunteer based project, so you're just as much to blame for whatever state this article takes. Instead of rage-turbating, try learning how things work here and calmly help like a rational grown up. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:28, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello all -- When it comes to an accurate account of what a couple's life was like, divorce papers are probably the least reliable of any words set to paper. In most states the practice is no-fault divorce. The law still demands statements of cruelty and the like. When it comes to property settlements, child custody, and restraining orders, we leave it to the lawyers to weave incredible stories. It's all just negotiation. We should just ignore it.

WP is an encyclopedia. The most it should say is "The couple had an acrimonious divorce," and leave it at that. Or don't say anything at all. There is nothing noteworthy about what went on behind the front door of that house. Our energy is better spent cleaning up the backlog of almost perfect articles. My $0.02 Rhadow (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

WP should say a little more than that, but yes, less. And that goes even more for the section about the dogs. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

What do you think should be cut? In the section about the dogs, I've cut the sentence stating Heard's charges and have only kept the actual sentence, but otherwise, I'm not sure how it's possible to tighten the section. The first sentence states what happened, the next that she made an appearance at the court and her explanation of what happened. The third is the sentence she received, the fourth states that Heard & Depp also made the video in which they talked about biosecurity, and the final sentence is The Guardian's statement that the case was the most famous biosecurity case in Australian history, demonstrating the media attention to the case.

As for the two paragraphs on the divorce and the abuse allegations, "acrimonious divorce" isn't enough in a high publicity case like this, it's far too ambiguous. Heard made some pretty heavy allegations, which she backed up with a lot evidence (photographs, a video clip, statements from witnesses) and which were deemed by a judge to be credible enough for a temporary restraining order. For balance, Depp's lawyer's statement that she was allegedly fabricating the abuse to gain more money is also included. The second paragraph simply states when the divorce was finalized and reproduces the joint statement issued, as well as the amount of money Heard gained and her public plans to donate the entire sum to charity. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Amber Heard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141017011920/http://www.fhm.com/girls/amber-heard-the-interview-20081007 to http://www.fhm.com/girls/amber-heard-the-interview-20081007
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130828204803/http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/news/all-the-boys-love-mandy-lane-trailer.php to http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/news/all-the-boys-love-mandy-lane-trailer.php
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://www.twitter.com/laurabenanti/status/123359279620169728

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

TMZ

Emir of Wikipedia, regarding this, we typically stay away from using TMZ as a source in our BLPs. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Slow Editing

This page has not been updated for a LOOONG time now, there is no mention of her dating Elon Musk or Vito Schnabel, they aren't listed as her partners with dates.

Please Update, or remove the silver lock — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.50.154.247 (talk) 00:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring

ImprovedWikiImprovment and Sebastian James have been edit warring over this. IWI, please provide policy based arguments for why an arrest of a celebrity and the response of the victim are not relevant. And what exactly is "controversial" about any of that? Also please do not do this thing where you edit war (a revert of a revert of a revert = edit war) and admonish the other editor to use the talk page and do not even start a discussion. Your complaint to BLP/N indicates other BLP issues without listing them which is difficult to work with. Rather than us reviewing the article in detail (I read through it) why don't you list the problems here? Thanks. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

@DIYeditor and Sebastian James: Very simple answer to your first request: WP:V; I thought that there was inadequate sources, especially when the victim himself (USA Today source) said it was "over-sensationalised" (WP:NOTSCANDAL). I approached the contributor on their talk page and they replied on mine and then went silent on the matter, I reverted twice per WP:BRD. I’ll list the problems if you wish at some point this evening. IWI (chat) 16:13, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

And for that matter the BLP policy overall, which is one of the reasons to go against the three-revert rule anyway. IWI (chat) 16:52, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

She (the victim is a "she") just used the word "over-sensationalised" and then the article became a complete scandal? Wonderful! "then went silent on the matter," Well, i am not on Wikipedia 24 h, of course it will take time to respond. These two, for example, doesn't mean you are right. Also, i suggest talking to @Jogarv:, since they are the one who added this info in the first place. Some sources for the incident: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. Sebastian James (talk) 23:35, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

@Sebastian James: My mistake, the victim was a woman and I knew this so I don't know why I put "him". But I'm just saying that you can't make wild claims with a single source. We need multiple reliable sources (The Mirror for example, is not considered particularly reliable). I'm going to check the sources individually now. No need to get upset with me, I'm protecting the person this article it is about and enforcing policy, just in case these claims are untrue. IWI (chat) 00:28, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Here is my say on the sources:

• People magazine source: Seems okay; but partial link to TMZ
  
• Mirror: Unreliable source
  
• NZ Herald: Sources from TMZ, which is unreliable
  
• ETonline: Sources from TMZ
  
• USmagazine: Unobtainable; couldn't access site
  
• Global news: Sources from TMZ
  
• VOX: No mention
  
• National post: Sources from TMZ

The whole thing seems to be brought to attention due to allegations against Johnny Depp, essentially sensationalising a "grab of the arm". Not saying this didn't happen, but we need more reliable sources. They all essentially link back to TMZ, which is unreliable. IWI (chat) 00:41, 23 December 2018 (UTC)