Draft talk:Depp vs. Heard

Rename to Depp vs Heard proposal

RW covers #Metoo trials, in that it covers Epstein and Weinstein. But usually builds bios instead of getting to the meat of the case. The bios aren't really that relevant, but the cases are Neiltyson1fan (talk) 13:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I see this page was made by AlienTraveler, most likely as a way to cover Depp vs Heard, however trying to introduce a bio on someone not notable to RW outside of Depp vs Heard would likely give ammunition to delitionists, rather than just trying to name the page after case. Nonetheless, this page is interesting Neiltyson1fan (talk) 13:34, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I can't see how he is particularly relevant to the mission. Is he promoting some kind of pseudoscience? If so then we should be reading about that.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 15:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

This is why I'm arguing the page be moved to one about a metoo trial, because the second this page becomes negative about Heard, at least one person will try to remove it on grounds of Johnny not commenting on science. See our Jeffrey Epstein article for other #metoo articles. In that it's about the crankery or lack thereof of the largest trial since OJ Simpson Neiltyson1fan (talk) 15:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

No one is gonna comment on this topic anytime soon, this entire topic was content warning'd on Saloon Bar, so I'll just move it to Draft:Depp vs Heard myself. I don't really care if it enters mainspace as it's not my article per se Neiltyson1fan (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, this is disspiriting - bin it. Alientraveller (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Potentially problematic wording?

"The mainstream media has been [b]schizophrenic[/b] on the topic" this seems confusing to me, I'm not sure I understand the metaphor here. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

changed it 2600:8806:0:C2:28F2:97B8:651E:CA45 (talk) 18:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

People should edit on the merit of the case or not

or bin the page, rather than ATIM everyone who writes on AlienTraveler's (awful) first article. But that might be too difficult for RW on this topic, which also might be related to why the topic of this article in general was content warning'd on saloonbar Neiltyson1fan (talk) 18:55, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Nothing more than celebrity fluff.

It will be forgotten about in six months and will have no impact on anything our mission is about - and it is very doubtful that it will have any impact on any other tangential social issues.

There are plenty of celebrity divorces going on all the time and it would be easy to suggest that any given one had some deeper social implication. In realty it's just gossip.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:45, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it necessarily warrants an inclusion in RW. Then again almost 70% of the articles here don't either. It was however the largest jury trial since OJ. Additionally the things that would make it notable for inclusion would have to be making the article about elitist, professional class, and misandrist denialism of DV against men, which the first author showed, and probably no one has the guts to write about Neiltyson1fan (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I mean this entire case was literally a shitshow where the MSM kept saying Heard was a victim, when the jury and almost the entire public accurately thought she was instead the aggressor, based on the evidence presented. If that doesn't show elitist bias against male claims of DV, I don't know what does. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 20:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Bob here. This is a civil suit (defamation), so is highly unlikely to have any legal consequence outside of that trial. If they weren't celebrities, no one would be talking about it. Bongolian (talk) 00:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Which could be said about all of #metoo RE: celebrity. RE: criminality, no it wasn't a criminal case Neiltyson1fan (talk) 01:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

The argument for how it is missional from the original author would be that mainstream American society has bias against females who were sexually abused and speak out about it. And to point out how various alleged cranks cover for that. That argument is so ridiculous RE: this topic, I'm glad no one reverted to her delusional edits. My argument is that the only honest way to make this article missional is to prove this case showed elitist disregard for a male who received false rape allegations and was a prominent victim of serious, violent abuse, and that the media and cranks widely played cover for the abuse, and perpetuated false narratives about the topic in the first place. However, given that isn't science, the #metoo topic in general doesn't fully meet the criteria for inclusion on RW along with every other (existing mainspace) page on gender or sexual abuse topics Neiltyson1fan (talk) 01:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

This discussion sort of reminds me of the previous draft I edited (but didn't create) two people made an unnecessary stampede about. Claiming it was just a fluff subject, totally not deserving of any space on RW, until it was This text was agreed to be deleted twice on the basis of the larger RW draft article on the same subject (Jake), but was later reintroduced with the exact same writing by the same author who deleted it. Mindless, juvenile behaviour caused by overreactions to draftspace Neiltyson1fan (talk) 01:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

The difference between Depp/Heard and #metoo is that the latter was much wider in scope, with Weinstein alone having abused many victims. It also gave the possibility of reforming Hollywood at least, if not the wider problem of sexual abuse in the workplace. Bongolian (talk) 19:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

This is the second libel action

Depp lost that one, it was decided in a British court with British libel laws. It was not a jury trial, with judge's ruling Depp was in fact a wife beater so the papers calling him as such did not libel him - the claims essentially true.

This second case was decided by jury and the jury came to it's conclusions not from deciding the essential facts of the case but as arbiters of a grotesque popularity contest. Heard did not lose because she could not prove her claims nor did Depp proved her claims were false. She lost because the jury and by extension the public at large did not like heard.

And it still decided Depp assaulted heard. They just think she was asking for it. Where ever the truth of the case actually lies, this second trial is a media led traversty by anyone's standard that shows claims of domestic violence can be disputed with the relative popularity of the opposing sides - a tactic the judge led British trial that found against Depp was able to shutdown from the outset.

Depressingly this is a tactic that is brutally effective even in actual criminal cases of misogynistic violence making justice for its victims a traumatic and futile ordeal and reinforces and allows a culture of misogyny to thrive. AMassiveGay (talk) 08:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Concerning the effects of race and sex bias on jury decision. Note : This is for criminal cases in the UK. Herr Doktor Enter into the rabbit hole 09:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

IMHO the only part of this case that might fall under the RW mission IMHO is if any of the pro-Depp mob (which was dominant on social media) spilled into toxic masculinity territory, like Gamergate did. A few articles have claimed such, but I personally didn't see it. (However, I have steered clear of the shitshow, so this is just commentary based on whatever was promoted to r/all the few times I look at that steaming turd for bemusement). It seemed more like garden variety brigading from what I saw. RW doesn't cover all online mobs, we don't have need articles on the myriad of shit in that department, ranging from meme stocks to eating Tide pods to Rick and Morty fans rioting over Szechuan sauce.

Part of the "fun" of r/all is seeing how so many fail to recognize the years old recycled memes (often with falsehoods a-plenty) pumped up by karma-seeking accounts. Similarly, the online mob has failed to understand that the show trial was of limited scope: it was defamation, in both cases, nothing more, nothing less, and had only an indirect relationship with any domestic violence claims. It seems a stretch to proclaim victory or defeat on any war of the sexes type issue, no matter how much online space is wasted on this sort of thing. I am guessing that, in the end, this will be of limited impact, a footnote in the human circus. We don't have an article on Roxanne Pulitzer, either (bonus points if you remember that shitshow). 35.140.177.2 (talk) 13:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Turns out anyone can make up a story about anything Neiltyson1fan (talk) 14:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

RE Sun decision, that's in the lede already. However I honestly don't think this article will make it to mainspace under any circumstance, considering RW's prior hostility to public opinion on this topic, perhaps as a downstream consequence of how awful Gamergaters were, and they associate this with that, for some reason. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 14:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

And the things to make the article more missional would generate too much controversy, not really worth it Neiltyson1fan (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Of note is that only 10% of the public, randomly sampled, believe Amber Heard according to Rasmussen. With 4x more of the general public believing Depp. That aint no cadre of frat boys online, but the general public. The jury also likely had a liberal bias considering Fairfax county is hypermajority Democrat https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/entertainment/april_2022/more_americans_believe_johnny_depp Neiltyson1fan (talk) 14:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Therefore cranks trying to shove the outcome of the case into conservative politics is dumb. Including when the GOP twitter and some conservative newspaper did that. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 14:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)