Talk:DARVO

no evidence in source for trump example

there is no evidence in the source for the trump example AbleistSL (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

The article is literally about Trump being an expert user of DARVO; so there is. Idell (talk) 08:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Does a single Boston Globe opinion piece rise to the level of NPOV? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.139.85.145 (talk) 14:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The Trump section needs to be removed. That article is not only incorrect, it's intentionally misrepresenting past incidents and details. Of specific note, Trump was correct in his claim of innocence on harassment allegations from Stormy Daniels (exonerated when she was to repay all his court costs for her frivolous lawsuits). He was also correct on his statement that the Clinton campaign paid for a fabricated intelligence "report" or "dossier" claiming numerous connections between his companies and entities in Russia. FEC just fined the Clinton campaign for paying for this dossier without disclosing. I'm removing this reference. The "article" sourced is a political hit piece, not an objective piece of journalism. Not only that, but the Goldwater rule in American politics makes it clear that diagnosing politicians with psychological problems is absolutely inappropriate in any setting. ClairelyClaire (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

It does seem a bit 'off' to cite the person who created the acronym as an authority on application of the acronym to someone else. A bit auto-incestuous. Almost original research. --142.163.195.221 (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

This is the exact opposite of original research. She is Professor Emerit of Psychology at the University of Oregon and has published multiple, peer reviewed articles on the subject. Ifnord (talk) 01:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

There is some confusion above, in the use of the term original research. What was meant by IP, was undoubtedly Wikipedia's sense of the term, namely, WP:Original research. However, the OR guideline applies not to valid, reliable sources, but to Wikipedia editors who make assertions based on their own understanding of a term, rather than what the reliable sources have to say about it. User:Ifnord uses the term in its common, English meaning, in which "original research" is highly to be desired in academia, and in fact is a requirement, for example, in the awarding of a Ph.D. With respect to the Boston Globe article, non-WP:INDEPENDENT is a bigger problem than NPOV, as Freyd is a co-author.

The issue of "Original research" is a red herring here. IP 142 attempted to identify a problem in this article, but misidentified it as WP:OR. The actual problem is the overuse of WP:PRIMARY and non-independent sources, that is to say, the article is about DARVO and the sources are either primary sources credited to the original articles about the term, or Freyd is involved as an author. The NYT site never mentions it; NAR seems to be a blog or website run by an individual; Harsey (2016) is a primary source; the rest are all by Freyd as author or co-author, except for the Chicago Tribune article which seems to be a fully independent and secondary source; there needs to be more like that one. Mathglot (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

A couple more sources that might be useful here: [1][2]. I'll add them to the article. Generalrelative (talk) 22:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

White genocide conspiracy theory

Why is it included here? Can someone elaborate on why it follows the DARVO scheme? --132.180.69.85 (talk) 12:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I removed it, as it was recently added but without any explanation or source. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 12:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Depp-Heard

I removed the sentence mentioning Depp-Heard 2022, whose only sources are articles written post-trial by apparent Heard supporters. These articles clearly accuse Depp of being a physical and sexual abuser who utilised the DARVO technique against his "victim". This is a problematic addition.

The jury ultimately found Heard's claims of physical and sexual abuse to be uncredible, and made with an intention to harm Depp's reputation and career. The court heard audio recordings where Heard admitted to physically abusing Depp, and also where she taunted Depp saying nobody would believe she'd abused him. As such, the conduct of Depp's legal team is not an example of DARVO; Heard is in the court record admitting to being a domestic abuser, with Depp the victim. This situation actually looks like DARVO - but with Heard the abuser. The court's verdict would support this perspective, but I've yet to see any reputable sources put forward this claim.

As such, please do not re-add a mention to Depp-Heard unless you can provide sources which do not:

1) Falsely label Depp a domestic and sexual abuser.

2) Falsely label Heard a victim of domestic and sexual abuse at the hands of Depp.

3) Ignore how Heard admitted she had physically abused Depp and taunted him saying nobody would believe him.

4) Ignore Heard's previous arrest for domestic violence against a now-former girlfriend. Kronix1986 (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

By what criterion would yours not be an unsourced OR, in short an encyclopedically irrelevant personal opinion? --82.84.18.254 (talk) 04:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

> 1) Falsely label Depp a domestic and sexual abuser.

> 2) Falsely label Heard a victim of domestic and sexual abuse at the hands of Depp.

I get that you have strong opinions about this, but these are not actually false labels, depending on where you are. These allegations were considered substantially true by a UK court. So it's basically a matter of opinion whether the UK (non-jury) trial process was flawed, or the US (jury) trial was. 37.4.251.165 (talk) 09:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Heard was not a party in the UK trial, only the journal The Sun and Depp were, hence the considerations that Depp could be labelled a domestic violence perpetrator was a germaine issue only partially investigated to resolve the main issue whether The Sun's publication was defamation or free speech. To put it simply, the UK trial had to answer the question of whether The Sun had enough credible information to publish their story in honesty (ie, not whether the story was true, but whether The Sun could genuinely believe it was true), whereas the US trial investigated whether the parties (the authors) themselves defamed the other one (ie, whether the statements were actually true). In any case, the main issue here that should concern us is that opinion pieces are not usually considered reliable sources, especially when they state claims that are totally counter to court proceedings which have a higher reliability weight, but even then an analysis published by lawyers in a reputable expert journal or magazine (ie, specialized in law) would be preferable. --2001:861:5100:5C60:E385:DE8D:9AC1:1D9F (talk) 00:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• I don't have a personal opinion and haven't looked into the issue thoroughly, but at the trial article, specifically at Depp v. Heard#Other reactions, including effect on #MeToo, there are multiple references supporting claims that DARVO was involved. Surprisingly, I don't see discussion explicitly about this specific question on the case talk page, though I just did a brief scan. --BDD (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

This incorrect statement still appears on this page as an example of DARVO: "The behavior of Johnny Depp after his ex-wife Amber Heard published an op-ed mentioning the consequences of speaking up against domestic abuse." This opinion should be removed, as it is an opinion and not a fact, and is overly biased to the point that it does not teach people about the subject this page is supposed to be on. Labeling people as perpetrators of DARVO also does not seem appropriate for a wikipedia page, as this is a topic where the victim is just as likely to be labeled as the abuser. If the victim is incorrectly labeled here instead of the abuser, it can further be used as a way to abuse the victim and makes wikipedia a less reliable source.

An entire jury of her peers in the US unanimously found her to be maliciously lying about being a victim of DV and SV, and the UK trial should not be treated as a more reliable source when she wasn't a party to it. This is also not a clear example of DARVO, as only Johnny Depp has hospitalization records showing that he experienced abuse. All of the hospitalization records Amber Heard claims to have are mental health records and were self reported and never confirmed by a medical doctor. Also, he started making these statements in 2015 when he cut his finger and told Dr. Kipper that Amber Heard did it, and not after she published the op-ed as this statement implies. This is proven in audio recordings between Dr. Kipper and one of his nurses.

Please remove this overly-biased opinion as it does not belong on wikipedia. 172.58.43.255 (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

The presence of the line about Depp is a gigantic violation of WP:NPOV and means the article is essentially defamation. He successfully won a court case which sought to disprove exactly what this article is now alleging, in the country they are both originally from, and not in a foreign country where she was not even directly part of the trial. Remove it immediately as this is both disgusting and extremely against what Wikipedia should be for. 83.85.201.57 (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, two of the "sources" cited are BBC and The Guardian, which are both widely associated with bigotry such as transphobia, and using them as a "reliable source" in any gender-related matters is absolutely ridiculous, comparable to citing Fox News in an article about American politics. 83.85.201.57 (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I deleted the line. The jury found that Amber Heard did not commit acts of abuse against Johnny Depp. No journalist's differing opinion matters after that. Tocharianne (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Support your deletion because of BLP considerations. Just to be perfectly clear: although I support your conclusion, your rationale is utterly false: there is no Wikipedia guideline or policy elevating the finding of a U.S. jury above the accounts written by journalists and published in reliable sources. Any such published account which adheres to policy and duly represents the general opinion of reliable sources without running afoul of other policies (such as WP:BLP) most certainly may be included in the article, regardless what any jury declares. Mathglot (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

The jury didn't rule on whether Heard abused Depp. The jury used Heard's own admissions of her abusing Depp as evidence, and came to the conclusion she was probably also lying about Depp beating and raping her. Heard cannot, by definition, be a victim of DARVO; she admitted she had physically abused Depp. Kronix1986 (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I shouldn't have added my opinion; that just confused the situation. My main point was just to delete the line entirely. There are a lot of strong opinions on the Depp/Heard case, and I think this has the potential to turn into an edit war about adding/deleting the line, or claiming one party to be the victim versus the other. Since the particular Depp/Heard example isn't crucial to the DARVO article, it should just be deleted from here. The place to discuss the case is on the Depp/Heard page. Tocharianne (talk) 19:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)