Template:Vital article

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers / Musicians B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians. This article has had a peer review which is now archived. United States: Kentucky B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Kentucky (assessed as High-importance). African diaspora B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Add at the end of 4.1

On 31 January 2020, audio recordings of Heard admitting hitting Depp and throwing heavy objects at him were published internationally.^{[1] [2]} RunsWritesCode (talk) 11:33, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. It's not clear how the fact that some audio recordings have been published is relevant here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quote; "It's not clear how the fact that some audio recordings have been published is relevant here."

Then let me clarify the relevance for you. You see, the referred audio recordings namely directly disproves the weasel wording in the sentence written under the section "Relationship with Amber Heard", which states; "In early 2020, Depp released audio recordings of conversations between himself and Heard, which he alleges corroborate some of the claims he had previously made in his lawsuit.[159]"

I have bolded the weasel words. Obviously, the "alleges" is weasel as the audio recording where Heard is literally saying that "I can't promise I won't get physical again, I get so mad I lose it." for a fact corroborate his statements, hence they are no longer "allegations". Okama-San (talk) 04:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"It’s not clear how evidence of domestic abuse is relevant here"

Disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself. StrexcorpEmployee (talk) 12:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The dogs were mentioned here on Wikipedia, and this came up on WPVI web site in Philadelphia just now because of unrelated story about a pigeon which made it to Australia: "In 2015, the government threatened to euthanize two Yorkshire terriers, Pistol and Boo, after they were smuggled into the country by Hollywood star Johnny Depp and his ex-wife Amber Heard. Faced with a 50-hour deadline to leave Australia, the dogs made it out in a chartered jet."

I am reminded that on the Lassie TV series in 1964, the Martin family was written out of the show by moving to Australia and having to leave Lassie behind. Carlm0404 (talk) 04:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article not making mention of the audio tapes released showing Heard confessing to abuse is at best intellectual dishonesty. If some people believe the tapes to be taken out of context, they should add in that context rather than censoring mention of the tapes completely. Anything else cannot possibly taken to be in good faith. Snokalok (talk) 01:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To add, Amber Heard is quoted in the tape as saying “I can't promise you I won't get physical again. God I fucking sometimes get so mad I lose it” and “Tell the world, Johnny, tell them, Johnny Depp, I Johnny Depp, a man, I'm a victim too of domestic violence”. Saying that her claims of self defense after the fact constitute infallible evidence against this tape are purely dishonest. Snokalok (talk) 02:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[Please note that this is the same message I left to an almost identical Talk page message in the Amber Heard article]This is your interpretation of it, adding it to WP would be adding your POV (btw, the quotes you have written here come from two different tapes). The High Court of England and Wales found that there's overwhelming evidence that Depp abused Heard. The tape, as Heard has stated, contains discussion of self-defense, and she has been clear about this since when she filed for divorce (and at that stage, Depp didn't even accuse her of abuse... in fact their joint statement says nobody lied). It is common for abusers to try to twist self-defense as abuse. The tapes are snippets of discussions from Heard and Depp's arguments, not confessions. Please also see section VII: 169-176 in the High Court ruling. Please also note, from the same file, that Depp was completely unable to present any evidence of the abuse he alleges to have suffered. There is 0 actual evidence that Heard was abusive towards Depp. There is ample evidence that Depp was abusive towards Heard. There is also ample evidence that Depp is conducting a smear campaign (via Adam Waldman), claiming this tape is about her being abusive is part of it.

To add a mention of this tape would be going against facts, WP:BLP, and WP:AVOIDVICTIM. It would also make WP part of Depp's online smear campaign.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

Your response betrays your own POV. YOU'VE DECIDED Heard is discussing self-defense, YOU'VE DECIDED that it's a case of an abuser twisting self-defense as abuse, YOU'VE DECIDED it's a smear campaign. Your statement that there is 0 evidence of Heard being abusive is also rubbish; the man lost the tip of his finger and was seen with marks on his face that same night (from when he alleges she put a cigarette out on his face). Her saying that she gets physical because she gets mad is proof enough that it's not self-defense; it her anger. Those are her words. You're not objective in this at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.196.139.205 (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[Likewise, same thing] Multiple things you’ve said have been proven objectively false - there is physical evidence of the abuse Depp suffered, namely, his finger literally being removed and shown as such. Additionally, courts are not the arbitrators of what is true and right - once upon a time the US supreme court ruled that slavery was okay. Once upon a time, the SCOTUS ruled that banning homosexuality was okay. Once upon a time, the UK house of lords ruled BDSM can never legally be considered consensual, and I don’t even need to tell you how many rulings the UK legal system has struck against trans people. Courts are not the arbitrators of truth, they’re the arbitrators of government action.

Furthermore, I’d argue that not including the tape is a far worse act of POV than that, and that you’d be perpetuating the smear campaign committed against Heard by her victim, Johnny Depp.

Additionally, you seem to be treating Heard’s words as automatically true, and Depp’s as guilty until proven innocent. This is further POV, and in clear violation of wikipedia policy. The only objective thing to do would be to include the tape, and then include Heard’s statements on the contents. Otherwise you yourself are enforcing your own POV that Depp is automatically guilty and Heard is automatically innocent, and censoring any facts that may throw that view into question. This is again, your point of view, but not reflective of the truth of the discourse. If you like we can even include a “criticism” section, but the bottom line remains - the tape is relevant evidence, and if you believe it to not be reflective of the full picture, then the appropriate action is to add more information as to why, not to censor events completely to reinforce your worldview. Snokalok (talk) 06:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, law reflects the society it exists in and many laws are found to be abhorrent by later generations. That's why laws get changed. As it stands though, a 21st century High Court has found that there is overwhelming evidence from multiple sources backing up Heard's version of the events, not Depp's. Depp didn't lose on a technicality, he lost because the evidence —much of it discussions he had with his staff and friends and which his lawyers at first tried to prevent NGN's legal team from accessing— backed up Heard's account. You're free to believe that this is part of a grand conspiracy or an outdated legal system (how though? also remember that it was Depp who began these legal proceedings), but as it stands, there's no evidence to back it up. As for the finger, the judge found that on evaluating all the available evidence, Depp caused the injury himself while intoxicated and enraged. Again, POV, conspiracy theories and tabloid/smear campaign material do not have a place on WP.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 08:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

You’re missing the critical point though - it’s that courts are not infallible, judges are not infallible. Judicial rulings are simply opinions issued by one or more people whom both sides are trying to convince. The ruling as it stands doesn’t mean history proceeded that way, it simply means that one team of lawyers was able to convince a group of people of it better than the other team. Legal rulings do not dictate truth, they dictate a judge’s opinion, and the fact remains that these tapes being released is a relevant event that has had a significant effect on the course of future events, and to censor it would be to deny critical context to said future events in the name of preserving your and the high court’s point of view, which is just that, their point of view. It’s honesty to list their ruling and explain why they ruled that way, it’s not honest to censor any information or evidence that contradicts their ruling because all their ruling is is the point of view of someone given authority.

Also for the record, Heard also said under oath that she’d donate her winnings, and that has yet to occur, so clearly her testimony is not as automatically true as you might think. Snokalok (talk) 04:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The High Court found that Heard's allegations were proven to a civil standard, and that neither the claim that she was conducting some elaborate hoax against Depp nor that she was violent towards Depp except in self-defense (of which she has been clear ever since she filed divorce) were backed by evidence. His evidence included these tapes. As I've now said several times, you're free to keep thinking the way you do, but that's not what we should write in Wikipedia, because information from reliable sources does not support the way you want to think about this case. I would also seriously encourage you to be more critical with the sources you use and to learn more about this case before making such claims – that you do not seem to know that the statements you give above come from two separate tapes and that the London trial was not a jury trial do not give the impression that you actually know a lot about this case beyond tabloid headlines. I don't think this discussion is going anywhere. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

I never said it was a jury trial, but many court cases involve multiple judges and thus I felt it best to have my generalized statement on the nature of civil suits reflect that. The fact that you don’t realize this says to me that you hold a very limited knowledge of how court cases in general actually work.

Regardless, you continue to miss two facts: 1. Wikipedia, per its NPOV rules, takes an international perspective, and thus one country’s courts’ rulings do not dictate truth for it. 2. Even if Wikipedia were taking an anglocentric view, the fact remains that the results of court cases - and especially civil cases - do not reflect absolute reality, they reflect the beliefs of one court and determine what action that court will take.

By your logic, we’d have to completely rewrite our page on women’s rights because a court in Saudi Arabia took a very restrictive view on them. By your logic, we’d have to delete our Tiananmen Square article entirely because a court in China said it never happened. Simply put, the words of a court in the UK are just that, the words of a few people given limited legal power in one country. If you want to have in the page that the high court found no evidence of DV against Depp, fine, that’s a relevant finding, but enforcing that viewpoint as objective fact and deleting any mention of relevant events that throw that viewpoint into question is textbook violation of the NPOV policy and puts the possibility that you’re not acting in good faith on the table.

I’d like to bring up another example of what a more neutral coverage of a court case looks like. Consider, the wikipedia article on the OJ Simpson murder case. It says he was ruled innocent, which he was, however it also goes in depth listing the various evidence against Simpson, including DNA evidence placing him at the crime scene, and mention of documented evidence of OJ Simpson beating the hell out of his ex-wife, one of the murder victims. In keeping with the neutrality policy, like with the OJ case - even of a single court’s ruling says the alleged abuser is innocent, the documented evidence is still considered relevant to mention, and thus it is worth mentioning.

By your logic, we’d have to delete the mention of evidence of OJ abusing his wife and the mention of all the other evidence against him, because he was acquitted of her murder and never convicted for beating her (and thus is considered innocent under the American legal system).

Finally, I repeat my suggested course of action - we bring up the tape, and then add Amber Heard’s claim after the fact that she was acting in self defense. Snokalok (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aquillion, @Ianmacm, pinging you as you've both been active in the Amber Heard article, to alert you to the fact that the same exact BLP-breaking sentences have been added to this article by the same user.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

Reliable sources?

USA Today is one of the sources for discussion of the tapes and their veracity and significance; seems reliable in this context. I don't think anyone is (now) doubting that the tapes are real and related to the topic. The question should be whether they are notable in the context of the public discussion of the case and impact on the life of the subject, and whether there are countervailing reasons to avoid mentioning them.

Snok's proposal seems plausible, if the tapes influenced the course of the trial (some reports indicate it influenced who was willing to serve as witness) or public perception of it. The overall diff could be a clause or a sentence in the relevant paragraph. – SJ + 21:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone's questioning USA Today as a source or suggesting that the tapes are fake. The problem is what you mention in your third sentence. They haven't been discussed widely in the non-tabloid media, USA Today seems to be the only more RS source that has really published anything related to them. Furthermore, they did not play much of a role in the actual UK court case, and the verdict did not find any evidence that Depp would have been the abused party, with all evidence pointing to the other direction.

Depp's team has been leaking a lot of material to the tabloids, with The Daily Mail usually being the source of these 'bombshell revelations'. In fact, the second tape (i.e. the 'Heard taunting Depp about being a male victim of DV' tape) fits to this narrative of Heard-as-abuser only if you don't actually listen to the tape or read the transcript, i.e. know the context. As is typical for DM, they lifted a sentence out of it, changed the context, and created a clickbait article that doesn't stand up for any kind of closer scrutiny. Then, other online sites that regurgitate material from DM and ran with it. That alone should cast doubt about whether anything about these tapes should be added.

I would also like to point out that due to these leaks, Depp's lawyer, Adam Waldman, was actually thrown off the US libel case by its judge. I do agree that the public perception has been somewhat altered by these tapes (although I'd say it was on Depp's side from the beginning anyhow, given his enormous popularity with the millenials in the 2000s and Heard not fitting to what the public expects victims of DV to be like), but without excellent sources, it's simply not material that should go into either of these articles. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

More of your biased POV, saying that people were on Depp's side due to his "popularity" and deciding that people didn't believe Heard because she didn't seem like a standard DV victim. Now you're deciding what people were/are thinking and why. SMH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.196.139.205 (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense to wait for an RS to mention the significance of various audio recordings, not merely their existence. Perhaps a note that audio recordings played a persistent role in public discussion of the trial. On balance they don't seem to show what tabloid summaries suggest they do, but they make a regular appearance.([1]) – SJ + 20:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good find! We could add a mention, but we have to be very, extremely careful on the wording. Maybe it could be drafted here and discussed first? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the recordings don't seem to be that significant. But if that changes, or if they appear in the next trial as well, perhaps something like: "Depp kept audio recordings of their conversations, which played a role in some of the trials.[2]" – SJ + 20:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's been recordings on both sides, in fact I'm not entirely sure on which side these ones originate from. Apparently they used to record their arguments / couple's therapy sessions, and the staff also seemed to be in the habit of recording things (e.g. the Australia finger incident aftermath audio). But I get the gist of what you're saying and agree! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC) 21:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article says Heard donated her divorce settlement to charity but that's questionable at best; one article (https://www.cinemablend.com/news/2561159/how-amber-heards-team-responded-after-claims-rolled-around-she-hadnt-donated-her-johnny-depp-divorce-settlement) dated Jan. 8, 2021, says, "Amber Heard's attorney, Elaine Bredehoft has confirmed that Heard has yet to donate the full amount, but says the Aquaman actress has donated a large sum, and still plans to donate the rest, which she would have done already if she wasn't busy fighting court cases." Should the article at least be amended to note her claims of donating the money is being challenged? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.196.139.205 (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TrueHeartSusie3: I think you added this; update to say "pledged" as the other article does? – SJ + 20:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article is still incorrect. She didn't "pledge" to donate as you wrote; you can see her on this Dutch talk show, dated Oct. 2018, saying that she "donated" the money (about the 1:39 mark). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBH5O1ukpq8

That's her word, from her mouth, "donated." The word "pledged" only started being used after she was challenged.

This is significant to the cases they've filed, as this article in Deadline says, "While implicitly confirming Depp’s allegations that the donations weren’t fully made, Bredehoft’s explanation actually further complicates the matter in another manner. Depp sued Heard for defamation in 2019, over two years after the divorce settlement. So, what were the big bucks Heard had to pay out to lawyers from 2017 to 2019? ... That question may now become pivotal in the UK Having already seen one appeal attempt go nowhere, as Depp’s UK lawyers want a new trial in part because the first trial’s judge “failed to properly assess her credibility by reference to documentary evidence, photographs, recordings or otherwise.” ... Judge Nicol “concluded that the appellant was guilty of serious physical assaults without taking account of or even acknowledging that Ms. Heard had been untruthful in her evidence, without testing her account against the documentary evidence and the evidence of other witnesses, and without making any findings that he disbelieved those witnesses,” barrister David Sherborne wrote to the Appeals Court on Christmas Eve." (https://deadline.com/2021/01/johnny-depp-abuse-lawsuit-amber-heard-charitable-donations-disputed-divorce-1234667028/)

If you're going to bring up the $7 million payout at all, at least be fair and honest about it rather than glossing this over. IMHO, you're very biased toward Heard and that's inappropriate for WP.47.196.139.205 (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I hope that Homeostasis07 can explain his comment that these changes were "WP:POV, WP:UNDUE and generally defamatory edits." I honestly think at this stage that this editor is following my edits in general and reverting anything he just personally doesn't like, calling it supposedly defamatory. Note also his blanket removal of ALL the edits I made to the article on Saturday, even though most of them are not in any way controversial. These included simple reference and prose fixes, which I've now had to go and fix again. In the next sections, I am explaining my edits further, and hope that Homeostasis can explain how they were POV or defamatory.

Lede

• The lede is outdated and written in a fanpage style rather than in a more neutral, balanced manner. It does not give a good overview of Depp's four-decade career and its different stages (e.g. '80s teen idol > eccentric independent film actor > the most popular star of the 2000s > box office poison and controversy in the 2010s). Some of the things mentioned (small role in Platoon, Disney Hall of Fame induction) do not belong in the lede. The lede also includes downright false info, such as that Depp starred in Into the Woods, he has a small cameo. For this reason, I will be restoring the part of the lede prior to the controversies of the 2010s, which I believe is the part that Homeostasis disagrees with, even if he decided to blanket-revert every single edit based (it seems) simply on the fact that I had made them.
• Mentioning the controversy around Depp in the 2010s is not any of the things Homeostasis claims. It has been widely discussed in top media (e.g. The Hollywood Reporter, NYT, The Guardian, BBC...) since 2016/2017. He has gone from a beloved star to a persona non-grata in a manner that is considered pretty much unprecedented in Hollywood, this is a well-established fact. Even prior to this, he had become box office poison, with several media articles writing about the sudden turn-around (i.e. going from the Oscar-nominated top star that drew people to theatres to starring in a string of box office failures and being nominated for several Razzies) that begun around 2011/2012 and hasn't changed in the following decade. For the lede to be accurate, this needs to be mentioned in some format.

'Legal dealings'

• For some reason Emir of Wikipedia keeps changing the name of this section to weasel-y and very vague words like 'Legal dealings' or 'Legal actions', both of which could mean pretty much anything. The section is on Depp's lawsuits –filed both by him against others and others against him– as well as his arrests. Therefore, there should not be any problem labeling that section as "Lawsuits and arrests" as that's what it is about. It's a neutral way of summarizing the content of that section.

Other personal life

• "Following the end of his relationship with Vanessa Paradis, Depp began dating actress Amber Heard, with whom he had co-starred in The Rum Diary (2011)." — Homeostasis, care to explain why this is POV or defamatory? Prior it said they had met on the set of 2009, which doesn't explain that they were actually co-stars, i.e. Heard wasn't just visiting the set etc.
• "filed for divorce" – all I did was remove 'from Depp', as that is unnecessary, it was already clear who was filing for divorce from whom
• "In 2014, Depp was "apparently drunk" while presenting an award at the Hollywood Film Awards and was cut off in the middle of his televised speech.^[1][2][3]" – As the sources demonstrate, this was widely reported at the time by non-tabloid media. Therefore there is basis for adding this to the section that is specifically on Depp's addiction disorder.
• "According to his ex-wife Amber Heard, Depp "plunged into the depths of paranoia and violence after bingeing on drugs and alcohol" during their relationship in 2013–2016.^[4][5][6] In a 2018 Rolling Stone profile of Depp, reporter Stephen Rodrick wrote that he had used hashish in his presence and described him as "alternately hilarious, sly and incoherent"; Depp also said that the allegation made by his former business managers that he had spent US$30,000 per month on wine was "insulting" because he had spent "far more" than that amount.^[7] During his 2020 libel trial, Depp admitted to having been addicted to Roxicodone and alcohol as well as used other substances such as MDMA and cocaine during his relationship with Heard.^{[8][9][10][11]}" – Again, all I did was reword the beginning from "In 2016, then-wife Amber Heard claimed that Depp "plunged into the depths of paranoia and violence after bingeing on drugs and alcohol", which was obviously written in 2016 and not touched since. I also added further reliable sourcing. With the Rolling Stone bit, I simply reworded for better readability. To the end, I added RS sources and Depp's admissions in court of using also cocaine and MDMA. Given how widely this was reported, there's no reason not to include it. The Guardian has literally written an article about his 'cocaine binges'. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I think it worth assuming good faith on the reverting user, for instance I do not think that controversy belongs in the lead as well.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 13:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's very difficult when there's starting to be a bit of a history with this user... But aside from that, could you explain a little bit more why you think we shouldn't add anything to the lede regarding the controversy around Depp in the last five years? I absolutely agree that we shouldn't do it if the controversy was recent (e.g. Marilyn Manson or Armie Hammer), but in this case it's been going on for years and has, according to RS media like The Guardian and HRT, all but destroyed his career and public image. For example, both Mel Gibson and Kevin Spacey's articles do mention the significant effects personal controversy has had on their careers and public images; how is Depp's case different? I don't think we should go into detail in the lede, but a mention is warranted. Even if you disagree and think it should not be added, it most certainly is not defamatory, as Homeostasis claims.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First up, please refrain from including references in talk page discussions. It renders any discussion immediately messy, and stifles involvement from uninvolved users. For the record, this page has been on my watchlist since Depp appeared in the music videos for two Marilyn Manson songs back in 2017. But you have basically asked and answered your own questions. I've gone through the sourcing currently included and can find no references supporting the claim you've made here that Depp is "box office poison". Where is your source for including the text: "Aside from Rango (2011) and Black Mass (2015), Depp's films in the 2010s were mostly commercial and critical disappointments.". Do Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides ($1bn), Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales ($800m), Murder on the Orient Express ($350m+), Sherlock Gnomes ($90m+) and Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald ($650m+) not exist? All in all, the films he appeared in throughout the 2010s decade have grossed over $3bn worldwide at the box office. I don't know what sources you're reading, but you're obviously not including them in your edits. Please remember to Wikipedia:Cite your sources. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Homeostasis07, if I have answered my own questions, then I take it that I can add back most of the additions I made without controversy? I kept the references to show that these things are backed up by sources. As for the films, please do read the career section on the 2010s. These were commercial disappointments, that does not necessarily mean that they didn't gross more than they cost to make. Some of the films you mentioned either underperformed in a major market where previously they had done well (e.g. the fifth Pirates in the US) or were projected to make much more, i.e. Fantastic Beasts, which was slated to become a new Harry Potter but hasn't. Orient Express was with a large, star-studded ensemble cast, with Depp's character getting killed shortly after the beginning. Gnomes was a moderate success, you are correct, that could easily be added to the line I wrote about this. However, Lone Ranger, Mortdecai, Alice... sequel, Transcendence, Dark Shadows... were all Depp vehicles projected to be some of the biggest films of the year but were commercial and critical failures + garnered Razzie nominations for Depp. That his reputation and star power has changed in the past decade is backed up by sources such as:

• this from 2012
• 2013
• 2014
• "Johnny Depp Has His Fifth Box-Office Bomb In A Row", 2015
• Chicago Sun-Times in 2015 about Mortdecai failing spectacularly and Depp's career in general
• This from 2016, writing that Depp is in need of a comeback
• Variety: "Johnny Depp: Anatomy of a Fallen Movie Star", 2016
• THR, 2017
• Rolling Stone from 2018
• The Guardian, 2018: "how Hollywood's biggest star fell from grace"
• Variety, Aug. 2020, where besides writing about his reputation, it says: "Before this trial, Depp’s off-screen antics had already begun to overshadow his immense talent, resulting in a string of flops over the past decade. They include such duds as “Dark Shadows,” “Transcendence,” “Alice Through The Looking Glass,” and “Mortdecai,” all of which fizzled at the box office and were panned by critics. “Black Mass,” with Depp playing Whitey Bulger, got better reviews, but failed to earn him an Oscar nod and likely lost money.
• THR article from 2020
• The Guardian, 2020
• ITV, 2020 
• Insider, 2020

You can easily find more by Googling. The point here is, to not mention anything about his career struggles and the change in his reputation throughout the 2010s is wrong, given that it's what characterizes his career in the 2010s. We can absolutely discuss *how* to mention this, but to completely leave it out seems biased. Wikipedia isn't in the business of writing puff pieces or sanitizing. Depp's reputation and box office earning power is not the same it was in the 2010s, there are ample sources to back this up. There's no reason to leave the last decade out of the lede. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 08:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]