This is an archive of past discussions about Johnny Depp. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Sorry to deflate someone's premise, but can I fix a little continuity here? "He rose to prominence on the 1980s television series 21 Jump Street, becoming a teen idol. Since then, [emphasis mine] Depp has taken on challenging and "larger-than-life" roles, starting with [me again] a supporting role in Oliver Stone's Vietnam War film Platoon in 1986" -- yeah, except that Platoon came out the year before21 Jump Street started.BrianAshe (talk) 00:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2016
This edit request to Johnny Depp has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Done Corrected. "Rabbies" is actually a common misspelling, appearing even in some medical journals, and is redirected here and at a number of medical dictionaries to the correct term, Rabies. General IzationTalk 03:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
How far away is too far away? I mean he is technically African American but in that same token I'm technically Hispanic (Spanish). Does it matter, does any ancestry count? I'm really confused. The categories don't specify so I guess if you can trace your ancestry to Muhammad, no matter how minimal, you're Arab American I guess.
On the other hand, the Category:American people of Cherokee descent category specifies people who identify as Cherokee descended, regardless of how true it is. So he does fit the description. Also, is all Cherokee ancestry documented? Could something like transracial adoption mess up the records? I guess Johnny Depp and Rachel Dolezal are example of how our racial classification thing is flawed.
If we go by the recent African origin of modern humans ("out of Africa") theory, then everyone is African. However, society does not classify everyone with some African decent as African; this is true, for example, in the case of the United States, even though it still socially follows the one-drop rule (for example, Barack Obama simply being called "the first African American president" instead of "the first biracial American president" or the "first multiracial American president"). Because of that, and the fact that Johnny Depp is not usually classified as African American, I reverted you on this addition. I also removed non-WP:Reliable sources from the Ancestry section, as seen here and here; this is a WP:BLP article, and that material should have never been added. I'm considering addressing the Ancestry section at the WP:BLP noticeboard. Flyer22 (talk) 09:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
What counts. I changed it to Category:African-American people because it says in Category:American people of African descent "Individuals should be categorized by the appropriate sub-category." I assumed it was one of those categories that should be populated only by subcategories. Technically anybody with any traceable Black African ancestry is African American; anybody with traceable European, Middle Eastern or North African ancestry is white American, etc. I know Depp's not Black, but does that mean he's not African American? There will be confusion until there are rules. Andrea Carter (at your service | my good deeds) 09:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
It's really not that confusing. Depp is not African-American. He is a white guy who found a distant ancestor.
The rule of thumb on the articles I've worked on is that if someone with significant blood is clearly a part of that cultural community, they are generally considered to be that ethnicity... IF we have reliable sources that make it clear that the undisputed members of that ethnicity claim them. But if they only have distant heritage, and were not raised in that community, and don't really participate in it now, they are someone who only has "descent". It's different.
Clearly Depp is not African-American. People really do not go by the one-drop rule anymore, and he had to have his genealogy done as an adult to even find out that he had that one ancestor.
Yes, the Cherokee are far more documented than white people or African-Americans. Cherokee identity is also not about ethnicity, personal identification or feelings. It's a legal status, based on citizenship in a sovereign nation. - CorbieV☊☼18:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
How recent must an ancestor of a given ethnicity be for someone to be classified as a member of that ethnicity (in terms of Wikipedia categorisation)? Grandparent? Great-grandparent? —Flax519:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
There have been various disputes at the Barack Obama article and talk page relating to the one-drop rule, which is why the lead of that article currently has a WP:Hidden note, stating, "PLEASE DO not CHANGE OBAMA'S RACE FROM 'AFRICAN AMERICAN', per existing consensus. See discussions and FAQ (Q2) on the talk page." Various public figures, such as Halle Berry, have also discussed how the one-drop rule is still socially in effect. See thisABC News source. Flyer22 (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, given those examples in particular, I agree that we have a version of the one drop rule that still exists for some (? many?) people, but it seems to me to have shifted significantly - more to perception than precise, distant ancestry, with subjective peceptions given the most weight - individuals thinking the person in question does or doesn't "look Black" or "seem Black." I don't think most of mainstream society pays as much attention to small, distant amounts of heritage as they used to, but that can vary extremely based on where someone lives, and how much people may, erm, have issues around it. Anyway, what matters is what we can source well. I'm not really sure why this is even an issue, really, I think Carter is the only person I've ever encountered who tried to claim Johnny Depp is Black. Or whatever it is that's going on here. *shrugs* - CorbieV☊☼00:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
@CorbieVreccan: He technically is African American. The one drop rule is racist but it is how most definitions of African American seem to operate. An African American is defined as an American who has African ancestry; the definitions never give a blood quantum or a cultural element. I never claimed he was Black; he is obviously white. But I can't come up with a definition of African American that excludes him. Andrea Carter (at your service | my good deeds) 10:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't know. Black, with an uppercase B, is clearly defined as a cultural identity. However, the US Census seems to define African American as an American of African descent; which Depp is. This is a problematic definition ~~for Wikipedia~~ in general; because it reinforces the one-drop rule and disregards a person's cultural identity. We need to define our terms better to prevent this. Andrea Carter (at your service | my good deeds) 10:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Controversy
I'd like to see his promise to buy Wounded Knee land and give it back to the Lakota about 3 years ago added to the controversy page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.162.133.112 (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
if i may cite common sense: if someone never says they are african american, no one else ever claims they are african american, and if their percentage african american appears to be trivial to the nth degree, then calling them african american here is completely nonsensical. the one drop rule applies to anyone with any apparent african american traits, and its not a "rule", its a racist practice, and probably only extended to those whose african american ancestor was born in the previous century or so. besides, i thought he was filipino.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2016
This edit request to Johnny Depp has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Add italics around 'Black Mass' in the 3rd paragraph: "....and the Boston gangster James "Whitey" Bulger in Black Mass"
Pdenner (talk) 02:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Close-paraphrasing and copyvios are being added to the article by a new user. To exacerbate this, we have edit-warring, attempting to restore the copyvios to the article, and the use of non-reliable sources, not to mention BLP violations. Examples of close-paraphrasing/copyvios:
Article:
At 5:30 a.m. on September 13, 1994, the actor was arrested and charged with criminal mischief after trashing a hotel room at New York City's Mark Hotel. Guests reportedly were awakened by the sound of shattering glass, snapping wood, and loud domestic squabbling,
Source at http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/stars-who-trashed-hotel-rooms/8/
In 1994, actor Johnny Depp was arrested and questioned by police for allegedly causing serious damage at New York's Mark Hotel. Guests reportedly were awakened at 5:30 a.m. by the sounds of shattering glass, snapping wood, and loud domestic squabbling.
Article:
In 1999, his business partner, Anthony Fox, sued Johnny Depp alleging the Edward Scissorhands actor had conspired to divert millions in profits from The Viper Room.
Source at http://radaronline.com/celebrity-news/johnny-depp-viper-room-busines-partner-anthony-fox-disappearance/
and in 1999, Fox slapped Depp with a lawsuit alleging the Edward Scissorhands actor had conspired to divert millions in profits from The Viper Room.
Article:
Nineteen days later, on Jan. 6, 2002, his vehicle was found abandoned in Santa Clara, Calif. — 330 miles from where he was last seen near his home in Ventura, Calif.
Source at http://radaronline.com/celebrity-news/johnny-depp-viper-room-busines-partner-anthony-fox-disappearance/
Nineteen days later, on Jan. 6, 2002, his vehicle was found abandoned in Santa Clara, Calif. — 330 miles from where he was last seen near his home in Ventura, Calif.
This edit request to Johnny Depp has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please change Residence from Lufkin, Texas to Hollywood, California because whoever changed it to Lufkin, TX fell for a fake prank article that has been circulating around the internet regarding various famous people moving to rural cities. (ie Samuel L. Jackson moving to Richardson, TX, etc.)
It states that actress Amber Heard have filed for a divorce from Johnny Depp in May 2016; but as of August 2016 it has been finalized, with a jointly-agreed settlement of $7 million lump sum awarded to Heard and her dropping her domestic violence suit against him. LadyWyckedAngel (talk) 04:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Each passing day brings about new and noteworthy information regarding the chaotic & abusive relationship & marraige between Mr Depp and Ms Heard. Neither comes out looking good, he looks like a wasted junkie, absent parent, emotionally distant & controlling & jealous husband, who's lifestyle starts catching up as the years go by. She reveals herself to be duplicitous, abusive, manipulative, coercive, violent, and a borderine sociopath who will stop at nothing to get the attention she feels she deserves, at the expense of anyone and everyone who gets in her way. There are no winners here. It should be noted that in none of the recordings of them does she ever bring up anythg related to him beating her, even while apologizing for her own abuse and harrassmnet.. If he had done what she alleges, there is no doubt it would have been brought up in their 1 v 1 discussions at some point.. That and the fact that there is absolutley no proof of him ever abusing her outside of the stories she told her firends who appear 'after' the alleged incident. The sister, it is now known, perjured herself, as did the friend. Congrats Vanmoran (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Wikicode appears in page
Can someone fix the wikicode that appears, I am not sure what is really actually intended, what I see in edit view is
I have just modified 3 external links on Johnny Depp. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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: 5 June 2024).
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.
Anyway, being the 20th cousin of Elizabeth II is not noteworthy. Supposing over the last few hundred years, the average family had three children, and no one ever married anyone related to them, then the average person would have 3^21 (3 to the power of 21) 20th cousins. (Actually 3^21 - 3, to avoid counting the person and their two siblings). This is over 10 billion 20th cousins. Of course in the real world people do marry their relatives so the number will be a lot lower, but it still shows there is nothing special about being a 20th cousin of anyone. It would be more noteworthy if a person wasn't a 20th cousin of the Queen. IshalSaithesUrnlywans (talk) 11:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Add "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016)" to filmography
This edit request to Johnny Depp has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
As of January 31st 2017 Johnny Depp has been involved in a lawsuit against his former management company. Depp sued The Management Group on Jan. 13 seeking more than $25 million he contends was mismanaged. His lawsuit also alleged the company failed to file Depp's taxes on time, costing him $5.7 million in penalties. TMG is coutnersuing Depp; The countersuit seeks a judge's ruling that Depp is to blame for his financial troubles, and $560,000 in fees The Management Group said it is owed.
The money being sought comes on top of $4.2 million the firm announced on Jan. 13 that it was seeking from Depp for repayment of a loan it said it made to the actor. TMG is reporting that Johnny Depp spent $3 million to blast Hunter Thompson’s ashes out of a cannon, He spent $18 million on an 150-foot yacht, $4 million on a failed record label, $30,000 a month on wine, $200,000 a month on private planes, $150,000 a month on round-the-clock security, and $300,000 a month to maintain a staff of 40 people. and $75 million dollars on 14 different residences. TMG claims they repeatedly warned Depp about his lavish spending habits, but the warnings went unnoticed. Davec01 (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JTP(talk • contribs)15:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I have just modified 5 external links on Johnny Depp. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
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.
I have just modified 2 external links on Johnny Depp. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
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.
I have just modified one external link on Johnny Depp. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
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.
Johnny Depp is part Native American (and not just European and African as it says in the current article) through his great-grandmother. Could someone edit the article to include this fact please?
Can we update the main photo to something a little more recent? The photo is from over 2 years ago, and is no longer an accurate depiction of the way he looks. Capin' Jack (talk) 12:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
@FlightTime: Can you please explain to me how one is supposed to go about uploading new images on here? I find this process so maddening, all of my photos are removed. Capin' Jack (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
@Capin' Jack: Well, I don't do very much "looking for" then uploading images, but if had to and was having trouble figuring out which ones I could use or not, I would use WP:FFU. This doesn't guarantee each one you submit will be uploaded, but at least if it's uploaded it's likely you'll be able to use it. I am assuming that you have reviewed WP:IUPC, also :P - FlightTime (open channel)22:14, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
"controversies section"?
@CorbieVreccan: Umm ... what? The section is called "Personal life", not "Controversies", regardless of the ordering of the subsections, and your version places the Native American ancestry claims directly below "Political and religious views", only about a third of which is described as controversial, whereas my version placed it immediately above "Alcohol and drug use" and "Legal problems", so if anything my version is closer to including a "Controversies" subsection if that's the way one wants to view it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
It used to be called "controversies" or something similar. I mentioned it, not to reinstate the old headers, but as I'm looking at how the page has evolved over the longer period that the content has been there. The section headers and organization has changed and this hasn't always matched the existing content. My point is that the ancestral claims are not neutral; they have generated controversy and pushback. I'll look again, but it seemed to me that putting it with the other ancestry stuff made it seem more of a neutral claim on his part, when it actually generated a lot of anger at Depp. - CorbieV☊☼20:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Claims of Native American Ancestry
"He is also of 3/2048 African descent, as he descends twice over from an African slave whose biracial daughter, Elizabeth Key Grinstead, was the first woman of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in North America to sue for her freedom from slavery and win (in 1655)."
4/2048 african descent is 0.0015%. It's completely ridiculous to include it here since most americans have much more mixture than that. Elizabeth Key Grinstead was born in 1630, 8 generations ago meaning that she most likely has thousands or even millions of descendants, making this sentence completely pointless for a wikipedia article.
91.153.1.145 (talk) 15:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
The reason this section is separate from "ancestry" is the claims are false, and this series of sections is about controversies he's been involved in. To integrate it into "ancestry" is very misleading, especially after deleting the sourced content that confirms he is white. Check the source - it is thoroughly sourced to WP:RS standards and verifies that he is completely white except for that one, distant, African-American ancestor. I am re-instating the section; to do otherwise is POV that continue his false claims and implies it did not cause a controversy, which it continues to do. Best, - CorbieV☊☼18:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm a little confused as to why the section pertaining to Depp's inaccurate claims of being Native are being removed. The link is heavily sourced.Indigenous girl (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
@BarrelProof:, why are you revert-warring to remove sourced content? Page down to the bottom of that page and you will see all the sourcing. This site, Ethnic celebs, is used on a number of BLPs on WP to source ethnicity. It includes sourced genealogy from sites like this:Ancestry of Johnny Depp. Each ancestor you click on has documents that verify they are all white. What that page, a secondary, sourced citation, does is summarize all the genealogy that's been done, with sourcing. It's exactly the type of source that is used for this sort of claim. - CorbieV☊☼20:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
The question is whether that source, http://ethnicelebs.com/johnny-depp, is sufficiently reliable or not. It doesn't matter whether it cites sources or not. Wikipedia cites its sources, but Wikipedia does not consider itself appropriate to cite as a reliable source. My impression is that the site is rather low quality, and it is not very clear who is responsible for its content. The authors of its celebrity profiles are not identified by name, and the publisher is also not clearly identified. No names of editors and no physical address of a publication office or business office is evident. The site's privacy policy page says the site is a sole proprietorship – so it is one person's own personally owned site – and that person is not even identified. On top of that, the site clearly allows user submission of content. Please see WP:USERGENERATED. Citation of websites that consist largely of user-generated content are considered generally unacceptable on Wikipedia. That is even more the case for biographies of living people. Please see WP:BLPSOURCES. To me that site appears to be basically one person's anonymous personal blog fansite supported by low-quality mass-market ads and anonymous user content submissions. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
If ethniccelebs.com is used on any BLPs to verify any type of personal information it should be removed immediately. It in no way meets WP:RS for this type of information in BLPs.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots21:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Read the sources on the genealogy, they are the best sources that are used for genealogy: mostly census results. - CorbieV☊☼ 22:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
The source is perfectly good for sourcing heritage or lack thereof. But going over what we had, we already had sources that cover it. So, to keep others from useless edit-warring I removed the source. The content is now sourced with what we already have. - CorbieV☊☼22:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
If by "the source" you mean ethnicelebs.com then it is not "good" for sourcing anything to do with "heritage or lack thereof". It literally states "The information on Ethnicelebs is provided for entertainment purposes only. Although we may vet information to ensure its accuracy, we make no assurances that all information on our Site is accurate" in its Terms of Use.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots23:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Career/Fantastic beasts
Theirs a bit of information that should be removed regarding Mr Depp's return to the role of grindelwald in the third fantastic beasts film. Some external media reports and websites state that warner bros maybe reconsidering johnny as part of the cast . Hpdh4 22:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2019
This edit request to Johnny Depp has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Oleg Sentsov was part of a prisoner trade between Ukraine and the Russian Federation and therefore no longer being held in custody. The following sentence can be changed:
"In November 2016, Depp joined the campaign Imprisoned for Art to call for the release of Ukrainian filmmaker Oleg Sentsov, who is being held in custody in Russia.[185]"
to
"In November 2016, Depp joined the campaign Imprisoned for Art to call for the release of Ukrainian filmmaker Oleg Sentsov, who was being held in custody in Russia.[185]" 77.161.19.239 (talk) 22:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
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)
"It’s not clear how evidence of domestic abuse is relevant here"
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)
Audio tapes released
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)
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)
[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.
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)
[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)
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
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)
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
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)
@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
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Per Wikipedia guidelines on naming people[3]: "The name used most often to refer to a person in reliable sources is generally the one that should be used as the article title." This covers stage names, cognomens, diminutives, shortened name (no Cristopher and no II) etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PraiseVivec (talk • contribs) 20:29, May 5, 2021 (UTC)
I don't think that's what Piotrus is asking; it's clear that "Johnny Depp" is the common name for this individual and should be the article title. I think he was asking if there's any particularly significant reason he chose to go by "Johnny" rather than "John". I do not find any particular material that discusses that, but "Johnny" is a very common nickname for people named "John" or "Jonathan" to go by, so I suspect he just went by that nickname since his childhood and never saw a reason to change it, similar to why a lot of people named "Christopher" are known as "Chris" throughout their lives. SeraphimbladeTalk to me14:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
If it was Chas or Boswick then for sure. But John/Jon/Jonathon/Johnny etc are close enough that it is not likely to raise too many questions for reliable sources to answer. Aircorn(talk)11:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
I am requesting experienced editors' opinions on the following: 1.) What should we mention about Johnny Depp's 2010s-present career and public image in the lede?; 2.) Should the section currently titled 'Legal dealings' be changed to 'Lawsuits and arrests' or similar? Please refer to the discussion in Talk.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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
EDIT: Requesting comments from other editors on the following issues:
Lede: should we omit 2010s apart from what's there now, or also mention that Depp's career and public image have gone through a change?
@Redrose64: Apologies about this, my first time using this template! Tried to fix this, please let me know if I didn't do it correctly and I will fix it. Thank you!TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Reading the current lead section, I see the following as the current final sentence of it: During the 2010s, Depp began producing films through his company, Infinitum Nihil, and formed the rock supergroup Hollywood Vampires with Alice Cooper and Joe Perry. If I were a reader who did not know who Depp was or did not know much about him, I would presume, by seeing those things in the lead, that those things are the most significant things about him from that decade, and that he had essentially retired from acting by that time. That is not accurate, and I think the lead should continue in the vein of summarizing significant events in that decade regarding his film career, be that positive or negative. I think his personal struggles are best left to explanation in the body, and do not need to go in the lead. SeraphimbladeTalk to me21:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for commenting, Seraphimblade! A follow-up question: how to discuss Depp's 2010s career without any mention of the controversies around his personal life? My point in asking is that while I do agree that personal life may not be appropriate for the lede as a stand-alone subject, in this case it seems quite difficult to untangle from the public image and career. Esp. since 2016 the developments in his personal life that have had a major effect on his public reputation and career. Can/should this be expressed in the lede? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
If reliable sources explicitly confirm that some of those things had a substantial impact on his film career, and go into detail as to how (e.g., something in his personal life resulted in him being kicked off or not selected for a film), then yes, that may be appropriate as part of discussing it. If they just speculate that they could have had some impact—probably not. SeraphimbladeTalk to me16:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree with this. But the problem I've found with this particular editor is that they seem to going out of their way to find unnecessarily negative sources in order to support their own POINT. None of the sources listed in the first half of the references they provided above explicitly say those films under-performed because of Depp's participation, and the entirety of the second half of their sources refer primarily to Depp's divorce, and I don't consider ITV and Insider.com reliable in any case. There is need of a NEUTRAL mention in the lead of Depp's divorce from Amber Heard having an impact on his public reputation (because, as described above, his 2010s movies have still grossed over $3bn worldwide), but I'm pretty much at my wits end with this user, who I've been dealing with alone for nearly 3 months. I'd like my exasperation noted at this point. Recently, I see TrueHeartSusie3 is currently engaged in an edit war with @Emir of Wikipedia: at Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd. This has all been ANI bound since February anyway, with a focus on topic-banning TrueHeartSusie3 from editing the WP:BLP's of any celebrity accused of "abuse". Would be interested in receiving other comments related to this before I pull the trigger. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
I think both of you have hit the nail on the head here. The sourcing needs to be explict and direct and intial wording to felt a tad WP:ORyWP:SYNTHy. This is especially so for WP:BLP. In addition the use of "commerical dissapointments" makes it seems that the fact that Depp starred in the film is why the film flopped (could be production company, poor marketing, director, etc). Do the sources say this explictly? In regards to going to ANI I no idea I am not familiar enough with the users edits and history in question though I do know Emir and TrueHeartSusie3 have previously bumped heads at Talk:Amber Heard. Spy-cicle💥 Talk?06:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Wholeheartedly agree with the first sentence in Spy-cicle's comment, and agree that the initial version I added can definitely be improved. As for Homeostasis07, this user has had an extremely negative opinion of me since I dared to raise the issue that charged topics like abuse cases may need more attention and perhaps guidelines from the BLP project people. It seems that he has in part misinterpreted what I said in that discussion (which he was never a participant in, despite being invited to), but also is angry because one of the examples I had used of problematic behaviour was his initial way of adding the Kobe Bryant controversy to the Evan Rachel Wood article, with factual errors and omissions that made it appear to be an edit with the goal of smearing Wood (this was right after the Manson abuse news became public), and their instant revert when their error was pointed out as 'semantics' – and btw, Homeostasis07 is the main editor to Marilyn Manson-related articles, and has taken several of them to GA/FA level. Please also see the discussion on Manson's talk page.
Since then, I have periodically encountered this user, with them usually accusing me of something, without being specific or assuming quite a bit. I have on several occasions asked this user to tell me where I'm going wrong in his opinion and asked him to discuss in order to find a resolution. It's clear that we have very different positions, but it would be great to find a common ground. Unfortunately, that has not taken place. Quite frankly, I'm tired of this, which is why I have now again more actively sought the opinion of other editors to find resolutions to disputes.
As for @Emir of Wikipedia:, yes we have been at loggerheads in the Amber Heard article. To a large extent it could have been avoided by Emir actually discussing his proposed additions in Talk, but it's quite difficult to engage this editor in discussion. If they are reverted, they will rather continue edit warring than discuss on Talk as per WP guidelines. Please note that in both Amber Heard as in the Depp v NGN articles, I've been the one who has had to start the discussion on their contested changes/additions for any discussion to be had. I would also like to point out that Emir has on at least two occasion added content where they either misrepresented what a source said, or it seems deliberately misrepresented a quote to back up their own point – their preoccupation with Heard's involvement in ACLU. Yes, I have in those cases reverted their edits. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 08:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Also, I find this peculiar: "they seem to going out of their way to find unnecessarily negative sources". First off, this is the first time this user has brought this up. Secondly, the sources that I use are RS, e.g. The Guardian, THR, Variety. What sources should we use instead? If a RS publication publishes an article that shows the subject in a negative light, we shouldn't use it? Who is the one to deem that a RS source is being 'too negative'? I would like to see Homeostasis07 be quite a bit more specific in these claims that he is making of my editing.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
To a large extent it could have been avoided by Emir actually discussing his proposed additions in Talk, but it's quite difficult to engage this editor in discussion. I could say the same about you. Just because you do not like what an editor has done, it does not make them wrong.
I would also like to point out that Emir has on at least two occasion added content where they either misrepresented what a source said, or it seems deliberately misrepresented a quote to back up their own point I have never done that. Just because they can't comprehend what the sources say it does not mean I am misrepresenting them. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
[This is in reply to the first quoted part] Hence why I have started this Talk page discussion and RfC and others on Amber Heard. Even if I don't initially think that something is an improvement, my eyes can be opened through further discussion, and consensus can be reached. You've seen it yourself in the Heard article. Now, I've written about this already in the the Depp v NGN Talk, not going to repeat my comments here.
Again, perhaps if instead of re-adding your edits you had discussed this on the Talk page this whole thing could have been avoided? Anyway, here you had left the rest of the THR quote out to back up your point and to introduce an error to the article; this did seem deliberate to me given that you had wanted to add a mention of this/otherwise wanted to tweak the ACLU mention several times. It may be that's not the case, but your unwillingness to take this to the Talk page is puzzling, especially since I'd already started a discussion on the ACLU changes you'd previously made. The second one was this about petitions, where you wrote 'numerous' when the source said just one. In general, you have been very unwilling to discuss your additions in Talk, which has been very disappointing. If you take a look at the Talk page, I had to start the discussions for additions and changes you were proposing, as you were not into explaining your edits. And now you're doing this again (deleting parts of the lede with no rationale, adding tags...). This is probably best discussed in the AH talk than here though. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
The first example was not a deliberate to introduce an error, you should remember WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. Anyways more sourcing has been provided on that now, so hopefully that is resolved. The second example was restoring the previous WP:CONSENSUS version of the article, and I will added sources anyways. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Comment from Aircorn This is not an ideal format for a RFC as it doesn't provide clear sections for other editors to comment and is messing with the extra headings and extended discussion. I pity the editor who wants to close this if it gets sizable feedback. Anyway the lead should cover whats in the body, There is enough in the body to give some info about his legal dealings. I would say a sentence would meet due. As to the section heading name, "legal dealings" sounds awful. Legal troubles or legal issues would be much better. Aircorn(talk)11:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for commenting! And apologies for the format, it’s my first time starting a RfC, will try to fix this once I get to a desktop later tonight. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
While there are multiple ways to set these up. it works best if the comments from uninvolved editors are easy to distinguish. Thats why I boldedmy comment that way. Indenting responses keeps it clearer as to who is replying to who. Good RFC's are hard to set up and even experienced editors get it wrong. Aircorn(talk)09:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
His controversies should at least be touched upon in the lead. Per MOS:LEAD, the lead should summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. Depp's controversies have been incredibly publicized over the last few years. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
@TrueHeartSusie3: I think it would be best to close this RfC and make a new one in a new section, with a clear, concise statement of the questions at hand – this section of the talk page is a bit of a mess and it's hard to tell what's going on. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 17:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
To clarift I am not opposed to adding something to the lead but absolutely needs to be due weight and highly verifable, which the previous addition I did think was. Spy-cicle💥 Talk?03:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
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)
This edit request to Johnny Depp has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
"Change she pledged to donate[227] to the ACLU[228] and the Children's Hospital Los Angeles (CHLA).[229][230] to she claimed publicly multiple times to have already donated to ACLU and Children's Hospital Los Angeles (CHLA)."
"Change judge Penny Azcarate ruled against it because Heard had not been a defendant in the UK case to judge Penny Azcarate ruled against it because Heard had not been a defendant in the UK case and also believed that Depp did not receive a full and fair trial." 36.255.85.226 (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
This edit request to Johnny Depp has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In all instances where the full name "John Christopher Depp II" is displayed, change the "II" suffix to "Ⅱ". The appropriate terminology is not the succession of two capitalized 'I' but rather the roman numeral character. 147.143.60.7 (talk) 01:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm marking this request as answered as I think it needs some discussion. As far as I can tell, the double I is more common by orders of magnitude over the specialized character on Wikipedia and in reliable sources. Unicode guidelines recommend the use of the double I in most cases, unless some niche inter-language compatibility is needed. I'm only weakly opposed to the change, but I'd prefer not to leave this request open in the queue as it's at least mildly controversial. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Depps Native Heritage
I'm not a big fan of Johnny Depp but I would like to point out that some full blooded (or majority blooded) Native Americans have a history of discriminating against people who have more distant Native heritage.
Depp never claimed to be "a Native American person" but the Indian sources in the article act like that is what he said, when he never did say that. Then they proceed to try to deny every single shred or every single drop of Depps Native ancestry.
This is a common practice in some parts of the Native American community-- and it really ammounts to a kind of discrimination against people with more distant Native heritage. Some can't tolerate this idea of "part Native American" so they try to erase it and will will try to deny such people have any Native heritage at all.
I know because I have experienced this myself, multiple times.
No one is going after Depps family memories of his various European ancestors, but that one Native American ancestor-- they are going after that with everything they have. The sources (and this article) are holding that Native American family memory of Depps to a standard of scrutiny that is not the same as scrutiny of his European ancestors. That is a double standard.
They are "singling-out" his Native ancestor because many Native people do not like the idea of someone who is "part Native". It's a kind of discrimination, pure and simple. And the article should adhere to NPOV and not play into it. It is currently (unwittingly) giving a mouthpiece to a form of discrimination.
Depp never once said he was "a Native American person", all he said was that there was a claim to Native American identity by a great-great grandfather. Now he is supposed to provide a level of "proof" of this family memory that no one is asking for related to his European ancestors.
The fact that some Native American people (mentioned in the article) are having "a problem" with his passed-down family memory is not his problem, it's their problem-- and has no relevence to this article.
What Native American ancestor? Please provide WP:RS and WP:NDNID-RS sources for the existence of this alleged ancestor. Depp does not have any Native heritage, so your essay above is irrelevant. His genealogy has been done by fans who would really, really like to find something back there. His genealogy has also been done by genealogists from the Nations he mistakenly claimed. While some fictional "ancestors" have been proposed, they were just that - either fictional or non-Native people. He is a non-Native. Your post above is personal opinion and essaylike and really doesn't belong here. For how we source Native American or First Nations identity on Wikipedia, please read up on the work that has been done on this by Native Wikipedians: WP:NDNID. - CorbieVreccan☊☼19:29, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
He claimed that one of his great grandparents was "either Cherokee or Creek".
This is cited in this article right now.
I would also like to point out that you just asked for his exact Native American ancestor. But you did not ask for any of his exact European ancestors. Many Wikipedia biography articles simply state that "a great grand parent had X ethnicity, or Y ethnicity" without giving their name at all.
No "proof" is required either, of these peoples various European ancestries.
Many Wikipedia bio articles simply include the CLAIM of ancestry pertaining to parents or grandparents or great-grandparents, etc (made by the biography subject).
**Even when there is a citation the cited source simply ALSO THEN mentions a family claim and Wikipedia accepts that. No further proof is required.
Wikipedia is not breaking it's own rules either-- because it is merely reporting it as a claimed heritage.
Only when Native American heritage is mentioned is a gauntlet of proof then sometimes imposed.
There are celebrities who have family stories of Native American heritage who have had this completely removed from their articles because of this double standard.
Claims of heritage are simply reported as claims and no (100% European person) is then "accused of falsification" for providing "no further proof".
Simply put, standards of proof of heritage should be applied equally in Wikipedia biography articles. Regardless of claimed Native or non-Native heritage.
Hi - I updated this section with information from WP:RS I was able to get more details from the prexisting citations as well and added more context to achieve what I beleive is a neutral tone. Whether or not he has Native American ancestry was not purpose of my edits. This section is expanded due to statements made by Depp, the increased press related to his protrayal in a film, and the responses thereof, including from the Native American community, both positive and negative. To anyone reading this, please check it out and let me know if you see anything that could be worded better or that I missed. I'm going to sleep on it and review my edits again to be sure they add value to the section. Asr1014 (talk) 08:35, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Again, you need to read up on what are RS sources for Native topics. You've introduced well-meant inaccuracies, and a certain amount of the text is really veering into WP:COATRACK territory. I still need to go over it in depth, but what I'm seeing that you've added is not from Native sources and is not an improvement. - CorbieVreccan☊☼19:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
There is no requirement that Depp's childhood experience of being told about Native American heritage be excluded.
Please note: This is now a discussion and there is no sole authority here on this.
Millions of people of Native American descent are not tribally affiliated. That means Tribal sources have no authority over them. They do not have the authority to deny their family stories of Native heritage.
Tribes DO have authority over tribal membership, they DO NOT have authority over peoples family memories and claims of native descent.
Furthermore most historical Native American peopleDO NOT have paper records of their births. Prior to various points in the 1800's there were also NO paper records of tribal membership. But even after then, millions (most Native American people) were NOT on tribal paper records.
Chesapeake77, CorbieVreccan has pointed you toward the relevant readings on the way these claims are handled on Wikipedia, written by Native editors. That you'd like "standards of proof of heritage [to be] applied equally in Wikipedia biography articles. Regardless of claimed Native or non-Native heritage" is irrelevant, because that is not how this works. It's also a strange claim generally given the history of settlers "playing Indian" and the colonial power dynamics at play, but I think (??) you know that already. You claim that' "there is no sole authority here on this," when in reality, these claims are handled a certain way on Wikipedia, and they're also handled a certain way by tribes. Again, look here, where all of this is explained broadly, and even specifically in Depp's case: WP:NDNID. Your opinion on how this should be handled does not matter, because there are clearly defined ways of going about this.--Hobomok (talk) 00:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
@Hobomok
You want to only talk about settlers "playing Indian" but you ignore the Creek War of the Red Stickswhere full-blooded (or closer to full-blooded) Indians KILLED many, many mixed-blood people (White and Indian mixed) who had lived for generations in their own villages-- and in peace-- in Alabama.
The full-bloods tried to wipe the mixed bloods out. This desire to ALSO "wipe out" the mixed-blood HISTORY is still alive today (not everybody does this, but does it happen? Yes it does.)
Tribes ONLY have authority over tribal MEMBERSHIP. They have NO authority over people outside of tribes or their family memories. Nor to wipe out their stories and memories about their ancestors.
Even tribal members have NO paper records of their ancestors, in many cases, going back into the earlier half of the 1800s. And even after that, many didn't.
You talk about "Rules" but you should know that rules are not always right.
Maybe a blog would be a better outlet for these wild theories of yours. This misinformation does not belong on Wikipedia, and you are now veering into hate speech territory as well as pure fantasy. Natives are not trying to "wipe out" "mixed bloods". I suggest you take a break and cool down. - CorbieVreccan☊☼19:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
@CorbieVreccan - Now that I have read WP:COATRACK I see where I did exactly that in the majority of my edits and had no idea. Thanks for replying and deleting it. I hope the edits below were not deleted solely because they did not come from Native sources.
A direct quote from LaDonna Harris regarding the events surrounding her adoption of Depp. Regardless of objections to her statement, she said it. The Guardian and Reuters.
A direct quote from the Director of the National Museum of the American Indian regarding Depp's portrayal in the film. It's a notable opinion. Smithsonian Magazine (not super important just a positive opinion to help even out the multitude of negative ones.)
I would never knowingly add inaccurate information. That's not my thing however I will leave editing this section to those who are more qualified and also working to protect it against serious vandalism which is far more important.Asr1014 (talk) 08:13, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
I have restored Firefangledfeathers' stable version from before all of the editwarring that deleted sourced content to add opinion. There had been some recent, minor changes to phrasing since some of the sources were added years ago, which I will revisit a bit later and see if they need tweaking, but the stable version is the consensus version we've had for years, before the disruptive edits. I apologize for having duplicated some content with my initial manual revert (I had had a tiring day). When it comes to sourcing, may I also suggest this handy flowchart by the Native American Journalists Association"So you need an Indigenous Expert... Start here" It's not hard to cherrypick an opposing opinion, but we go by consensus of qualified experts on the topic in question. Best, - CorbieVreccan☊☼19:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
First, there was a discussion underway regarding these matters (here) and no consensus had yet been reached. Regardless, you circumvented this process and made reverts.
2) Contrary to your assertion-- there has been little to noedit warring here. Mostly all edits here wereadditionsciting sources, prior to your just-made unsupported and not-fully discussed reverts.
3) I have not felt upset at all here-- I have felt perfectly calm and relaxed the entire time I have posted here. I useboldface to highlight key points so they are less likely to be missed.
4) You wrote (earlier here) that Johnny Depp "has no Native American heritage" (Direct quote from you). Please provide your proof of this (here).
5) You also just misrepresented what I wrote--(Your words): "Natives are not trying to "wipe out" "mixed bloods"." I never said they are all trying to kill us(as you mischaracterized).' I said (SOME, NOT ALL) Native people attempt to "wipe out the HISTORY of mixed blood people (not kill us all)". And this is very true.
And contrary to your assertion, I said (DIRECT QUOTE)--"not everybody does this, but does it happen? Yes it does."
7) Please avoid double standards here. Mixed blood people can describe historical patterns of discrimination against themselves too..
Waiting for your proof that [Johnny] "Depp does not have any Native American heritage." (Direct quote from you).
Stop. This is downright strange at this point. I'm going to ignore all of the rambling here and cut straight to the main point:
Depp needs to provide proof that he has Native heritage, and that proof needs to meet the standards of whatever context it's represented in. He never has. It is not anyone else's burden to prove he does not have Native heritage. It does not work like that. He made some vague claim, which hundreds of people do, with no proof. Those claims are damaging for a number of reasons that I'm not going to outline here. They cannot prove what they say. Depp cannot prove what he said. They're not Native. He's not Native. Full stop. CorbieVreccan has provided you with more than enough resources on this matter.--Hobomok (talk) 23:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Talk page not locked?
This section is too tempting an invitation to engage in unhelpful comparisons between two articles or WP:NOTFORUM comparisons between the two article subjects. If the disruption level here rises, the place to request protection is WP:RFPPI and no discussion here is necessary. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Looks like there was quite a lot of disruptive editing on Amber's talk page, which is why that page became protected. Whereas this very page that I write this message on at this very moment has received not as many edits, in fact it's nowhere near. If you look at the edit history of both pages you can see for yourself. MadGuy7023 (talk) 20:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
If you believe a page needs to be protected, the place to ask is at WP:RFPP. The policies are there. Or you can just ask one of us who does that stuff to take care of it. - CorbieVreccan☊☼18:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
If Johnny was attacked as viciously on his talk page, I'd want this talk page protected too. I just didn't know the policy that allowed Amber's talk page to be protected. I've read about it now. Pictureprize (talk) 01:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2022
This edit request to Johnny Depp has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
To say Blow was not a critical success is asinine. Blow is not only a cult classic but also an amazing story of love, loss, envy, revenge, and betrayal. His portrayal of Jung was intense & helped to show a human side to the man who otherwise would gain little sympathy from the story, considering all the destruction he caused. It is important to judge a movie by the standards in place @ the time it was filmed. Ex post facto, if you will. The negative draw on this movie is primarily from feminists, which is fine, but unfair. Blow without Depp becomes just another coaine cowboy story.. Not saying Blow was Pulp Fiction or that Depp is Daniel Day Lewis, but Blow was a hit for sure and Depp is one of the best actors in that time. Vanmoran (talk) 18:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2022
This edit request to Johnny Depp has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change:
"In April 2015, Depp's wife Amber Heard breached Australia's biosecurity laws when she failed to declare her and Depp's two dogs to the customs when they flew to Queensland, where he was working on a film."
To:
"In April 2015, Depp's then-wife Amber Heard breached Australia's biosecurity laws when she failed to declare her and Depp's two dogs to the customs when they flew to Queensland, where he was working on a film."
Changing "wife" to "then-wife" for consistency across the article - there are two other mentions of the phrase 'then-wife' in the article, one of which is also referencing Amber Heard. Zeph.tech (talk) 11:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Not that it is very important, but the article states that Kate Moss and Johnny Depp were together from 1994 to 1997. But Moss stating under oath at the Heard vs Depp trial that she and Depp were together from 1994 to 1998 Video on YouTube. Sources provided within the article back the former. Which should be included? Maineartists (talk) 15:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
> Depp also alleged that Heard had been the one who abused him, and that her allegations constituted a hoax against him.[251] Depp alleged that he had been the one who was abused by Heard, that her allegations constituted a hoax against him, and that as a consequence, Disney had declined to cast him in future projects.[249][251]
The same sentence was written twice in a row (with slightly edited wording). Someone with edit permission on this article should fix this by merging the two into one sentence or by deleting one of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:1600:1EC0:9D23:D076:AD56:E60D (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Why does Depp always wear ear-rings since appearing in the Caribbean pirates film? Or had been suggested that he had time-locked onto that Disney film role and still sees himself as a pirate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.71.163 (talk) 07:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Ancestry
For someone whose US ancestry is shown dating back at least as far as 1700 the (unsubstantiated) claim that "Depp is of primarily English descent" is interesting, especially when combined with claims of other distant nationality ancestors and the unsubstantiated and disputed claim of native American connections. Is he trying to distance himself from being American? He almost seems to be embarrassed about being American. 86.185.71.163 (talk) 07:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Depp was told when he was a child that his great grandmother had Native heritage. No this wasn't a political thing. This was information that was passed down in his family. Chesapeake77 >>> ♥Truth10:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Inaccurate
It's highly inaccurate to say Depp and Heard both defamed each other when Johnny won on all counts and Amber only won on a technicality (because it wasn't proven without a doubt that Waldman's statement about the police phone calls and the events in between happened exactly in the way that he said...). That should be changed to Depp won on all counts while Heard won one out of her 3 counterclaim statements. 174.115.22.232 (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
If the idea is to count claims and put them in the lede then why not put that the court in the UK ruled that 12 out of 14 claims of abuse were substantially true? Otherwise it seems like WP:UNDUE. Alcibiades979 (talk) 10:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
A judge whose son was affiliated with the same small company employing Dan Wootton who Johnny was suing? A judge whose wife hosted a conference that Amber attended and whose acquaintances hosted a dinner party that Amber and her lawyer attended? A case that didn't allow Johnny to present all his evidence, a lot of evidence of which wasn't even considered (like the fact that Amber lied about donating her divorce settlement to charity), mysteriously got hold of tens of thousands of his texts that would not otherwise be admissible (and still no look at Amber's phone other than her doctored photos), that used a single text to support one of the 14 outrageous allegations? That ruling was completely corrupt. Also including anything Amber said about his substance abuse under the personal life subheading is insulting given that she has now been proven to have perjured 3 different courts. 72.136.95.67 (talk) 14:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Depp's Tattoos
In Johnny_Depp#Relationships there's a reference to Depp getting the tattoo Winona Forever which is a tattoo he later converted to wino forever.
On a similar vein I think it appropriate to add a note on Johnny_Depp#Amber_Heard on Depp getting a tattoo on his fingers of "slim" which he later changed to "scum".
The most intellectually honest thing to do would be to add this reference but it's very strong honest content reflecting Depp's state of mind. This is how the text would look but hopefully without citation error message which I didn't fix before undoing the edit. GregKaye16:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
I think musician should also be added to his textbox as an occupation since right now there's only singer and he's performed multiple instruments on various discography 174.115.22.232 (talk) 23:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Vocals to Instrument list
Should vocals be added to Johnny Depps instrument list? He can sing too as he sings lead on the cover song Heroes by David Bowie at a lot of the Hollywood Vampire concerts. 79.69.160.187 (talk) 09:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
The person who updated his page it said just 18 hours ago needs to do their research and report all the updates since April 2022. Especially his successful legal win against Amber Heard. This looks disingenuous not to mention he won that case and she was ordered to pay almost $14 million. Not to mention his successful music tour with Jeff Beck and their album together. Only the facts. 2600:1700:2F61:6990:B439:17C7:AC56:9886 (talk) 02:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes, and he sold his Friends and Heroes art collection at Castle Fine Art for £13.5 in under 3 hours, filmed a short film Sea of Dawn for a Japanese Adventure game, has filmed a French Feature film La Favourite where he plays King Louis XVI, soon will be back on the road with Jeff Beck in October and The Hollywood Vampires next year Longjoansilver (talk) 17:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
This edit request to Johnny Depp has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Johnny Depp - In the partner section they just listed is false and unverified. Joelle Rich is not a current girlfriend because the main source "Johnny Depp" and / or Joelle Rich did not state that information publicly as true! The name needs to be removed until proven true by Johnny Depp or Joelle Rich! Mimorose (talk) 05:20, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Vocals should be added to Johnny Depp's instrument list as he sings some lead vocals with Hollywood Vampires and performed as a guest singer with Jeff Beck. 88.104.216.186 (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2023 (2)
This edit request to Johnny Depp has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please update his profile image to the one that currently exists as his profile picture on IMDb page:
Not done: Please make your request for a new image to be uploaded to Files For Upload. Once the file has been properly uploaded, feel free to reactivate this request to have the new image used. Melmann13:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
I've tried to upload it. Here's the links provided. Not sure which one to use to update the image.
To use the file in a wiki, copy this text into a page:
This edit request to Johnny Depp has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the instrument list on the infobox, "vocals" are missing and should be added as Johnny has sung backing vocals and occasional lead vocals with Hollywood Vampires while also performing lead vocals with Jeff Beck in his final tour.
This edit request to Johnny Depp has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The following passage in the introduction should be moved to the personal section of Depp’s profile as it doesn’t contain information on his body of work:
Between 1998 and 2012, Depp was in a relationship with French singer Vanessa Paradis and together they had two children, including actress Lily-Rose Depp. From 2015 to 2017, Depp was married to actress Amber Heard. Their divorce drew much media attention, as both alleged abuse against each other. In 2018, Depp unsuccessfully sued the publishers of British tabloid The Sun for defamation under English law; a judge ruled the publication labelling him a "wife beater" was "substantially true". Depp later successfully sued Heard in a 2022 trial in Virginia; a seven-member jury ruled that Heard's allegations of "sexual violence" and "domestic abuse" were false and defamed Depp under American law.[4][5] 2607:FEA8:531D:5B00:842A:DBC8:815D:2493 (talk) 05:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Not done: The intro is not restricted to someone's career, it serves as a highlights summary of the rest of the article. Given the significant coverage our article has on his relationship and legal issues with Heard, makes sense to mention it in the lead. Cannolis (talk) 09:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE addition not relevant to Depp's article. how can this be not relevant to this article? It is an important aspect of the trial which is described in great detail here. Also, I think you are citing WP:UNDUE improperly.
Plus, there was consensus on Talk:Depp v. Heard for these sentences to be amended, so there was no justification for copying them as-is from one article to the next against consensus. can you link to this consensus? I think you must have misread some of the discussions on that page.
It's rather silly to have lengthy descriptive sentences detailing specific cases in lede no? Could we rather say, "although never criminally charged, Depp and Heard were engaged in lengthy and highly publicized defamation cases". Thoughts? The One I Left (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
New article
Hpushkas318 has once again created an article: Cultural impact of Johnny Depp, with zero discussion or consensus. When this user first did it, two of us in a row reverted them. I deleted the first version, then another editor turned it into a redirect. Hpuskas318 has now pasted the article in from their sandbox over the redirect. It's pretty massive and looks to duplicate and expand on content here. Again, without any input or consensus. I strongly advise other editors to go look it over and decide whether to revert back to the redirect or if you want one of us to delete it again. - CorbieVreccan☊☼17:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
The user is indeffed now and the page turned back into a redirect. I agree, the text was so gushy and the tone so inappropriate throughout... I briefly considered flagging it for tone and then just reverted. It's so inappropriate I'm even considering hiding the revisions. My god. - CorbieVreccan☊☼20:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2023
This edit request to Johnny Depp has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
'The jury awarded Depp $10 million in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages. The punitive damages were reduced to $350,000 due to a limit imposed by Virginia state law'.
Rephrase this to:
'The jury awarded Depp $10 million in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages, though the punitive damages were reduced to $350,000 due to a limit imposed by an existing Virginia state law'.
This clarifies that the Virginia state did not reduce punitive damage as a malicious act against Depp, and/as the law existed before the sentence carried out. 110.145.223.234 (talk) 07:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Not done: His stepfather was not Robert Palmer (singer). See cited source here, which says the Palmer being referred to died in 2000 Cannolis (talk) 14:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. General Ization Talk 20:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Done Corrected. "Rabbies" is actually a common misspelling, appearing even in some medical journals, and is redirected here and at a number of medical dictionaries to the correct term, Rabies. General Ization Talk 03:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Already done Name is already linked in the infobox and in the body of the article. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:46, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Not done This is not an edit request related to COI. st170etalk 14:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Done Thanks! NiciVampireHeart 09:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
