Talk:Charlie Chaplin/Archive 5

Reader feedback: He appeared many times in pi...
70.113.97.178 posted this comment on 1 September 2013 (view all feedback).

"He appeared many times in pictures with animals. Is there any indication on his stance on animals? I find it hard to think that he didn't have any stance at all since he was so passionate about other humanitarian topics. Thanks for all this great info and documentation."

This strikes me as any interesting question: was Chaplin active on animal rights issues? —WFC— FL wishlist 13:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback! This is an interesting question, but I don't recall ever reading anything about Chaplin's views on the subject. He did like animals, especially cats (he had several of them), and included animals in many of his films (for example, dogs in A Dog's Life, cows in Sunnyside, horses in The Idle Class, a bear and two dogs in The Gold Rush, monkeys, horses and a lion in The Circus, an elephant and dogs in City Lights and cats in Monsieur Verdoux), but if he had strong views on animal rights, he doesn't seem to have ever discussed them publicly. He was certainly not a vegetarian, and I also recall reading that one of the ways in which they made the dogs cooperate in A Dog's Life was by giving them whiskey. Therefore no, I don't think he was ever active on animal rights issues in the same way he was with issues concerning social equality and racism. Hopefully this helps :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Edit request on 26 September 2013
Please include "Terry's Theme" also known as "Eternally" in the list of songs composed by Chaplain in the section "Music". It is the theme music to "Limelight" and also a popular song. This song, with lyrics by the same lyricists as "Smile", is equally famous.

Rogerrryates (talk) 12:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅. Okay, I put the song into the Music section. Check and see if my wording meets with your expectations. Binksternet (talk) 15:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Source for this? Also, I think it would be better if the sentence about 'Eternally' and the Petula Clark song would be combined, at the moment it looks too list-like. Or, perhaps include the bit about 'Eternally' in the same sentence where Chaplin's Oscar for composing the music of Limelight (including 'Eternally') is mentioned?TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * Before adding "Eternally" to the article I saw a bunch of Chaplin biographies which talked about this hit song as adapted from "Terry's Theme" in Limelight. Jerry Vance, Denis Gifford and Timothy James Lyons write about it in their various Chaplin biographies (Vance is already referenced in the article). Billboard magazine talked about it in 1973: "Charlie Chaplin: Hit Songwriter As Well As Comedian". I will put the latter piece into the article. Binksternet (talk) 17:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. Wasn't disputing the fact, just wanted it to have a reputable source because if we intend to take this article to FAC, everything needs to be sourced.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Contradictory rationales?
The recent mini-blitz of reversions to some edits seems to be both illogical and contradictory:


 * One editor, User:TrueHeartSusie3, reverted having " this image and instead using this one, with the rationale, "original image was much clearer." What am I missing? They are different versions of the same photo, but the so-called "much clearer" one is both blurrier, has too much contrast, lacks tonal detail, and cropped in an oblong shape, besides being much smaller.


 * That was followed by User:Loeba removing by far the best Chaplin image in an acting scene available in the Commons, and clearly the best for Modern Times, replacing it with a duplicated movie poster illustration, claiming that it adds color. However, it's a duplicate from the film's article, already linked in the caption. The "color" rationale might make sense if the alternate image was very poor, but in this case seems very illogical.


 * That removal was followed by Loeba's next one, replacing this many times larger and clear image with this one. The rationale given was, This img is more useful in an encylcopedia, demonstrating the autobiographic element of the film. Well, this is an encyclopedia, and the opinion that since it's somehow more "autobiographic," and thereby no good, likewise make no sense for a number of reasons:
 * The replaced image of him holding his foot shows him posed and staring into the camera, is off-centered with a wall for 80% of the photo, and effectively has no meaning;
 * The uncited and unnecessary commentary added to the caption of the smaller "wall photo" states that the film "was Chaplin's most serious and autobiographical film." Yet that caption would obviously fit the previous image, by the editor's own opinion that it was "autobiographic." Hence, an apparent contradiction;
 * The rest of the lengthy caption states, " His character, Calvero, is an ex-music hall star (described in this image as a "Tramp Comedian") forced to deal with his loss of popularity." Yet the mostly wall image, showing him holding his foot, is irrelevant to the caption, whereas at least the previous one more closely fits that description.


 * Relating again to Limelight, a direct and fairly meaningful quote by Chaplin about his selection of the co-star was not considered "necessary" by User:Loeba, and thereby deleted. This is also contradictory behavior, since most of the images in the article contain selected, lengthy and mostly uncited opinion commentary as a caption, and mostly unrelated to the image. Actually, I'm not even sure that using an image caption area to insert selected commentary unrelated to the actual image, is even acceptable, since it will often misrepresent a description of the image itself. For example, this "happy family" press photo includes in its caption irrelevant commentary, "Their marriage caused a scandal due to their 36-year age difference," and seems an abuse of a caption's intention, to clearly describe the image.


 * But despite the voluminous gratuitous caption commentary, this very useful and descriptive direct quote by Chaplin was removed by an editor because they "don't think the quote" is necessary. Obviously, that kind of rationale contradicts the other clearly unnecessary caption commentary, added by the same editors.--Light show (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I will reply to this fully tomorrow, too late now, but it the meantime I suggest you take a better look at the Limelight image I added and think about how it is autobiographical and relevant to the caption. The words "Tramp comedian"? The wall-picture of Calvero's character who looks suspiciously like a certain character that Chaplin was known for playing? If you can't see how this is demonstrating the autobiographical nature of the film I'm gobsmacked... -- Loeba (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The only thing less obvious would be knowing what he was thinking as he stares into the camera and puts on his slipper. --Light show (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Here we go again... First of all, I still think that the photo you inserted is blurrier and far too large, Chaplin's head seems to float in black space. As for Limelight, I think we've discussed this before with you, but if you had read books and journal articles on Chaplin, you would surely understand that it being called autobiographical is not an opinion, but it is considered to be the core element of the film – that you claim it is an opinion shows you probably haven't read much about its production or its analysis by film historians. Even Claire Bloom has talked about this in her first autobiography and many interviews. As for adding a quote about why he chose Bloom, do you seriously not see how that might be unnecessary? Sure, it's not a bad quote, but in an article which is already this length and in which none of his other co-stars/casting choices are discussed, adding a quite lengthy quote about Bloom is unnecessary. Why in your mind does Bloom deserve a special mention over Mabel Normand, Edna Purviance, Georgia Hale, Virginia Cherrill, Paulette Goddard, Martha Raye and Sophia Loren? I suggest that you add that quote to Bloom's article or the Limelight article rather than in Chaplin's.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 23:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3


 * I wrote, "The uncited and unnecessary commentary [in the] . . .  caption would obviously fit the previous image." It otherwise reads as an "opinion" and does not belong in a caption box in any case. Making sense of statements should not require a person to "read much about its production or its analysis by film historians." But how an obviously sharper image in a thumbnail size, like all the other images, can be "too large", is something I can't answer. But the tone of both of your responses to very basic, neutral questions, "gobsmacked," and "here we go again," should give some a clue as to why many editors find improving articles is like entering a combat zone. --Light show (talk) 00:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Light show, why we're both slightly tired by these kind of discussions is that we already had these with you when you were WikiWatcher1 and they never led anywhere. If you look at our interactions with other members, you can see that we're very open for changes and constructive criticism – in fact, we encourage that! Maybe reconsider the tone of what you've written, starting from calling the reverts 'mini-blitz' and then wonder why discussions take a 'combative' tone? It might explain why people don't react that well to you. It seems that you are determined to make all kinds of small changes to the article, and when we revert to the earlier versions because they don't add to the article, you keep on insisting that they do and that we're just being biased. When we explain you why they don't, based on the extensive research we've done for the article (as in the case of calling Limelight 'autobiographic'), you seem to insist that such research is not necessary. It's very puzzling and I frankly don't even understand why you're so interested in editing the Chaplin article if you don't read about him.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Yes, firstly, your comment did not read quite as "neutrally" as you say. Anyway - let's go through this in points: I don't want to come off as displaying WP:OWN activity, I'm just doing what I genuinely think (and I'm sure this applies to Susie as well) is best for an article that I care about... -- Loeba (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The Modern Times image: I'm not sure why its presence on the film article makes it any less worth having here? I could just as easily put your image on the film article and say the exact same thing. I genuinely think it's nice to include some colour images - if we only relied on film stills, the article would only have the photo of his house in Switzerland to add some colour. I do like your MT photo (and let me just add that I'm aware of how many actor images you have added to WP, and think they are wonderful additions that I'm sincerely grateful for), and if other users prefer it I won't resist its inclusion, but for me - the colour added by the poster alone makes it superior.
 * Limelight image: Again, yours is a nice image (and it makes a great addition to the Limelight article), but I genuinely thought it was interesting to show how closely Chaplin made Calvero to his own life. I thought highlighting the "Tramp comedian" reference in the caption made this obvious (and tbh, I'm sure to most readers it must be) but I can have a go at making this clearer..? This image actually adds to understanding of Chaplin's career, whereas the other image is only for decoration.
 * The style of captions in the article: As WP:CAPTION says, these are one of the most read parts of any article, and putting a bit of extra information in is a great way to give "skimmers" information and make them more interested. The guidelines say that a good caption "establishes the picture's relevance to the article", "provides context for the picture", and "draws the reader into the article". How does "Chaplin in Modern times (1936)" do any of these things? Even the "succinct" criteria says, "Succinctness means using no superfluous or needless words. It is not the same as brevity, which means using a relatively small number of words." So, there is no rule against long captions. I'll be interested to see if any other users complain about the captions here when the article is reviewed. And by the way, as Susie said, nothing in the captions is opinion. I don't even know what you mean by that.
 * Removing the quote: I don't feel good about removing stuff that other users have researched and written (which is why I tried to temper it by saying "I don't think", rather than flat out saying "unnecessary quote", but this somehow seems to have irritated you even more...) but the article is very long, and I'm actually hoping to trim it in places soon, so I'm immediately cautious about any additions...and Chaplin's reasons behind hiring Claire Bloom just don't seem important enough to warrant making the article longer. It wasn't an exceptional case that he hired an unknown actress - in fact, almost all of his leading ladies were unknown when he hired them. Your research can easily go into the Limelight article so that it isn't wasted?


 * I appreciate your response. I agree that the article is much longer than necessary, and my few edits, even with the quote, actually reduced the article's size by over 300 bytes by trimming some caption commentary. But photo issues are always subjective, so I can't do more than than add some I find an improvement. As for the captions, and your guideline reference, that they should "provide context for the picture", and "draw the reader into the article," I agree totally. But commentary added to a caption can also be misused, as I mentioned. I gave one example above, what I called the "happy family" press photo. The section it's in is about 75% devoted to the paternity suit by Joan Barry, while the other 25% is about Chaplains new marriage, which he calls "the happiest event of my life," along with other positive details. There was no mention of a "scandal" about their  marriage anywhere in the entire article. So why should the commentary, Their marriage caused a scandal due to their 36-year age difference, be added as a caption there? It contradicts both the photo its describing and the article's commentary.


 * Since the size of the article has been used as a reason to limit any added material, it's obvious to me that much of its size is due to a massive about of minutia and trivia that really doesn't work in an encyclopedia-type article. Both the body copy and even the notes seem excessive, IMO. A paternity suit by a former lover doesn't need to have 450 words devoted to mostly tabloid-style trivia.


 * The article's weight generally strikes me as heavy on the negative aspects of his career. With over 35 different sources used, the article relies mostly on one, Robinson's bio, which might explain that impression. Even Amazon's description of the book emphasizes its negative aspects immediately:


 * ""But he was also a man plagued by loneliness and driven by the search for artistic perfection. His life was an extraordinarily dramatic one, and David Robinson explores the often tragic story of Chaplin’s alcoholic father; his mentally disturbed mother; his marriages to very young women; the “white slavery” case against him; and his persecution by anti-Communist forces during the McCarthy era, which ultimately forced Chaplin to leave America.""


 * A reader could go to this article with the impression given by watching this award ceremony, about a titanic moviemaker, and finish reading it thinking they just read about a human disaster. The captions didn't help. Anyway, thanks for replying. --Light show (talk) 21:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You're comparing this to the Titanic sinking? Wow, that's pretty mean about an article we've put a huge amount of time and effort into writing...I don't know why you would do this when I've already said I intend to trim back the material. But you know what? Honestly, comments like yours make me think "What's the point, why even bother?" It's so disheartening...
 * And yes, actually, the article DOES state that the marriage to Oona was controversial. Could you please start actually reading the article properly before you make these claims?? And if you knew anything about Chaplin, you'd know that Robinson's biography is considered the definitive text on him, and that no one has ever claimed it is "too negative" (huh??) Your comments only makes you look silly and like you have no right to be giving an opinion on a Chaplin article in the first place. -- Loeba (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * For editors who don't "want to come off as displaying WP:OWN activity," you and TrueHeartSusie's statements imply the opposite, another contradiction. For her, I need an explanation: I frankly don't even understand why you're so interested in editing the Chaplin article, and for you I need a court order: . . .you have no right to be giving an opinion on a Chaplin article. --Light show (talk) 22:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh please - what is the point in only quoting a part of my comment without any context? You know full well I wasn't making a demand like that (unless you really are incapable of reading things properly, that is). Ridiculous. -- Loeba (talk) 06:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Reading things properly, you'd have understood that my Titanic metaphor simply referred to the quote preceding it, where the book, like much of the article, emphasizes Chaplin's "tragic story." But the article is excellent overall. --Light show (talk) 07:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Light show, your comment about Robinson's book shows just how clueless you are about this topic. FYI, Robinson is considered to be so incredibly negative on Chaplin that he has been attacked for being far too soft by biographers such as Kenneth S. Lynn, and indeed is considered to make Chaplin's life into a tragedy to the extent that he has been chosen by Chaplin's children to write for the official Chaplin webpage as well as to create 'mini-docs' for each of the MK2 DVD releases. Any book or article you read about Chaplin is bound to rely heavily on Robinson because his is the definitive biography; if you had read any books about Chaplin you'd know this as all post-1985 books base their research on his. I don't see how you can argue about the content of this article since you have obviously not done any research on Chaplin and I am sure it is quite reasonable for me not to take your 'criticism' seriously given that it's really just based on your personal opinion, not on any research. For some reason you seem to not understand this reasoning although it pretty much is the cornerstone of Wikipedia. Yes, we're opposing your changes, not because you would need our permission (?!?) but because your ideas for improvements wildly contradict the source material that we've read and you're not able to provide any better sources (reading book reviews on Amazon is not considered research). This discussion is getting completely pointless regarding improvements to the article and this will be the last time I am taking part in it. Light show, I think it would be more productive for you to edit articles you know something about.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 08:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Suggesting a possible change or addition to his birth date
An announcement of his birth in the Saturday 11 May 1889 issue of The Era (newspaper) has come to light - courtesy of a well-known and respected genealogist - which reads: "BIRTH. - April 15th, the wife of Charles Chaplin, nee Lily Harley, of a beautiful boy. Mother and son both doing well." This may be searched on: www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk. This is not definitive proof that he was born on April 15th rather than the day after. And the newspaper notice does not specify where he was born. But - given the uncertainty surrounding his exact date of birth - it should be seen as a significant alternate date at the very least. Candelar (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello! Thanks for the comment. David Robinson actually mentions this in his biography on Chaplin, but then follows it with something like "Despite this, Chaplin always celebrated his birthday on April 16." I don't know if that means we should stick with the 16th date or not, but my personal inclination is that we probably should. We could mention the discrepancy in a footnote? -- Loeba (talk) 16:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah! I must confess to not having read David Robinson's biography of him. And certainly if Chaplin himself either believed he was born on the 16th or for some unknown reason preferred to celebrate it on that day - who are we to 'change' it for him now? So yes, I think a footnote would be perfectly adequate. Perhaps as an addition to that same [note 1]. And again - given all the attention to this (even by MI5!) - I do think it would be a good idea to put it there.  If you agree, would you like to do this?  I don't believe I've been editing enough Wikipedia articles or for long enough to qualify for the task. Candelar (talk) 20:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think 16th was also the date in all his passports and other official documentation, despite the fact that no birth certificate ever existed. Adding a line about the Era birth announcement to the note sounds good!TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 00:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)--TrueHeartSusie3

Right, I've added a quick comment on this to footnote 1 (although Candelar, please don't be afraid to be bold, however new you are!) But I notice that Robinson's scan comes from something called The Magnet (no explanation of what sort of paper that was), whereas Candelar shows a scan from The Era, and both mention the 15th (and the announcements were made on the same day, no less). Which is making me think he must've been born on the 15th! Hannah or Charlie Sr must've sent off the announcements, but then by the time his next birthday came round they thought it was the 16th. Or something like that. It shows how sketchy his parents were, heh. I still don't know if we should change it to the 15th (and then add a comment that he always believed it to be 16th) or leave it as it is... -- Loeba (talk) 11:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point, I didn't notice that! Thanks for updating the note.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * How about changing that part of the main text to something like: "... was born on 15 or 16 April 1889 to ...." - as well as adding The Era reference to the note? And for the dates in brackets after his name at the top: (15/16 April 1889 – 25 December 1977)? And then we can see if the Oxford DNB catches up later on! Thanks Loeba for adding The Magnet reference. My coming across this renewed debate was from a genealogy mailing list to which I subscribe and where the latest post on the subject (from the original poster) includes the following: "I too have been told that there was an announcement in The Magnet that seems to have been more or identical to the one I found in The Era. However, unless I've missed it I don't think The Magnet is yet on the BNA website. ...." The whole thread of the discussion there (Subject: Birth of Charlie Chaplin - I find a record!) can be found at: rootsweb.ancestry.com Candelar (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I forgot to add that I also like your idea, Loeba, of adding a comment how Chaplin always believed he was born on the 16th. And then I don't know if it would be a good idea to also remark (in the note) that newspaper notices are not infallible. Of course the fact the notice appeared in two different publications gives a little more weight to it. Except that - if the wording is identical - that suggests it was the same person who sent it to them ... and it was almost a month later. There is also the possibility that Chaplin may have been born a little after midnight on the 16th - and that would have felt like it was still the 15th. But this is all pure speculation.  And actually the Oxford DNB says he was born at 8 p.m. - which, if true, puts the kibosh on that little theory! Candelar (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Best birth date to use?
Chaplin always considered his birthday to be 16 April. Should we change it to 15 April, which was the date given in his birth announcements in May 1889? -- Loeba (talk) 11:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * If reliable references have for a long time considered the 16 April to be his birthdate then I would leave it alone and just add a note about the newspaper announcements to keep it simple. MilborneOne (talk) 12:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * As a family historian and very much used to coming across slightly or even wildly different dates for the same event in a person's life, I find it is often necessary to either choose the date that bears the most reliable source(s) found or else put in both (or all of) the alternate dates with their various sources in one or more footnotes. In the case of Charlie Chaplin we now have two birth dates. The first being: 16 April, 1889, which has long been assumed to be the correct one (especially by Chaplin himself) - but which is often expressed in terms like: "... is believed to have been born on ..." - see: Oxford DNB. The second is now: 15 April, 1889, which was published in two contemporary newspapers: The Era ("a British weekly paper, published from 1838 to 1939") and another weekly, The Magnet ("A Journal devoted to the interests of the Music Hall, Theatrical, and Equestrian Professions" - "published in Leeds from 1866"). Both of these birth announcements were published on the same day 11 May 1889 (almost one month after the birth) and are almost identically worded. The Magnet has it under a heading 'The Cradle': "On the 15th ultimo, the wife of Mr Charles Chaplin (nee Miss Lily Harley), of a beautiful boy.  Mother and son both doing well. Papers please copy." I would therefore suggest - as I already have in the previous thread 'Suggesting a possible change or addition to his birth date' - that it would be a good idea to include both dates.  This could be done in just an expanded footnote on the question of his birthday or also in the main body of the text - as I suggested in that previous thread. I remain somewhat unsure if it is sufficient to follow the first course - that of just putting it in a footnote - given that the 16th date really should be qualified with words like "it is believed that" or better still the mention that Chaplin himself so believed and celebrated his birthday.  But if that is added to the main text, then a footnote giving the two weekly newspaper references would be sufficient. That's my opinion anyway. Candelar (talk) 13:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * use the date that the preponderance of reliably published sources use if there are different dates that have been widely published by reliable sources, then we note those differences. We do not do the researching for birth notices in papers that identifies a questionable date. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that the Wikipedia policy of "No Original Research" comes across clearly enough in your comment. Just to make sure: We certainly do research, as Wikipedia editors, looking for third-party, reliable sources. "No Original Research" forbids material "for which no reliable, published sources exist," including "any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources," typically an editor's own, personal position. You might wanted to say the same thing. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Use the date that the preponderance of reliably published sources use. If there are different dates, then we note those differences.-The Gnome (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

GA review precheck
I saw this on Good article nominations, thought "well this looks worthwhile" and had a look. My heart sank at finding nearly 500 citations to review, but hey, somebody's got to do it. Then I read the talk page and noticed discussions of recent reversions from a few weeks back, an RFC on his birth date that still seems to be active, and the odd personal attack flying around on the talk page. Before I pick this up, I would like some assurance that what we currently have is stable and is not doing to change. It will take me a few days to GA review this, and if things are changing too much in that timeframe, I won't be able to keep up and will have to fail it on GA criteria #5 ("stability"). Can I get some assurance that everything has settled down? The outstanding RFC on his birth date is my biggest concern right now. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   15:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your interest in the article. As it happens, User:Cassianto expressed an interest in reviewing the page some time ago, so I asked him before nominating if he'd like to do the GA review and he agreed. I think he's planning to start it today. Regarding stability, I understand your concerns there but hopefully the above issue is all cleared up. I actually completely forgot about the RfC (!), but will close that now since everyone who commented said the birthdate should stay as it is, with convincing argument. -- Loeba (talk) 16:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay, no problem. IMHO Cassianto is an experienced editor who helped get Peter Sellers to FAC (amongst other things) so I'm sure he'll do a good job. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   16:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * , has the RfC closed yet? Are we all clear of possible stability problems? Oh, and do you want me to just check against the criteria, or are you happy for a bit of a more in depth review? Nothing too involved and it certainly won't effect any success at summing up should you disagree with my suggestions.  glad of any technical pointers should you have any as this will be my first GA review. --   Cassianto Talk   17:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * RfC is closed. I guess we'll know in the next couple of days whether or not the discussion above is finished, but, I'd really appreciate if you could allow the review to proceed smoothly - especially since several edits were made to address your concerns. , I'm definitely happy for you to do a more in-depth review than GA requires, if you don't mind doing that. Cheers, -- Loeba (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Great! Now doing, I'm finding it impossible to not be not-picky :-D --  Cassianto Talk   18:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Haha, pick away! I appreciate you devoting extra time to the review. -- Loeba (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec) In terms of technical pointers, as long as you understand WP:WIAGA you should have no problems. If you want to go above and beyond that, please do - I tend to list any improvements and only after discussion might I say "well, we haven't got a consensus but it's not part of the GA criteria, so let's leave it for now." It does look like a borderline FA from a first glance, but appearances can be deceptive. Common things to watch out for include checking ends of paragraphs that are uncited, large amounts of text that appear to only cite a single source (which may or may not mean an uncited sentence is hiding in the middle), book references without ISBNs or page numbers, suspicious phrases like "some say", "most claim", "... is universally known to" and facts in the lead that aren't cited properly in the body. I've seen all of these, and they're all easy to miss on just a casual glance. It helps to have a basic understanding on the topic, otherwise you might struggle to spot things that you think should be in the article but aren't (and which are required to meet criteria 3. "broad in its coverage"). Finally, there's a template, GAList that allows you to "tick off" that the relevant criteria are met. Talk:Sega Genesis/GA2 and Talk:Bournemouth/GA1 are two of my favourite recent GA reviews. If you need any other help, let me know and I'll lend a hand. Bottom line is I think we all want the article to pass, so while you need to be fair, you should wait for any problems to be fixed, and assume they will be. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   19:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that most helpful reply.  For my sins, I stick to PR and FAC and rarely (if not ever) delve into the unknown abyss of GAC.  I shall use these helpful GA's, hopefully to my advantage.  I see a bot has done some of the confusing stuff for me so, at the moment, I'm winning! --   Cassianto Talk   19:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Personal life limited
I notice there is no mention of his friendships with William Randolph Hearst, Marion Davies, Albert Einstein and others. He was obviously very close to Douglas Fairbanks and Mary Pickford outside of movies. Same with Orson Welles and other actors, which went beyond just buying screen rights. He spent many weekends at Hearst's castle and was even on his 140-ft. boat when screenwriter friend Thomas Ince died under mysterious circumstances (some say shot.) His personal life also included his political leanings, which actually began before Hoover's smear campaign, as he sold $millions for liberty bonds and bought a $million of his own, I believe. So, FWIW, his personal life seems a bit minimal. I even have a great photo of him and Einstein together, BTW, which I'd be happy to upload (1918 PD). And again, FWIW, I prefer WP bios that have a separate personal life section, with marriages, friends, etc. in one convenient place, so I'm not even sure where any of the above could be inserted, since they're not simply chronological events, like his films or legal cases. --Light show (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll add that I'm using the talk page to mention issues that can or should, IMO, be dealt with, instead of just editing them. That's because when I did that earlier, they all got reverted w/o much comment and led to a massive discussion. So I'll talk first and avoid edit wars.--Light show (talk) 20:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Can you hold fire please. The article is under GA review and your constant commenting will be time consuming for the nominator's and may appear to others that the article is unstable, thus failing on the criteria.  Do us all a favour and go do something else until this review is over.  By all means return after if you still have issues, but for now the nom's need to concentrate on the review.  Cheers. --  Cassianto Talk   20:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I just don't agree that his friends need to be mentioned. Not important. If we mentioned on the Ben Affleck article "He is good friends with Matt Damon", (bad example, since they actually won an Oscar together so their friendship has relevance....okay, replace with Leonardo DiCaprio and Toby Maguire) it would probably be called trivia. You're inaccurate anyway - yes, he was great friends with Doug Fairbanks, but he and Pickford didn't get along very well, Einstein could only just about be called an "acquaintance" (I think they socialised twice), Orson Welles was definitely not a friend (where did you get that from?)...As for his political views, the development of these is discussed in "Travels, Paulette Goddard and Modern Times", and also touched on in "The Great Dictator" section. The Bond tour is mentioned. I've said about four times to you that I also prefer separate personal life sections, but it wouldn't work well on a Chaplin article. Please stop mentioning this. -- Loeba (talk) 21:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If all that is said is "They are good friends", then that is simply trivia. If there is more sourced content that can be included about working together (or even planning projects together that didn't come to fruition) or naming kids after each other or work being cited as an influence on the other, or if they formed the equivalent of the Rat Pack - then that can merit inclusion with a preface that they were friends. But if it is simply so and so were friends, then there doesn't seem to be a reason to include. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well the friendship with Fairbanks did influence them founding UA together. So okay, we could mention it there. -- Loeba (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Re the separate personal life section, I thought there was a consensus not to have one here. I'm slightly surprised the topic has been raised again. - SchroCat (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it was discussed later, but initially Loeba decided unilaterally to stick with chrono as no one responded.


 * Not to belabor the points about friends and acquaintances, but Chaplin had Einstein and his wife come to L.A. to join him at the premier of City Lights. I have a photo of them together there, BTW. According to Louvish, they first met in Hollywood at an earlier time and Chaplin also later stayed with Einstein and his wife at their home in Berlin. "The two men had hit it off from the start," writes Louvish.


 * His friendship with Welles was mostly business, as they spent time going over Welles's book idea which he eventually sold him and was made into Monsieur Verdoux. Lots of sources for those details, including Leaming's Orson Welles: A Biography, ie. "Orson told the press that he had sold Chaplin the material because he thought him the single living actor capable of playing the part," etc. Leaming also describes in detail many of their social get-togethers, ie. "Chaplin told Orson of an afternoon when . . . ." They got along very well, but again, like most professionals, it related to business. Chaplin lived right below Fairbanks and Pickford's home on the hill. I have another photo of them all together. But Chaplin's personal life had many dimensions, even excluding his young lady-friends. It seemed to be treated too lightly in the bio.


 * It's also light on Chaplin's active contributions to Uncle Sam. "Celebrities hosted rallies to promote the sale of bonds. Film stars Mary Pickford, Douglas Fairbanks, and Charlie Chaplin held a rally on Wall Street in New York that drew 30,000 people." Chaplin even made a film called The Bond, which ended with Chaplin "thumping Kaiser Wilhelm II, the German leader, on the head with a sign that read 'Liberty Bonds.'" According to Maland, Chaplin's public appearances helped sell over $3 million worth of Liberty Bonds. Anyway, there is nothing about Chaplin's bonds efforts. --Light show (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Did You Know?
Well done everybody for a good GA review. As an extra bonus, we can now nominate new GAs to the Did You Know? process, and I've nominated one for Chaplin here, scheduled to run on his birthday next year. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   15:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool, that's a good initiative from DYK. Funnily enough, even though I'm very aware that 2014 will be 100 years since Chaplin's film debut, I hadn't realised that it's also his 125th birthday. -- Loeba (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a good thing we had that RfC ... now we can be absolutely sure it is per consensus ;-) Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   21:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the consensus was that Wikipedia shouldn't be publishing evidence found in birth notices; not until a secondary source does this first. Anyway, Chaplin definitely celebrated his birthday on April 16 so that's the day we should celebrate it too. -- Loeba (talk) 21:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

"prestigious"
While the GAN somehow came to the conclusion to include it: "Some would consider "prestigious" a bit peacocky. Not me, because this was Fred Karno, but it's up to you.

Most readers won't know this, so would think it was "just another role". --Loeba (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC) ::Me too. I agreed with this already. (FAC may want evidence as to why it was "prestigious", just to give you a heads up).--CassiantoTalk 21:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)"

- Talk:Charlie Chaplin/GA2

that is precisely the effect that WP:PEACOCK says we are not to do.:


 * Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information. ... Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance.

-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I suggest you familiarise yourself with WP:BRD and adopt the Bold Revert and Discuss way of doing things rather than make your own rules up. Secondly as you helpfully point out, I picked up on this during the GAN review and challenged its use.   pointed out that Karno's company was an extremely notable entertainments group who were known for their popular shows and reviews.  These reliable sources   also note that Karno's company was "prestigious" as well as many others including this, this, and this. The Music Hall Guild of Great Britain and America call Karno of Music Hall’s brightest and funniest comedians", while Philip C. DiMare, the author of Movies in American History: An Encyclopedia: calls the Karno troupe "England's most famous pantomime troupe". On that basis I think it should stay. --  Cassianto Talk   14:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Charlie Chaplin Film Festival is hardly the front line of reliable sources. 2) use of the empty word prestigious purely to emphasize the prestige of Chaplin being a part of the org is PRECISELY what WP:PEACOCK says we should NOT be doing. If you are going to WP:IAR you need to do so in the conditional that it "improves the encyclopedia". it does not improve the encyclopedia to be using fluff to attempt to make a point. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * (and re the BRD- it was not BOLD to initially remove the PEACOCK term - that is standard editing. It was a BOLD edit to remove it the second time on the basis that the GAN rationale to keep the PEACOCK term was limited, local and faulty.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that including the word does improve the article, because - like I said at the GAN - it makes clear to readers that it was a very important role and thus the turning point of his career. I really don't get the "peacock paranoia" on wikipedia - if it is accurate, why can't we communicate the importance of something to readers so that they get the full context? -- Loeba (talk) 16:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * TRPoD, same rules apply with BRD. Since the article has gone through a GA review and the issue was raised and settled there, I consider your edit to be bold inasmuch that you disregarded that in favour of your interpretation.  Your quick to throw around policies and procedures at a whim, so please read and digest this before doing the same thing again in the future. --  Cassianto Talk   16:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * if it was "it was a very important role and thus the turning point of his career." then we have a reliably published source that makes that analysis. we dont do so for the reader by making proclamations of how stupendous the project was. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well that statement isn't made in the article anyway so don't accuse me of OR, but stating that the company was prestigious (which is covered by the source) indicates this to the reader in a way that wouldn't be clear otherwise. I included a brief quote from both Robinson and Marriot within the ref, to support the prestige of the company - Marriot calls Karno "a promoter and showman of legendary proportions", and here's Robinson's full comment: "The comedy sketch was a staple of the music halls in the early years of the century ... [lists some popular acts] ... Fred Karno's Speechless Comedians, though, were supreme of their kind. They were the conjuncture and end of several traditions of English pantomime." I really don't see a need to directly attribute this (especially as it is attributed within the ref anyway). -- Loeba (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Possible non-neutral material
As one of the most significant aspects of Chaplin's biography, his expulsion from the U.S. is covered much too lightly in the article, IMO. Looking over some important sections that cover the topic, such as Legal troubles and Oona O'Neill and Limelight and exile, its only implied in the separate Notes section, yet stated clearly by the cited authors in their books, is the fact that Chaplin's expulsion was a part of a major and well-coordinated "smear campaign." Both Robinson and Maland, along with other equally notable writers such as Otto Friedrich, in his City of Nets: A Portrait of Hollywood in the 1940's (HarperCollins), describe in no uncertain terms, the facts that the FBI, Hoover himself, W.R. Hearst, Hedda Hopper, and many others, were targeting Chaplin and digging for any pretext to ruin his career.

Robinson, who this article's primary editors claim is the foremost Chaplin historian, states bluntly that the FBI "pushed an unstable young woman, Joan Barry, into bringing a series of charges, including a paternity claim, against Chaplin. The paternity claim was later proved to be false; but the mud stuck, and the FBI went on to manipulate a smear campaign charging Chaplin with Communist sympathies." (Oxford History of World Cinema, 1997, p. 85) John Sbardellati, another writer cited in the article, writes: The FBI "would ultimately play a leading role in driving "the tramp" out of the country. Yet the FBI had never been able to establish any proof . . . . while it was quite willing to secretly disseminate information that could be used by columnists such as Hedda Hopper to smear Chaplin's public image." (J. Edgar Hoover Goes to the Movies: The FBI and the Origins of Hollywood's Cold War, Cornell Univ. Press, 2012, p. 128).

So the problem with the material in this article relating to Chaplin's expulsion is that it has made little attempt to wipe off the mud. Quite the contrary, IMO. Looking at the last sentence in most of the paragraphs dealing with the subject, the average reader would be excused for assuming Chaplin was clearly in the wrong:


 * "She filed a paternity suit and told the story to the press, after which Chaplin went into hiding to avoid reporters."
 * "The case was frequently headline news, with Newsweek calling it the "biggest public relations scandal since the Fatty Arbuckle murder trial in 1921."
 * "Media coverage of the paternity suit showed no sympathy towards Chaplin, instead portraying him in an overwhelmingly critical light."
 * " In early 1947, an FBI investigation was opened on Chaplin under the premise that he was a potential threat to national security."
 * "He should be deported and gotten rid of at once."
 * "When he received a cablegram informing him of the news, however, he privately decided to cut his ties with the United States."
 * "In America the hostility towards him continued, and, although it received some positive reviews, Limelight was subject to a large boycott."

For someone like Chaplin, the article seems to support the fact that despite his great talent as a comedian, he was in his personal life, mostly a predator. However, the sources and newly exposed details about his being surveilled by both the FBI and M15 (per Notes #1), and found innocent of most of the allegations he was ever accused of, imply he was mostly prey, a victim of a successful smear campaign. I think it would be worthwhile to correct or try to balance the expulsion aspects, and not rely on the Notes and readers' ability to draw their own conclusions which contradict the article text. --Light show (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, so not long ago the article was far too negative about Chaplin, but now the expulsion is covered "far too lightly". Perhaps now you see why the negative aspects are necessary to understanding where his expulsion came from??? That extreme reaction didn't come out of nowhere! All those quotations you gave are factual statements. Yes, Chaplin was treated terribly and unfairly, but that is a FACT. The statements you selected are given to help readers understand how it got to the point that he was no longer welcome in the US (which, again, is is a fact). What exactly would you like to be added to the article Lightshow? What would "balance the expulsion aspects" that is still factual? Chaplin's point of view is given: it's states that he was trying to defend civil liberties and gives his opinion that America was "hate-beleaguered" and full of "moral pomposity"; we say that if he had tried to re-enter the US, the government wouldn't have had a case against him..what else would make you happy? I can't speak for TrueHeartSusie (the other primary editor) but I personally find it amazing that I'm being accused of making Chaplin look like he was in the wrong, when I'm 100% on his side over the whole issue... -- Loeba (talk) 02:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd be "happy" if you simply relax, as I was not accusing anyone of anything, but just wanted to make a general observation. I have no idea when or why any of the text was written, or by whom, but I'm happy you didn't disagree with my comments. No one can tell you "exactly" how to change anything, especially with the bio in strict chronological order. Otherwise, I might have suggested a separate section. If you both allow me to edit some material, I'd be happy to give it a try. --Light show (talk) 03:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Can you blame me for being testy when the last time you were here you harshly insulted the article? And you have been pretty difficult in all our previous discussions, whether you realise it or not. I am largely disagreeing with you, because I'm saying everything in the article is accurate and not misleading, and that Chaplin's point of view is still given. And I don't see how your statement that "the FBI, Hoover himself, W.R. Hearst, Hedda Hopper, and many others, were targeting Chaplin and digging for any pretext to ruin his career" is not communicated in the article.
 * Also, the article isn't in "strict" chronological order. The exile does technically have its own section. All of the following topics are given their own paragraph or two, rather than intermingling the material in the exact order they happened: the difficulties of his childhood, his childhood performances, founding UA, Mildred Harris marriage, Lita Grey marriage and divorce, the Joan Barry trials, Oona O'Neill marriage, the communist accusations, and every one of his films. The Paulette Goddard marriage doesn't have its own para, but all the info is still contained easily within one section. I agree that jumping around between topics, purely for the sake of being chronological, can be problematic and make it difficult for readers who want to find out about a specific topic, which is precisely why I decided to try and separate things a bit (some of them very recently). I like to think of this article as a kind of hybrid between chronological biographies and those that separate career and personal life. It is necessary to mingle them in a Chaplin article, otherwise you wouldn't understand the background to a lot of his films, but the topics are introduced at the most appropriate point and then dealt with separately. -- Loeba (talk) 14:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The subject is very misleading IMO, for the reasons already stated. If you need more reasons, just ask. --Light show (talk) 19:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

, I know that you have an interest in the article - can I ask if you have an opinion on this? Do you think the material in the article that talks about Chaplin's decline in popularity and eventual exile from the US is misleading, inaccurate or biased? -- Loeba (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Chaplin certainly had his faults, notably a predilection for very young women. However, I think we should include more of the information which clears his name of false accusations. Let's tell the reader his faults when they are known to be true, but let's make sure to identify when he is being smeared. Binksternet (talk) 00:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Everything in the article that happened to him (ie, the statements quoted above by Lightshow) are facts, and we also make clear that Chaplin denied being a communist and that the FBI case against him was weak. But okay, it's worth stating clearly that it was a particularly malicious campaign. I suppose I assumed the extremity of the activity against him made this clear (personally, when I read all of that I can only feel sympathy for Chaplin) but maybe I'm taking it for granted that readers will already know how awful/ridiculous McCarthyism was.
 * Admittedly, I read Lightshow's comment at 2 in the morning after a night of drinking, still feeling annoyed at him/her after the last comments they made about the article, so didn't read it very well. The quote from Robinson that you gave is actually pretty effective at summing it up (I've not read that article) - I wonder if it would be appropriate to put that in a quote box?
 * It's such a difficult topic to sum up efficiently... -- Loeba (talk) 19:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've started making some changes, bare with me. -- Loeba (talk) 19:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure a "summary" format, with quote boxes or not, would work too well here. The article is chronological, but the campaign against him transpired over about 40 year, thereby relating to many sections and many of the events and people in his life. --Light show (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No don't worry, I changed my mind about a quote box. There isn't' room anyway, heh. By the way, I only just saw your comment above that "the article is excellent overall". Sorry, I wouldn't have said I was still annoyed with you if I'd seen that (and probably wouldn't have responded so viscerally here). That's a really nice thing to read - I'm constantly second-guessing myself over whether the article is good or not! And I'm glad you've "forced" me into making these changes, it is worth doing. I genuinely thought it must be obvious that it was a hateful campaign, but I guess it's not necessarily obvious to someone who doesn't know the background. I was interrupted by dinner but will get back to making edits (I've been meaning to work on the "communist accusations section" anyway, so this is a good excuse). -- Loeba (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, I've trimmed about 1000 words from the article - do you think the level of detail is better now? -- Loeba (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * A lot better. The level of detail in Joan Barry's allegations could easily be trimmed more, considering her credibility was essentially nullified in the end:


 * "The FBI's campaign was compromised by the character of the victim. Joan Barry, whom Chaplin had indeed promised to help with her fledgling career, was known as promiscuous, alcoholic, violent, erratic and suicidal. Barry had been caught shoplifting, writing bad cheques and attempting to extort money from rich men, not least Getty. As the months passed, the FBI feared that 'Joan Barry might land in jail and our case would be ruined.'"(Joan Mellon, Modern Times, British Film Institute (2006) p. 80.)


 * Here's a description of how they met:


 * "He was now fifty-three, . . . vulnerable to the advances of an attractive redhead named Joan Barry. She was a friend, as they say, of J. Paul Getty, the oilman, who was just two years younger than Chaplin. . . . That first encounter was 'an innocuous evening,' Chaplin thought, but then Miss Barry telephoned and asked him to invite her to lunch. . . She told him that she had quarreled with Getty and was about to return to New York but would stay in Hollywood if Chaplin wanted her to remain. . . . 'Overnight, my existence became a nightmare,' said Chaplin." (Otto Friedrich, City of Nets, p. 189). --Light show (talk) 21:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well I'm glad it's a lot better, I'm personally not sure the Barry info can be trimmed any more. The point is that the whole affair significantly contributed to his decline in popularity, so readers need to know about it. What specific bits do you think could be cut? -- Loeba (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe splitting the section into two would work, considering that the suit is 75% and his marriage to Oona only 25%. That way the suit can be covered and his marriage details can expand to to add more than "Chaplin and O'Neill remained married until his death," and had eight children. BTW, is the name and birth date of each child really useful in this section? But I'll look at the Barry suit details later on. --Light show (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well like I said before, the idea is that users who only want to find out about the marriage can get it all in that one paragraph...I'm not sure what other information about their marriage could be added. They were very happy together and didn't really have any drama...there's really not much to say. What do you think of my edits regarding your neutrality concerns? Is that cleared up? I used the sources you mentioned, thanks for those. -- Loeba (talk) 22:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Sandbox
The neutrality was a bit better I thought. But rather than suggest details I would change, I found it easier to just create a sandbox and play around with the "Legal troubles" section. I trimmed and moved text around, and added some new material. The overall word length is about 10% longer. I also removed the 8 children's names to save space. --Light show (talk) 05:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit late on this discussion, sorry! While I don't think that the text before was necessarily non-neutral, it is a good idea to add something about the smear campaign. However, we have to be careful not to go to the other extreme. I looked at your draft, Light show, and while it definitely has its strengths, I would also propose some changes.


 * I thought that Barry's decision to file the paternity claim preceded FBI's involvement. If I recall correctly, Barry filed her claim (aided by Hopper), in early June, and FBI started an investigation in July.
 * ""Overnight, my existence became a nightmare," said Chaplin, describing the period after first becoming involved with Barry." I kind of feel that we should not add this quote. Chaplin definitely wanted to make it seem that he was almost forced into the relationship, but for example Maland is skeptical about this. Barry was a shady character, but so was Chaplin. Also, Chaplin is talking about the relationship, whereas the quote is situated after the info about Barry filing the paternity suit; it makes it look as if he is describing the trials rather than the affair.
 * Having the paternity trial before the Mann Act trial in the text might be confusing for readers, as the Mann Act one was before the paternity trial. I'm worried that people will leave this part of the article thinking that the paternity trial preceded the Mann Act trial.
 * Also, I would not necessarily add a quote about Barry's character. If we want to add something about her character, I think just one line would suffice. Having a large quote like that seems to me too accusatory; after all, this was a Chaplin vs. FBI thing much more than a Barry vs. Chaplin.
 * "Chaplin had sent Barry a plane ticket to visit him in California" – wasn't the Mann Act charge about Chaplin supposedly paying for Barry to join him in New York when he was there in October 1942 to give a speech for the Second Front campaign?
 * I think it is useful to keep their children's names in the text, because that is something people will be likely to be interested in.
 * In general, I think there are too many direct quotes, and while it is good to bring up that it was a smear campaign, perhaps the tone should be neutralized a wee bit. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3


 * Thanks for the feedback, and I guess most of your suggestions make sense. I'm always extra careful about paraphrasing sensitive topics, so tend to prefer direct quotes from the source. The one about Barry's character is one of those situations, but for that quote, there really are two focal points, one about Barry's character, and other about government statements, as in "the FBI feared that 'Joan Barry might land in jail and our case would be ruined.'" While Chaplin thought he was engaged in a legal battle with only Barry, the quote implies otherwise. The press at the time was unaware of all the behind-the-curtain aspects, and it's possible most Chaplin followers aren't aware either. --Light show (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just been working on the section again. I'm afraid I also find your sandbox version goes a bit too far in the opposite direction - I don't think we need to actively call it a "smear campaign" and use many quotes to prove this, but rather let the facts speak for themselves. And I've been looking through Maland again, who as far as I'm concerned is easily the best author on the subject, and he doesn't give any indication that the FBI convinced her to file the paternity case...in fact, he writes "due to the widespread publicity it was receiving, the Chaplin case soon came to the attention of federal authorities". But he does also write that Barry initially agreed to drop the paternity suit if Chaplin was found not to be the father. Maybe it was the FBI who convinced her to go through with the case? Could that be what the quote "'Joan Barry might land in jail and our case would be ruined" may be referring to? Do we know exactly where and when that quote comes from by the way? As for including the children with Oona, I definitely think we need to mention their names. That's an important part of any person's biography, and particularly with Chaplin since most of them ended up with an entertainment career and have a wikipedia article that readers may want to look at. I also think it's necessary to state that the marriage was controversial - it's one of the things that affected his popular support (ie, they're thinking "He's a communist AND he's a dirty old man! Evil!") I have used some of your version though, such as the more succinct summary of the paternity trial. I can't decide whether it's necessary to mention the other 3 indictments (that didn't go to trial) or not... I'll post my edits now. For now I'm removing the link between Hoover and the instigation of the paternity case - we need to research that more carefully. -- Loeba  (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good and balanced to me!:) I think it's good to mention that there were originally four indictments just to indicate how desperately the FBI wanted to find a criminal charge that they could make to stick. It takes up very little space and doesn't 'clutter' the paragraph. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * It's interesting that use of the phrase "smear campaign" at first seems too specific, in that it hasn't been used in the article. But it actually may also be too general, in that it covers behind-the-scene activities by a multitude of players, with the press being the most visible. All of the key Chaplin biographers, including Maland, have no problem with describing the "vendettas" that others in and out of government had against him, and why. Hence, the "smear campaign" is just the general term for much of the legal battles he was involved in, is covered extensively by all the writers, so I'm not sure how it can be easily left out. Otherwise, many of the details about his personal life would simply imply it, but would take many more words. --Light show (talk) 19:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess the problem with that term is that it's just a bit too strong for an encyclopedia article. I think the content at the moment conveys to the reader quite clearly that it was a smear campaign, but in more neutral terms. Adding that term would not make it shorter, as just saying that it was a smear campaign doesn't properly explain what happened to Chaplin in the early 1940s.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * True, but it's a lot easier for biographers to use colourful, accusatory language than it is for wikipedia...I think it is even more than "implied" that a smear campaign was involved, it's pretty damn clear. Also, the politics section does include a quote that the FBI "continued its campaign to drive Chaplin out of the country", which is fairly explicit. Perhaps it would be worth adding a sentence making clear the media's involvement in this too. I also want to add that even without the Joan Barry stuff, Chaplin's political activities would definitely have attracted press attention and heavy criticism, with or without FBI involvement, because communism was such a source of paranoia (even for regular citizens) at that time. The press largely generated that paranoia, but then that's part of a far wider campaign of manipulation; Chaplin was only a small part of it, when you put it in that context. -- Loeba (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * True, but it's a lot easier for biographers to use colourful, accusatory language than it is for wikipedia...I think it is even more than "implied" that a smear campaign was involved, it's pretty damn clear. Also, the politics section does include a quote that the FBI "continued its campaign to drive Chaplin out of the country", which is fairly explicit. Perhaps it would be worth adding a sentence making clear the media's involvement in this too. I also want to add that even without the Joan Barry stuff, Chaplin's political activities would definitely have attracted press attention and heavy criticism, with or without FBI involvement, because communism was such a source of paranoia (even for regular citizens) at that time. The press largely generated that paranoia, but then that's part of a far wider campaign of manipulation; Chaplin was only a small part of it, when you put it in that context. -- Loeba (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Joan Mellen's (2006) chapter on the overall campaign is also covered in her book Modern Times, and she notes that "Chaplin's FBI file, opened on 15 August 1922, was labelled 'Communist Activities'. Obviously, his attraction to very young women became one of his Achilles heels. --Light show (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'm not entirely sure what you mean... the FBI was def interested in Chaplin's politics pre-1940s, but no action was taken against him. Chaplin was openly on the Left already in the 1920s, but at the time it was not a problem due to a completely different political atmosphere in America and elsewhere in the Western world. The FBI was not in any way involved in Chaplin's earlier relationship scandals. His taste for young girls definitely was his Achilles heel and continues being so (there are loads of people who don't want to watch any Chaplin because of his reputation as a sexual predator), but really, the FBI only became interested in his private life when they started thinking that his Communist leanings might be dangerous.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * Whether "stalking" Chaplin and documenting his every move after 1922 is considered an "action against him," is an open question. You can read Mellen's details about the period from the above link, BTW. As for his taste for young ladies, he definitely paid the price quickly, as Friedrich describes an early "disaster". --Light show (talk) 21:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I do think there is a clear difference between monitoring a person (if my memory serves me correctly, the first twenty years that FBI was at all interested in Chaplin only cover about 40 pages – compared to more than 2000 pages after 1940 or so) and actively trying to ruin his reputation and imprison / exile him. Surely you know that the political atmosphere in '20s America was completely different from the '40s? If you want more information about that and why Chaplin was not a controversial figure before the '40s, read Maland. Also, can you tell me which pages of the Friedrich book testify otherwise? The link just takes me to the Google Books preview. Finally – we're arguing here over the use of ONE WORD. Do we really want to continue this as the content of the article clearly shows that there was a smear campaign against Chaplin? We could use this time to make more crucial improvements to the article. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Friedrich doesn't go into that early period, but Mellens does. In any case, I don't think the current section on the "Legal troubles" clearly shows a "campaign." That word is very clear, with or without "smear," but the phrasing in the section now, ie. "the head of the FBI who had long been suspicious of Chaplin's political leanings, used the opportunity to generate negative publicity around the actor," is soft, and IMO skirts around the issue/conclusion. As some of the quotes mentioned above, the other bios have no problem with saying precisely what it was, without assuming a reader could figure it out, so I agree with Binksternet, "let's make sure to identify when he is being smeared." --Light show (talk) 22:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, as Loeba already said, biographers can use stronger words because they are not writing for an encyclopedia. They have a case to argue, we're just trying to supply the facts. And I'm sorry, but the article DOES show that it was a campaign, it DOES mention other things than just generating negative publicity, i.e. the trials, the FBI investigation, the HUAC subpoena and the fact that he was exiled without any real reason. If we add that word, we're just adding an extremely strong, biased word to an encyclopedia article without actually conveying any extra information. We ARE identifying when he was smeared, very clearly. You can do it without using the word 'smear campaign'. Just like we are writing about his affairs with underage girls without using the word 'sexual predator'.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * Also, I have read the Mellen book, so I'm pretty sure that if her research had reached very different conclusions from Maland's, I would've noted it. Don't have it here right now, but that link that you sent to me says that "Joan Mellen dedicates the final chapter of the book to the fascinating details of the FBI's file on Chaplin, which was opened in 1922 and maintained until long after his death." – Yes, he was under investigation, but please see my comment before the last, FBI collecting information was not the same thing as them actively trying to bring Chaplin down, and I am baffled as to why you cannot see the difference IF indeed you have read all the key biographers' books and know the differences between the US in the '20s and '40s.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 22:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * Curious, didn't that link to Mellen include the book's text also? It should show pages 68-80.--Light show (talk) 22:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope, don't even get to see a preview, just a description and reviews.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 22:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * That's a new one. I linked to the Google Books search result page and for me it shows the full text for those pages. Now I'm wondering if Google Books works the same in other countries. Would you mind seeing if you can get it directly from Google Books? I'd hate to be adding links to nowhere. --Light show (talk) 23:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Still doesn't work. Can you quote some of the specific sentences that to you indicate her disagreement with Maland & the other key Chaplin scholars on this issue?TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * OK, I'll work on that. In the meantime, I guess you're aware that the "campaign" involved more than just our government (ie. "MI5 spied on Charlie Chaplin after FBI asked for help to banish him from US", (Feb. 16, 2012).
 * 'Our' government? I'm not from the US. Yes, I am very aware of the MI5 investigation (it's quoted in the article) – they did it because FBI asked them to, but didn't create a smear campaign against Chaplin in the UK. Switzerland also kept an eye on him when he moved there, but again, def did not try to smear him. Furthermore, how is that relevant to the issue we're discussing? At the moment I'm concerned about the claims that you've made: 1.) that without the word 'smear campaign', readers won't understand Chaplin's downfall in the US (because it was centred there, there wasn't a backlash against him in Europe or elsewhere); 2.) that according to you, Chaplin's problems with the FBI were already significant from the beginning of their file on him, i.e. the '20s, not the late '30s/early '40s when the Communist panic began, and that the FBI operated a smear campaign against him already in the '20s and '30s.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * Your abstracts of my earlier comments, #1 & 2, are not correct. Each one has misstated what I said. No need for me to prove it, either, since it should be you who quotes me. If you're simply implying things, you can say so.


 * On the question about when the "campaign" is first cited, as I said earlier, what's known is that " Chaplin's FBI file, opened on 15 August 1922, was labelled 'Communist Activities'," and for the next 40 years, even after he was expelled, he was being watched/stalked. But the the first mention of the "campaign" against him that I found is from Robinson, noting that the FBI "pushed an unstable young woman, Joan Barry, into bringing a series of charges, including a paternity claim, against Chaplin. The paternity claim was later proved to be false; but the mud stuck, and the FBI went on to manipulate a smear campaign charging Chaplin with Communist sympathies." --Light show (talk) 00:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I apologise if I've misunderstood; can you please very clearly state again what exactly it is that you are objecting to in the current version of the article?


 * As for your last comment, I cannot but reiterate:
 * FBI kept files on Chaplin before the 1940s, but he was not a priority for them and he was not the target of a smear campaign by the FBI or any section of the US government. Also, as I have already mentioned, the monitoring of Chaplin's activities was pretty low key before the 40s. He was not the FBI's priority in any way, they were simply keeping an eye on him as he was an open Leftist who socialized with other Lefties (and I'm not using that as a derogatory term – I'm a Leftie myself). I'm pretty sure that Mellen agrees with this; that quote simply indicates that they had opened a file on him already in the 1920s, which is a commonly known fact about Chaplin. In fact, you can probably go to FBI's website and read the file if you so desire. The fact that the first time the FBI noted Chaplin was in 1922 does not indicate that their campaign to publicly shame him began then. What is it in this that you do not agree with?
 * As for Robinson, I'm pretty sure what he means is that when Barry insisted on a second trial, FBI might have been involved. Robinson is however quite brief in his discussion of this, and further investigation into the smear campaign has been carried after the publication of his bio – bear in mind that Robinson himself writes that the FBI files only became public when the book was about to go to the press, and hence he has simply attached a short appendix discussing it to the book. Maland (also a Leftie, so def not trying to diminish the importance of FBI's smear campaign against Chaplin), whose book was published four years later and includes very detailed study of the FBI files, dedicates a big chunk of his book on Chaplin's problems in the 1940s, does not write that the FBI was involved until after she filed the paternity claim. Maland's book is not a straight-forward bio like Robinson's, but specifically concentrates on the development of Chaplin's star image, and hence is much more of an authority on this issue. I suggest you read his book.
 * Good night for now, it's getting far too late here.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 00:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Questionable objections
Re your request to "please very clearly state again what exactly it is that you are objecting to," that's been done with most of my comments above. The only things I would add is that first, I have no problem with going along with consensus, as you've noticed, and second, that the rationale for censoring the well-cited term "campaign" appears contradictory. For example, while you both feel that "campaign" is too strong a word for Wikipedia, despite many of the sources using it, neither of you have a problem with misnaming his expulsion from the U.S. as "exile," which of course it wasn't. He was not Napoleon.

Related to that, the words "expel" or "expulsion" are oddly not even mentioned, despite the fact that it is one of the most critical facts about his career. In its place, the uncited misnomer "exile" is used, even as a section heading. So the key objections, again, are that the article does still appear very biased and thereby non-neutral, with essential facts describing him as a victim censored, but details relating to his faults and punishment, exaggerated. --Light show (talk) 19:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The word campaign is used, I've said that. And I stand firmly that nothing "relating to his faults and punishment" is "exaggerated" - everything is a fact and written in neutral wording. The quote from Rankin is very over the top, but I think it's an interesting example of the hatred that was thrown at him (it's worth clearly demonstrating this, so that readers understand how the situation got to the extreme point that he was no longer welcome in the US). We're taking the article to PR very soon, so we'll see then whether other users have concerns about neutrality. As for "exile" as a subheading, I have thought about it and have left it there because, quite simply, I haven't thought of anything better. I'm surprised you think "expulsion" is preferable - that has to mean he was directly chucked out, whereas at least "exile" can also refer to the general state of being isolated from a country because of political reasons. By the way, Robinson's bio has a whole chapter entitled "Exile", so please don't accuse us of OR. The use of the word could be raised as problematic though, I know that, so I'm definitely welcome to other options. "Limelight and banning from US"? That's quite good actually. -- Loeba (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The word "campaign" is used, once, but considering that it was the essence and cause of his expulsion, I'd say it was "misused." It was deep in a section, (" The FBI continued its "campaign to drive him out of the country,") when it should have been covered in earlier sections. The phrasing even implies that it was described earlier, yet never was. When a government has a campaign to drive someone out of a country, that should be a major topic, not minimalised. So I do agree that the word "campaign" was used, but that's about all I can agree with.--Light show (talk) 20:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay fine, I will add smear campaign to the legal section, just because I really want this discussion to end now. I entirely agree that it was a smear campaign so it's not like I wouldn't personally like the phrase to be in there...I just think it may be too loaded a term for an encyclopedia. I anticipate some objection to it during the review, in which case it goes, but who knows - maybe it will be fine. Are you happy with the "banning from the US" proposal? -- Loeba (talk) 20:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The smear campaign, legal troubles, and expulsion, are all related and critical to his bio. I'd be surprised if anyone objected, considering the cites used in the sandbox version are solid. I feel that there should be a balanced and neutral description of the subject, which IMO still accentuates the negatives. As for the "exile," I'd go with the most common term related to people, "expulsion." --Light show (talk) 21:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine, I just can't argue any more. Done. -- Loeba (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Since I shouldn't make statements of criticism without supporting them a bit, let me clarify for the record. The sections relating to the allegations, accusations, legal battles, and general attacks on or about him, directly or indirectly, are about 90% of the text relating to those issues, vs. 10% which counterbalance those facts. It's not a measure of the accuracy of statements, quotes or OR, but of weight. Therefore while the individual sentences are neutral, the clear weight to the allegations, etc., makes those sections appear non-neutral. And while such an imbalance wouldn't be a big deal on most articles, with someone like Chaplin, whose biography and life pivoted around his expulsion resulting from the campaign against him for at least 10 years, the subject requires much more effort at neutrality. --Light show (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The sort of text that would "counterbalance" the accusations/attacks would just be more of the same indicating that it was a smear campaign and that America was overly paranoid - it would just get repetitive. These things are clearly stated, so it is neutral. Inevitably the majority of the text is describing the things that made him unpopular, because there were a lot of those things. But it's just going to get boring and wordy if we constantly defend those actions (or justify the negative response to them), and it's likely that some neutrality would be lost in doing that anyway (the fact is, his actions for that time were scandalous; they made him very unpopular). And you are actually putting way to much weight on the expulsion if you think his "biography and life pivoted around" it. That is NOT what Chaplin is remembered for. By the time of his death he was highly popular again, as the article indicates, and he continues to be remembered for 1) his unprecedented level of fame + adoration, 2) his films. These things are what the article focusses on. Only 15 years of his 50-year-long film career were tainted with the negativity.
 * I'm not going to respond to this discussion anymore. You expressed concerns about neutrality, and edits were made in response to those concerns. Now TrueHeartSusie and I, who have done a lot of research into Chaplin, are confident that the article presents everything neutrally and appropriately. That's 2 against 1. Perhaps someone else will express concern during the review, but I want to wait and see for that because at this point, we're just going around in circles. -- Loeba (talk) 08:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

My apologies, Loeba, for assuming too much and not explaining with more substance. I guess simply saying the weight of the material created a bias to this reader really needed a lot more support, which I'll try to do. First, neutralizing the text would not be "repetitive," "boring" or "wordy." Second, neutralizing the material is unrelated to "defending those actions," or "justifying" the public's response to all those "scandalous" events. If you want, I can give as many examples as you need, but to keep things simple, I'll give just a few:


 * Barry case: There are about 180 190 words devoted to describing the case, the allegations and details around them. I counted about 13 of those words which counterbalance them, namely about the judge's refusal to accept blood test evidence which proved he was not the father. Therefore 93% of the material is negative.


 * Mann act case: The paragraph about it is around 150 words, with 120 of them devoted to the allegations, embellished with the maximum penalty, the number of indictments, explaining what the violation is, and scandal news, bad press and public opinion. Only 30 words were used to counterbalance them, namely related to the fact it was another part of the smear campaign against him and mentioning the acquittal. 15 of those 30 words, were not negative, but really added little, noting that a writer said the case was "absurd." As in the Barry case, he was again innocent, and the overwhelming negative text (80-90%) seems overweight.


 * Expulsion: There are 190 words devoted to describing the events immediately before and after, reasons for it, and some neutral trivia, like the name of the ship. While an arguable POV, I include Chaplin's quote attacking the U.S. as part of the negative words since it was without context and appeared cherry-picked to make Chaplin seem hostile and ungrateful to his formerly adopted country. The 30 words about Maland writing that there was no real evidence to expel him and Chaplin could have likely come back, would be considered counterbalancing details. So for the expulsion material, 85% is devoted to negative aspects, 15% as a counterweight.

If you want some more examples, please ask. But whether or not I remain the only person to perceive the obvious non-neutrality in those few sections, which according to Loeba I am at this point ("2 to 1",) I see three simple ways I would fix it: 1) trim the excessive negative material, 2) add cited facts to balance the negative, and 3) ideally a bit of both. It's not necessary to reach an exact 50-50 balance, but clearly a 10 or 8 to 1 ratio is non-neutral, and no repetition is needed to make the material halfway unbiased. I've already given a quick draft of some of this in the sandbox. But overall, I think the article is well-written and very organized. --Light show (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you've made a few minor efforts to neutralize contentious material, but there's still room for much more. For instance, you wrote above, "everything is a fact and written in neutral wording. The quote from Rankin is very over the top," which I again find contradictory reasoning. Rankin was a noted Chaplin hater, and using his quote to summarize the section, is clearly not neutral, IMO. --Light show (talk) 19:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Amazing how you've cut off my quote at that point, which was then followed by "but" and an explanation for including Rankin's comment...ridiculous. I'm not sure you can be trusted with sources if this is how you manipulate people's words. To really make this clear to you: it is important that we give an example of the sort of vitriol Chaplin was subject to, so that people understand why he wasn't welcome in the US anymore. The quote "summarises" the section because it summarises the attitude towards him in the US at that time - the sort of comments people were reading in the press about him every day. It does not mean we are endorsing those views, and I find it very strange that you interpret it in this way. You're starting to make it sound like you don't want any negative comments about Chaplin, which is ridiculous because he was subject to a hell of a lot of negativity and it is our duty to show that. At this point, you're the one not being neutral. -- Loeba (talk) 20:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * If you're concerned about cutting off quotes and using them in proper context, this article would be a good place to start. For example, in the Great Dictator section, someone included the sentence quote, "I was determined to go ahead for Hitler must be laughed at," which is itself cut off and out of exact context to what he wrote: Also the English office was very concerned about an anti-Hitler picture and doubted whether it could be shown in Britain. But I was determined to go ahead . . . .


 * And please don't overly dramatize the topic, as I'm simply trying to keep the contentious sections neutral. No one is "endorsing" anything, so lighten up. --Light show (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What?? That quote from Chaplin is immediately preceded in the article by a comment that it was seen as controversial to make a film about Hitler. That is essentially exactly the same as what Chaplin said! There is absolutely nothing out of context there. On the contrary, the material is presented in exactly the same order: comment about the film being controversial, comment about Chaplin's determination to go ahead anyway. -- Loeba (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The quote is still cut off from the context, which was risk of "censorship," as Chaplin clearly explained. Using the substitute and overly general term "controversy," without explaining why it was controversial, does not help the reader understand. If you're trying to save words, why not trim the 1st para. trivia about coincidences and explain why it was controversial? --Light show (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)