Talk:Charlie Chaplin/Archive 6

Questioned "basis" for The Great Dictator
The section has some very questionable conclusions as to Chaplin's "basis" for making the film, so I sandboxed and revised the first paragraph. Article section is here and revised material is in the new sandbox, which includes the first paragraph for easy comparison.

In general, the main problem I saw was that the article states:

"Parallels between himself and Adolf Hitler had been widely noted: the pair were born four days apart, both had risen from poverty to world prominence, and the German dictator wore the same toothbrush moustache as the Tramp. It was this physical resemblance that formed the basis of Chaplin's next film . . . ""

All the sources mention that kind of trivia, while interesting and notable, was a coincidence only, having nothing to do with Chaplin's actual inspiration, as the text implies. Since some of the sandbox material includes details further in the original section, I suggest a rewrite of the entire section as this was one of his most notable films. --Light show (talk) 00:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "All the sources mention": that's a strong basis for its inclusion here. To think otherwise is editorialising. "trivia": only in your opinion, and information that gives a form of background to one of Chaplin's best known films is hardly to be described as "trivia", despite any editors personal opinion. - SchroCat (talk) 07:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Right, now that the GA review is out of the way I will respond to this, but just a quick response to make sure other editors don't think this is a reasonable objection. When the article writes "formed the basis for Chaplin's next film", that is not referring to the inspiration. The inspiration (his desire to draw attention to fascism and make a joke out of Hitler) is clearly stated in the preceding and succeeding text. The basis of the film, meaning what drives the story and brings it all together, is the physical resemblance between Hitler and the Tramp. This is supported by the source. The other similarities are mentioned because, like you said, these are virtually always mentioned when talking about The Great Dictator. I've read that Chaplin was pretty freaked out by the parallels and felt compelled to impersonate Hitler because of this. Perhaps I'll add this in a footnote at some point. -- Loeba (talk) 18:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The sources mention their physical resemblance as merely a useful coincidental fact, but not the "basis" that "drives the story." The word lacks even enough support to call using it a synthesis, so devoting nearly half of the first paragraph of that section to it and other coincidental trivia appears seriously overweight.--Light show (talk) 04:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "A useful coincidental fact"? The whole point of the film is that the Jewish Barber gets mixed up with Hynkel because they look so similar! And Chaplin wouldn't be able to make his political speech at the end if this mix-up didn't happen. It's the basis of the film, as stated. The other parallels are worth mentioning because they're interesting (I will try and find the fact that these parallels also influenced his decision to make this film, is that would make you feel better) and readers will want to know about them. And they literally take up one sentence. Could you stop criticising the article now? -- Loeba (talk) 07:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Being able to use his "tramp" character's mustache as a barber, obviously "influenced" the storyline, but the basis, inspiration and purpose of him making the film were entirely different, and should be emphasized over the mustache. All the other trivia about birth dates and poverty really don't belong anywhere in the short section. --Light show (talk) 08:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * He won't, he will continue to criticise and snip just like he does everywhere else. WW, why don't you go and do something useful for the project rather than troll around criticising the work of others? --  Cassianto Talk   08:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I have tweaked the wording to "It was this physical resemblance that formed the story for Chaplin's next film", which is all I was trying to communicate with that sentence anyway... His purpose in making the film was to attack fascism and make fun of Hitler, and this was already clearly stated. Now I will not be responding to any further complaints about this, they are unfounded (at least until more people call the similarity facts trivial) and I refuse to drag it out any longer. -- Loeba (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I doubt if anyone knows or cares who added particular text during the history of the article. This is a general talk page, not a private discussion, as you seem to be implying. No one expects you personally to be replying any more than anyone assumes you own the article: No one, no matter how skilled, or of how high standing in the community, has the right to act as though he or she is the owner of a particular article. (emphasis in guidelines) --Light show (talk) 18:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Considering you are keen to censor other people's comments and baselessly threaten ANI to others, I would have thought that you would have avoided making personal attacks, such as the unfounded "ownership" allegation. It seems to me that you tend to throw this around a little too freely - largely when people who have worked hard on an article disagree with you. Disagreeing with you does not mean anyone is claiming "ownership", regardless of how many times you trumpet the uncivil allegation. - SchroCat (talk) 09:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Get a grip - try adding something constructive to the article instead of just stopping by a talk page with no concern for rules? --Light show (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you Light show, but I do "have a grip". I think the article is in excellent shape without any adding that I could do for the moment. When it proceeds to peer review or FAC I will go through it in much more detail to nitpick over the smallest points, but presently I don't think the it needs my help. Just by way of clarity, I am not treating this as a "battleground", despite what you may think. My initial comments in this thread were simply to point out that if there is something that "all the sources mention", then it behoves us to consider inclusion in the article, not just reject it out of hand. When the information provides background to one of Chaplin's best-known works, I struggle to see how this can be classified as trivia. Apparently this was sufficient (by way of an edit summary) for you to threaten taking me to ANI. Could you explain on what grounds that would be, please? - SchroCat (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Suggest heading back to dock, the fish aren't biting today.--Light show (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * How odd. Perhaps you could either try and stay on topic in future, or stop threatening to take people to ANI when you have absolutely nothing to complain about. - SchroCat (talk) 19:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. Light show's comments seem to be getting further and further from the article's content as this thread goes on, which should really be avoided. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Birthplace
I was reading Motion Picture Studio Directory 1918, and it indicated that Chaplin's birthplace was Paris in 1889. The link is here: https://archive.org/stream/motrestu00moti#page/82/mode/2up I don't know if this is accurate or reliable, but wanted to put it out there, since it is period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.16.8.23 (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment! At the beginning of his career, Chaplin lied to reporters that he was born in/near Paris during his parents' tour, possibly to add 'a romantic aura' to his public image, or perhaps to avoid discussing his painful childhood (he also said that both his parents were dead to avoid discussing his mother's mental illness). Although his birth place has never been 100% confirmed, Chaplin always thought he was born in London, and most evidence seems to support this. Some early biographers even combed through Paris & Fontainebleau birth registers and confirmed that he definitely wasn't born there. His parents also never went on tour together, and actually I doubt either of them ever visited France.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Split "Commemoration" and "Awards" sections to a new article?
At the current peer review for this article, suggested that the information from "Commemoration" to "Filmography" be cut and moved to their own article. It would be good if we could try and gain consensus over whether or not this idea is supported. For what it's worth, I don't have a strong opinion either way and would be happy to either keep or split the material -- Loeba (talk) 15:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep --Light show (talk) 18:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep At first I thought it sounded like a good idea, but now that I've had more time to think of it, I'm not sure anymore. I don't think those small sections make the article look too 'cluttered' because they are located at the very end, and therefore don't 'mess up' the actual biography / style & themes section. Also, I'm not sure if they would make an extensive enough 'sub-article'. Chaplin did not win that many awards during his career, and there haven't been that many important memorials dedicated to him either.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Chaplin's religious views
An editor has now twice added a section about Chaplin's religious views, particularly about his claimed agnosticism. While I have deleted those edits both times as Chaplin's religious views were not a central part of his career and public image and hence do not warrant a whole section, and also because the sources the editor used were completely unreliable, I wonder whether we should add a footnote about this somewhere? I guess a lot of readers are interested in learning about the religious views of the person they are reading about, as that information is often mentioned in the 'early life' sections of biography articles. I don't think there's any place in the 'early life' section of this article to which a footnote like this would fit, given that religion was not a major part of Chaplin's childhood and upbringing, but perhaps one could be added to the section about his death, after the sentence which states that he was buried in an Anglican ceremony according to his own wish? That sentence might confuse readers if they have heard previously that he was atheist/agnostic.

If I recall correctly, Chaplin was probably baptized an Anglican in his childhood like his older brother (although there is no source to verify this), but became an atheist after his mother became a Baptist (?) and dragged him with her to hear their sermons. This atheism was later reflected in, for example, The Pilgrim, and in the fact that he did not let any of his children to be baptized (although Charlie Jr. and Sydney became Catholic after the divorce as the McMurrays were devout Catholics). It was only towards the end of his life that Chaplin became an agnostic – hence the Anglican funeral. None of this is very important of course, but I can see why people might be confused as to whether he was Anglican/atheist/agnostic. What do you think? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * I think putting some brief information in a footnote in the death section is a good idea. I'm sure Chaplin discusses his views a bit in the autobiography... -- Loeba (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Years active
Although 1899 is the first year explicitly given for performances, the article suggests earlier performances, making it unclear what would be considered "years active". Does anyone have any reliable sources pertaining to this question? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The only pre-1899 performance Chaplin gave (as mentioned in the article) was a one-off amateur performance at 5 years old. Surely "years active" only refers to the years of professional work? If necessary, I know that Robinson calls CC's work with the Eight Lancashire Lads his first professional work (he was paid for it) so I can provide a reference if required. Regarding some of the other changes you made last night - removing the various occupations from the infobox and limitting the TOC - I think the previous versions were more useful to readers. For the lead we may as well summarise Chaplin as a "filmmaker", especially since it later goes on to say "Chaplin wrote, directed, produced, edited, starred in, and composed the music for most of his films" - but for the infobox I think we should list all of his different roles to make clear that he did all of these things (which is very rare). As for the contents, having all the subheadings available means that readers can click straight to whatever film/marriage/incident they are interested in. It also provides a quick summary of the key factors in Chaplin's life, just by reading over the contents, which I think it very useful. I'm going to revert back, hope that's okay. -- Loeba (talk) 12:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, this is only a minor thing but it's kind of bothering me that his "death" location is wikilinked in the infobox but not his birth one. I know you did this because "London" is more well know, but the inconsistency doesn't look good IMO. It should be both or neither - in which case, both is definitely preferable. And why don't you like the "Nationality" row? -- Loeba (talk) 12:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Per the template documentation, nationality should not be included when it is inferred from birthplace (born in UK = British). The documentation also specifies that occupation should be "as given in the lead", which is why that briefer description should be used instead. "London" wasn't linked before (I only unlinked UK and Switzerland), so if you want to link it that's up to you. As to years active: if he began touring in 1899, he had to have joined the professional group at some point prior to the tour, and the current wording suggests this was at age 9 (which is possibly 1898). Nikkimaria (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I will check what exactly Robinson wrote about this later this week, but I think Chaplin both joined and began touring with the Lads in 1899. He only had a six-week training period before joining the tour, and he did not perform with the group before that. I also don't think he had to audition or anything, and therefore the whole process of joining the group was rather fast. I don't see why it would be more likely that he joined the group in 1898 – but as I said, I will check this again and clarify it in the text. As Loeba said, he certainly did not perform professionally before he joined the Lads. I also second what Loeba said about having all the occupations in the infobox. If it is impossible for the infobox list to differ from what's stated in the lead, then we should change the lead. However, I think the lead sentence will look 'cluttered' if we do this. It would be better for the article, I think, if an exception could be made in this case due to Chaplin's exceptional status as a completely independent filmmaker.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * Yep, I think with the occupations this is an instance where we should ignore all rules. I checked my books, and Chaplin's first professional performance came on 20 March 1899 at the Empire in Portsmouth (so he was nine). Nikkimaria you were right about the London thing - sorry my mistake! -- Loeba (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If the source concurs with a first professional performance of 1899, that's fine. However, I disagree with the IAR suggestion for occupations. Not only does the template documentation advise against it, but the MOS for infoboxes urges concision, simplicity, and summary - "comic actor, filmmaker, composer" meets these criteria, but the longer, more complex list does not. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I fear that for the average Joe with little knowledge of filmmaking, filmmaker simply means film director. Therefore, Chaplin would simply be thought of as belonging to the same group as other actor-directors, which is wrong. What both the lead text and the infobox need to convey very clearly is that Chaplin was unique in film history due to his unprecedented independence. It is one of the central facts that readers must understand that he was not simply an actor-director, but also a producer and a studio head, who also edited and wrote his films himself. I understand that infoboxes should be as simple and clear as possible, but I think that by using such a broad term as 'filmmaker' we're actually being less clear as it gives the wrong impression. I understand that you want to adhere to the rules and the reasons why those rules are in place, but in Chaplin's case I still think we should make an exception and ignore all rules, if we want to make it easy for the reader to understand Chaplin's importance and exceptionality in film history. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * Note that the wording Nikki cites from the infobox documentation, regarding nationality, is disputed on its talk page and I've asked her more than once to desist from removing data from that parameter, until the matter is resolved. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Seeing as the discussion you cite from two months ago resulted in no change to the long-standing wording of the documentation, the matter as far as it is relevant to this conversation is resolved. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The discussion was last updated on 25 December. You last posted there on that day. The issue remains unresolved. Furthermore. I'd love to know how readers are supposed to infer nationality from a birthplace that is labelled "unverified". Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't want this to become an edit war, but Nikkimaria could you please not delete the line about nationality from the infobox? As Andy said, Chaplin's birthplace is unverified, but he was definitely British. Hence in this case we need to make an exception in the interests of clarity, otherwise it looks like Chaplin's nationality is also unverified.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * IMO there is no such thing as "British". You can only be born in one place, England, Wales, Scotland or Ireland. If the location is not known then "British" would be correct. If he was born in London, "English" would be correct.   Cassianto Talk   17:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The Home Nations are subterritories though, on the same level as US states. The United Kingdom is the ultimate sovereign state and it's citizens are British. Ultimately it's a complex issue but either or is correct, not one over the other. Also basing it solely on birthplace is dubious- While in this case yes Chaplin is actually English, in other instances you have people like Christian Bale who born in Wales but is English.--Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm that's a bit strange, "British" is clearly an official nationality. It's what we're dubbed on our passports, it's how we're grouped at the Olympics...it does get a bit tricky with the four separate countries within the nation, but...there's no right or wrong. I believe on WP we try and defer to what an individual likes to call himself/herself (I know I would prefer to be called "British" over "English", for instance, so it wouldn't be right to say we can't use "British" at all). I have no idea if Chaplin had a preference, but when the whole citizenship question came up in the 1940s he would say "I am a citizen of the world". This suggests to me that he did not like nationalism, and so would probably prefer the more inclusive "British" to the more selective "English". Just my take, but certainly there's nothing wrong with using either. -- Loeba (talk) 17:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Chaplin used "British" and "English" pretty interchangeably, I don't think there is any controversy about this. As Loeba says, "British" is an official nationality, even if people might identify themselves as English, Scottish or Welsh. In Chaplin's case, there is no evidence that he strongly identified as English as opposed to Scottish etc.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Reader feedback: Dr. Timothy J Lyons wrote mo...
66.87.121.97 posted this comment on 27 September 2013 (view all feedback).

"Dr. Timothy J Lyons wrote more books on Charles Chaplin than any other person but gets no credits here."

Any thoughts?


 * To be simple about it, the page is about Charlie Chaplin, not Dr. Lyons. If there is anything in Dr. Lyons' work that can augment the page, a citation accordingly would not be untoward. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 01:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * While Dr. Lyons was certainly an expert on Chaplin, I am not sure whether he is necessarily seen as one of the central Chaplin scholars anymore. I have not read any of his books or articles myself, but it seems to me that most of his work on the subject dates from the 1970s and early 1980s, so it might also be slightly outdated. I might be completely wrong though; what I do know is that his works seem to be quite difficult to find these days.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 01:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Controversies and fading popularity: weird section
About the section Controversies and fading popularity (1939–1952).

I don't think this is a good section. The section title throws together some aspects of his life in that period, but leaves other out. Of course, since it opens with his huge success film, the "fading" is not to the point at all. Then three titles deserved a subsection, how is that "faded"? Also, the "faded" is an outside judgement, which is not applied in other section titles (rightly so for a biography). This "outside" may be critics, or WP:synthesis.

Then the section title says "controversies", which again is allowing judgements in. And a poor one at that. Why give the causers of a controversy the entrance point at all? A lot of real life stories are tied up with his professional work, without actual connection. How is his marriage to Oona a "controversy"? (under the subtitle, really: "Legal troubles and Oona O'Neill", so it must be something). Now wait. It sdais, this marriage itself is a "controversy"? By WP:Gossipia, one of the Gods of Wikipedia, how did this pass GA, unsourced? I hope there exists a Reliable Redtop source.

In this setup, Barry should have made the section title too (maybe even the lead). Obsessive, stalking, accusing fan/friend: there must be some reason to give them more attention in a bio of their target. Also worthy of a section title: Hoovers political attacks on him. Or is that too little judgement, and too much fact? -DePiep (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's go through the different elements within the section one by one:
 * The Great Dictator: the speech at the end was very controversial, and we have a quote saying it triggered his decline in popularity. This is sourced.
 * Legal troubles: Chaplin was painted as amoral and the whole affair made him very unpopular. This is sourced.
 * Marriage to Oona: was controversial because of their 36 year age gap. This is sourced.
 * How do you know? The reference says: "Louvish, p. 135.". No facts, nothing. And again, this "controversy" is put into one pile with other "controversies".
 * Monsieur Verdoux: had controversial political elements, a commercial failure due to his fading popularity. This is sourced.
 * Communist accusations: really the nail in the coffin - turned almost all of America against him. This is sourced.
 * Limelight: faced a large boycott, thus is evidence of his fading popularity. This is sourced.
 * Banning from US: the culmination of the above controversies and his fading popularity.
 * No "gossip" or synthesis at all. The sections needs to be presented this way for chronological purpose and ease of access (by mentioning all of them in section headings, people can jump straight to what they're interested in or be prepared for exactly what is coming in the section). -- Loeba (talk) 11:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The Great Dictator: a critic for the New York Times calling it "the most eagerly awaited picture of the year", and it was one of the biggest money-makers of the era. That's not a sign of being unpopular. The ending was unpopular Well, the end of a movie is not the same as Chaplin himself. Together, this does not lead to the conclusion of simple "fading popularity".
 * Barry you did not mention. The troubles stemmed from his affair with an aspirant actress. No they did not. They stemmed from her behaviour. All the Barry writing here leaves Chaplin as part of the cause.
 * The subtitle is: "Legal troubles an Oona O'Neill". What is the connection, why the suggestion of any ? And, why are missing in the title: the smear campaigns, all the "controversies", the parenthood/stalking aspects apart from lawfare?
 * The period says "1904–1952", so after 1952 all was over? The communism issue lasted till 1972 at least, his marriage lasted till 1977 (when Oona was still 56 younger than he was), the Barry trial was over halfway that period.
 * And note how this ended up in the lede as loose ends (though not on todays main page). So Hollywood lifted his FBI ban on entering the USA?
 * The section title, and the subtitle mentioned, do not cover their content. -DePiep (talk) 13:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * To answer above:
 * 1.) A film can be a huge moneymaker and at the same time controversial; it was not just the NYT's opinion. We are not suggesting that The Great Dictator was the cause of Chaplin's downfall, but it is generally seen as one of the starting points in the development of him becoming more controversial as it was his first openly political film (remember, before it Chaplin had always denied that his films were political, even Modern Times), which also then led to him eventually losing his audience in the US. This is not in any way a controversial statement, it's pretty much agreed on by all Chaplin scholars.
 * 2.) Sure, the 'Legal troubles and Oona O'Neill' could also be named 'Joan Barry and Oona O'Neill', but I don't think it would then reflect the fact that he spent a couple of years fighting legal cases. Remember also that if we try to fit all the different legal cases into the subsection title, it would be excessively long, as there were altogether four different indictments + the paternity claim. There definitely is a connection between the legal cases and O'Neill, as they took place in the same time and part of the reason why the marriage was such a scandal was because it took place hurriedly two weeks after Barry filed the paternity claim. The troubles stemmed from his affair with an aspirant actress I really don't see how this is accusing either party as the fact is that they had an affair, without it there would not have been any legal cases. Barry did not just randomly pick a star to harass. If we change it to something like "The troubles stemmed from Joan Barry, an unstable woman accusing Chaplin of XYZ", we're not explaining that they actually had an affair which was the starting point of all of this, and also we're being overly accusative towards Barry. Remember, this was a very complex case, and it is not at all certain that Chaplin was 100% honest and innocent, and that Barry was just lying about everything. If we tweak the section to being overly accusative towards Barry, we're not being faithful to our sources and also not very neutral. 'Smear campaign' is not a very neutral term, we've already discussed it on this page, neither would be adding something like 'stalking', if by that you mean the times that Barry entered Chaplin's property uninvited.
 * 3.) "And note how this ended up in the lede as loose ends (though not on todays main page). So Hollywood lifted his FBI ban on entering the USA?" Could you please clarify what you mean here?
 * 4.) It is certainly true that after Chaplin moved to Europe, the controversies did continue throughout the 1950s, until the beginning of the 1960s when the political atmosphere changed. We could certainly extent the 'Controversies' section to around that time, but it could be confusing as 1952 was such a watershed year for Chaplin in so many ways: he left the US where he had lived and worked for decades; he exited the American film industry. We certainly do discuss the controversies that happened later, although they are not explicitly mentioned in the headings.
 * 5.) "The section title, and the subtitle mentioned, do not cover their content." Yes they do, as explained above. These were extremely controversial years for Chaplin which changed his public image completely and led to a huge changes in his career and private life. Out of interest, how would you title these sections? Naming sections is always tricky, and sometimes you just have to settle for the best possible when 'perfect' is just not realistic.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * EDIT: Did you leave this comment as well? "How do you know? The reference says: "Louvish, p. 135.". No facts, nothing. And again, this "controversy" is put into one pile with other "controversies"." We know because we've read primary and secondary sources which clearly indicate that the marriage was controversial and made huge headlines – note also that Chaplin knew it would be controversial, as he gave the rights to the story to Louella Parsons because he wanted to try and get someone to write a positive article. What extra should the footnote have? It clearly points the reader to a reliable source on Chaplin, Louvish's book, in which he discusses the Chaplin-O'Neill marriage and the scandal it caused. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3


 * I agree with much of what User:DePiep observes, with the section headings alone making the bio seem more like a "Rise and Fall of Charlie Chaplin" arrangement. One way to balance the issue could be to add another sub-section to "Controversies and fading popularity" related directly and unambiguously to the well-sourced "smear capaign."


 * As it is now, the "smear campaign" is mentioned once, briefly. And it's only implied later, in the "Oona O'Neill" section:
 * Media coverage of the paternity suit was influenced by the FBI, as information was fed to the prominent gossip columnist Hedda Hopper, and Chaplin was portrayed in an overwhelmingly critical light.
 * There seems to be much more to the story, which might have enough facts and sources in my sandboxed material to warrant a separate sub-section. --Light show (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Did we not discuss this issue to death last time? You have done a lot less research on this article than I or Loeba, this was made clear in the last discussion we had with you. It is very difficult to take your criticism seriously when you have showed that you cannot really back it up with as much research. Yes, there definitely was 'a smear campaign' against Chaplin, but that's not the whole story and it is not a neutral enough term to be used in a heading. We definitely do very clearly explain it in the article that there was a smear campaign against him and that his troubles were largely due to the Communist witch hunt that took place in the US in the 1940s. What more can we say about it, and I now mean what additional information is necessary in your mind (and I do not mean endless quotes here!)? Chaplin's career definitely can be described in terms of 'rise and fall', this is NOT controversial, it is something scholars from Robinson to Maland to Louvish to Weissmann to Lynn to... ( I could go on and on!) agree on. You would know this had you done your research, which you showed last time that you have not, you rely on one book that's not even a Chaplin bio but a more general monograph on the era, and on Amazon reviews. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * One source and Amazon reviews? If you read the rough sandbox material, you'll discover that there are many sources and no Amazon reviews. --Light show (talk) 06:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

@Light show and DePiep, have either of you ever authored an FA? A tremendous amount of work went into this and Loeba and Susie got little thanks given the amount of time and effort they spent on it. You're entitled to your opinion but you do realize that there's little more irritating on wikipedia than to have somebody turn up and tell you the article's shit and and say snarky things like "By WP:Gossipia, one of the Gods of Wikipedia, how did this pass GA, unsourced?" given how much time went into the peer review and FAC. If this hadn't been TFA you'd not have turned up and moaned about it. Have either of you actually read books on Chaplin? I've sure if you did you'd realize that the article paints a fair and accurate picture of that period.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * More bad faith silliness from LightShow? What a surprise! He's always in a state of shock if someone doesn't cast a celebrity in a glowing light and gloss over everything in a private life! - SchroCat (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair light, not "glowing light." Which is quite the opposite of you, who within a few days of starting to edit an article like Peter Sellers, aims to turn out the lights, ie:
 *  I've got a few other books knocking around, including a largely unread copy of the Lewis book (how much bile and hatred in one book can there be?!) so I hope we can get something fairly special out of it. Cheers.
 * --Light show (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "turn out the lights"? You're making even less sense than normal WW, and I'm really not sure what your long-standing grudge against the improvement to the Sellers article has to do with the point in hand here... Do at least try and keep up. - SchroCat (talk) 08:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As sure as god made little apples, Light show appears as and when a negative remark is made about someone else's hard work. Go do something constructive Wikiwatcher, like actually improve an article rather than criticise the efforts of others.   Cassianto Talk   00:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

"Divided" from his first wife? Shouldn't it say "divorced"?
Under the photo in the upper right corner of the Wikipedia article on Charlie Chaplin, there is a list of his spouses. Beside the name of his first wife, Mildred Harris, it says "divided". Shouldn't that be "divorced"? Or is there really some kind of ex-marital state known as "divided"?

Thanks.

, thanks for noticing. --Light show (talk) 23:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2014
27.107.189.1 (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

He is an Atheist
 * According to what source(s)? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Format style of books
are a number of formatting problems with the book you are trying to add: Also, please be aware of WP:BRD, which you are now in breach of. You should have come here after my revert to discuss the matter. Cassianto talk 09:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The chapter should not be in italics
 * The book name should be in italics, but is missing.
 * No author name
 * No publisher
 * It should not be "pages". It should be "p. 58"
 * The whole book, using the template, should be added to the sources and then formatted in the preferred Harvard style with a link.

Birth place/home town
There are two reasons why I think 'birth place' is much better than 'home town' when it comes to the infobox. Firstly, an infobox tends to list the person's birth place – therefore I am concerned that readers would think that we are using 'birth place' and 'hometown' interchangeably, especially if they come to the article for just a quick look (as people often do). Secondly, Chaplin's birthdate is also unverified, so unless we delete all information about his birth from the infobox, we will unfortunately have to have unverified information there. I understand that it would be preferable to have only verified information in the infobox but I just don't think it would work in this case! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 21:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * From what The Magnet said in May 1889, Chaplin was born April 15 of that year. While location is unverified, all sources indicate that he was born April 1889. If using all verified statements, we could perhaps just say "April 1889". It would also help to know what led him to believe his birthday was April 16th.  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 21:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think Chaplin ever had any reason to believe that his birthdate wasn't 16 April, and I don't recall reading that there was any debate about this during his lifetime. It was only after his death, when thorough research into the circumstances of his birth was conducted by Robinson, that all of this confusion began. I think it was him who first found the The Magnet ad. However, although it is certainly clear that there are many unanswered questions surrounding Chaplin's birth, the majority of scholars stick to 16 April as the 'official though unverified' birthday as Chaplin believed this himself and because there simply are no sources that would definitely prove that he was wrong. Therefore I think it is clearest and safest to list Chaplin's birthdate as 16 April, 1889 (unverified), otherwise it can unfortunately look like original research.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Understandable, I was simply saying that using simply "April 1889" would definitely be accurate even if less specific given the apparent confusion/possible dispute of dates.  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 02:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Composing?
Re: "According to film historian Jeffrey Vance, 'although he relied upon associates to arrange varied and complex instrumentation, the musical imperative is his, and not a note in a Chaplin musical score was placed there without his assent.'"

That makes Chaplin a musical director or editor; it does not make him a composer. At best Chaplin was a co-composer, but more likely (and this is based on what people who worked with him have said when they were playing up his work) his contribution in terms of actually composing was tiny. All good film directors work closely with composers. The article is currently deliberately exaggerating the extent to which Chaplin really composed. TheScotch (talk) 11:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I plead ignorance I'm afraid. If you can provide a reliable source I would say crack on and alter it unless someone more musically minded disagrees of course.  Cassianto talk 14:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that Chaplin was not the composer of the music in his films, but finding a source that would state this is difficult.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

I'm proposing that the article not take a position either way. The passage that currently reads, "He thereafter composed the scores for all of his films....", for example, could be altered to read, "All of his films thereafter credited him with composing their music....". (Actually, that's a little awkward, but I'm sure I could phrase it better.) I have a book about movie scoring on my shelf that includes an interview with David Raksin in which Raksin talks about Chaplin's role in creating music to the films. I haven't looked at it in many years, but if its as I vaguely remember, I might like to quote it and then withhold comment, let the Wikipedia reader characterize what Chaplin did as he will. TheScotch (talk) 07:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I think part of the issue is defining what a composer does, which according to WP is very broad, besides having changed over time. He was not, IMO, the traditional Hollywood composer like Max Steiner or Dmitri Tiomkin, who worked under directors and producers, since he also did those functions, plus writing the scripts. Unlike those composers, he never studied music formally, so couldn't write it, but then neither could Irving Berlin. If we compare Chaplin to well-schooled golden age Hollywood composers, he might not fit the definition. But by early 20th century standards, he, like Berlin, would.
 * The suggestion that it read, "All of his films thereafter credited him with composing . . ." probably wouldn't help for someone like Chaplin, since as producer, director and writer, it was he who was crediting himself.
 * On a side note, after reading the Composing section, I think the material focuses mainly on the mechanics of his composing, but has almost nothing about the sources, inspirations, selectivity, or purpose of the music, which relate to his early music hall experiences. Marcel Marceau said that Chaplin "adapted his style of English Music Hall pantomime to cinematography." In Weissman's Chaplin bio, he wrote that the "worldview Chaplin exported with him to America [was] inherent to those earthy music hall ballads." Since the article already has a lot about his music hall days, some of that could be added. --Light show (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: "''The suggestion that it read, 'All of his films thereafter credited him with composing . . .' probably wouldn't help for someone like Chaplin, since as producer, director and writer, it was he who was crediting himself."

I don't see how this changes anything. That's no doubt how Chaplin got credited, but the fact remains that he was credited. Sure, if someone had been in control, he may not have been credited. So what? Of course, it could read "In all of his films thereafter he credited himself with composing the score", but I don't think that's necessary, and it sounds slightly non-neutral (that is, it suggests he didn't really compose the score--that's probably true, but we're trying to let the reader decide for himself).

Re: "Unlike those composers, he never studied music formally, so couldn't write it, but then neither could Irving Berlin."

Berlin wasn't really a composer either, and not because he hadn't studied formally. He hadn't studied informally either. He scarcely knew anything about music. He was essentially a lyricist who hired composers and failed to credit them. But that's neither here nor there. We're not discussing Berlin; we're discussing Chaplin. TheScotch (talk) 02:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Can't resist throwing in that, when the Beatles were at their height, they couldn't read music either (McCartney learned how later) but that certainly didn't stop them from writing songs. Don't want to have the talk page indicate that some of us don't grasp the distinction; I feel sure that everyone here does.  Jump Forward Immediately (talk) 21:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Popular in England?
The article doesn't say much about whether he was popular or liked in Britain, where he was born and held his citizenship. From his autobiography, I got the impression he was not liked that much. Any info on this that's relevant to the article? --Light show (talk) 02:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure what exactly gave you the impression that he wasn't popular in Britain. Not only were his films box office hits, but when he visited London in 1921 it was front page news, and he had issues reaching his hotel due to the masses of fans who had come to greet him in the harbour (you can watch the newsreel about that on Youtube). He also seemed to be popular with the royal family. It is true that Chaplin had conflicting feelings about Britain, given his childhood experiences, but I've never heard that he wasn't popular, on the contrary, I'd say his popularity was much more 'stable' here than in the US as he seemed to still be popular in the 1940s and 1950s. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * My mistake. I was only referring to the period after he got expelled from the U.S. --Light show (talk) 21:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Born in Black Patch?
Up here in the West Midlands we're all told that he was born in a gypsy caravan in Black Patch park in Smethwick; see the Wikipedia entry at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Patch_Park, which says, "There has been no evidenced rebuttal of the competing conjecture that Chaplin may have been born on the Black Patch", and the citations there.
 * Ok, first of all, you are citing a tabloid as your source. Secondly, you can find many previous discussions about this in the archives. It is true that no birth certificate exists for Chaplin, and it is also true that in 2011, Chaplin's estate made public a letter that was sent to him in the 1970s by someone who claimed that he was born in the Black Patch. But while there is nothing to prove that Chaplin was born in London (although it must be noted that Chaplin himself thought of London as his birthplace and that he definitely grew up there), there is also no proof that he was born in Birmingham. The letter is mentioned in a footnote in the article, but so far as there is nothing to support its claims it should not be given more space in the article. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Chaplin's legacy
The following is wrong: "Chaplin's legacy is managed by Association Chaplin, a company founded by some of his children, which owns the copyrights to his image, name, and most of his films made after 1918.[449] Their central archive is held at the Cineteca di Bologna and includes 83,630 images, 118 scripts, 976 manuscripts, 7,756 letters, and thousands of documents.[450] "

It should be replaced with: "Chaplin's legacy is managed by the Chaplin office in Paris, representing Association Chaplin founded by some of his children, the company Roy Export which owns the copyright to most of his films made after 1918, and Bubbles Incorporated S.A. which owns the copyrights to his image and name.  Their central archive was scanned by  Cineteca di Bologna and includes 83,630 images, 118 scripts, 976 manuscripts, 7,756 letters, and thousands of documents.[450] The original archival documents are deposited at the Archives de Montreux in Switzerland. "

Kate Guyonvarch drafted the correction above. Chaplinofficial (talk) 13:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The current content is reliably sourced and I think it should remain. The Chaplin Official website appears to be a fansite.  If that is the case, then it is not verifiable or reliable.  I know that 1 of the 2 authors is still active on here, and I think we should see what her opinion is.  Cassianto talk 15:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I had a look at the section, and it seems indeed that we've made a couple of mistakes when writing it. I tried re-writing it but would be glad if someone were to review it! This is what I wrote:


 * "Chaplin's legacy is managed on behalf of his children by the Chaplin office, located in Paris. The office represents Association Chaplin, founded by some of his children to protect the name, image and moral rights to his body of work, Roy Export SAS, which owns the copyright to most of his films made after 1918, and Bubbles Incorporated S.A., which owns the copyrights to his image and name.[448] Their central archive is held at the archives of Montreux, Switzerland and scanned versions of its contents, including 83,630 images, 118 scripts, 976 manuscripts, 7,756 letters, and thousands of other documents, are available for research purposes at the Chaplin Research Centre at the Cineteca di Bologna.[449]"


 * Let me know what you think (please bear in mind that I edited this at 1:30 AM!). TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 01:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3


 * IMO, since you're stating legal facts which are untrue except for the films, the text should be abbreviated. He worked in the U.S. Therefore his name can only be protected regarding its publicity rights, that's all. It's not a fictional character name like Mickey Mouse. And there's no such thing as "moral rights." As for images, there are only a handful of his images, such as original drawings, that are under copyright, not 83,630. I just checked. So there's no reason WP should help promote more copyfraud. Nor is his "legacy" being managed, nor could it be managed. Legacy not a proper noun. --Light show (talk) 02:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I am not a legal expert it must be said – however, I am relying on information provided by the Chaplin office through its official website and the BFI, and I am pretty sure they're not making these claims of ownership without legal backing.  Association Chaplin, Bubbles, and Roy Export are all real, I can assure you, the two last ones were actually founded by Chaplin himself when he was living in Switzerland. I'm pretty sure that they can control the use of material they own, and choose the projects that they allow this material to be used in (see for example the time an Israeli lottery company decided to use the Tramp in their advertisements and was successfully sued by the Association). Also, when it is said that the Association seeks to "to protect the name, image and moral rights to his body of work", note that this does not necessarily just mean making sure that no one uses the material illegally, but also making decisions about which companies to give the right to use the Tramp in their products (e.g. not letting alcohol/tobacco companies use the Tramp in their ads/products, as Chaplin himself would've been against this), and how to make sure that Chaplin's films are available for new generations (e.g. the collaboration with MK2). I don't know where you get that 83,630 images are under copyright; this is the number of photos in the Chaplin archives which have been scanned by the Cineteca de Bologna.


 * Furthermore, I am not sure you should be making claims about knowing more about copyright than the Chaplin office, especially given that you were recently banned from uploading pictures due to repeatedly uploading copyrighted material. I'm not trying to be mean here, but you seem to be claiming that you know more about copyright than the Chaplin office and their lawyers... TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

"Comedian"?
I was just wondering what people here think of classifying Chaplin as a "comedian" in the lead and infobox? To me, comedian sounds like someone who tells jokes on a stage, which Chaplin did once in his whole life, when he was 18, and it was a big failure. I put "comic actor" when I wrote the lead, which I personally think is more accurate, but it's been changed to comedian several times now...Comments please: do you think it's appropriate? Maybe it is and I'm just viewing "comedian" too narrowly. -- Loeba (talk) 11:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Fair point. IMHO, a person who stands on stage and tells jokes is "Standup Comic", while Chaplin's style both on stage and in film was primarily "Slapstick Comedy". Both are subsets of the more general term "Comedian". Mediatech492 (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, "comic actor" is more accurate.♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * While not known for telling jokes on stage or for doing stand-up comedy (as opposed to people like Robin Williams), I have heard Chaplin referred to as a comedian for his comedy themes, so either view is understandable.  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 00:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * There's STAND-UP comedian (Robin Williams, Gilbert Gottfried, Jerry Seinfeld, etc.) and comedian (Buster Keaton and Harold Lloyd's articles list them as comedians, I have read Chaplin being referred to as a comedian in books about him written by film historians, and the comedian article even mentions Chaplin. Just because he didn't tell jokes on stage (stand-up comedian), doesn't mean he isn't a comedian. (Dpm12) 18:19 PST 28 December 2014


 * The word "comedian" is used too freely nowadays IMO and people often blur the line between that and a comic performer. I agree with Loeba that "comedian" is the wrong word and would be better associated with someone who doesn't display comedy but instead recites it. Keaton, Lloyd etc were NOT comedians.    Cassianto Talk   09:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * When Chaplin was young the word comedian meant any actor who worked on the dramatic stage in light fare not considered heavy tragedy. The antonym for comedian was tragedian—the heavy sort of actor. So in an archaic sense, the word comedian is apt. Binksternet (talk) 10:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Even if "comedian" is accurate, I'd still suggest "comic actor" is better simply because it's more precise. -- Loeba (talk) 11:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Actor is just as precise. By some of these people's logic, Jim Carrey and Seth MacFarlane aren't comedians either. Dpm12 16:06 29 December 2014
 * Nothing remotely archaic about calling Chaplin a comedian. Chaplin remains the definitive comedian, the standard by which the term should be judged.  The term "stand-up comedian" exists for a reason: to differentiate a stand-up comedian from other types of comedian.  Chaplin entertained with comedy on the stage or in films throughout his career and has been the first performer to spring to mind whenever anyone mentions a "comedian" for the past century (his screen ascendance occurred in 1914). Jump Forward Immediately (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's obviously time to pull out the definition of the word "comedian" from the online Merriam Webster's dictionary:
 * co·me·di·an noun \kə-ˈmē-dē-ən\
 * 1. a person who performs in front of an audience and makes people laugh by telling jokes or funny stories or by acting in a way that is funny : an actor who plays roles that make people laugh


 * 2. a person who is funny or makes people laugh


 * There you have it. (The italics are mine.) Somewhere along the line the notion among contributors here that the word "comedian" can only refer to a stand-up comedian seems to have somehow taken hold but that's anything but the case. The term "comedian" has been used in recent times for excellent comedians like Jackie Gleason or Sid Caesar (who was a sketch artist rather than a stand-up) while the term "comic" would be used for someone perceived as a hack who wasn't particularly good.  So now we have Chaplin referred to as a "comic actor," which is almost enough to make me wonder if some unusually rabid Keaton fan is acting as saboteur.  If you think people would erroneously conclude that the word "comedian" would denote that Chaplin was a monologist like Johnny Carson or Dick Cavett, then perhaps "comedic actor" would make more sense than "comic actor," although it's a crying shame not to identify the greatest comedian since the invention of film as a comedian.  Nobody every deserved the word more than Chaplin or probably ever will. Jump Forward Immediately (talk) 15:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and changed to "comedic actor" Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Snuggums! I think that's a good compromise under the circumstances. (I like your user name, by the way.) Jump Forward Immediately (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Photo use
I've given up on getting a photograph of Paulette Goddard into the section on Paulette Goddard, despite the facts that Chaplin and Goddard were together for a decade and eventually married, she was his leading lady in Modern Times and The Great Dictator, and the scandal of whether or not they were actually married at the time probably cost her the role of Scarlett O'Hara in Gone With the Wind before Vivien Leigh turned up. Goddard was also the only Chaplin leading lady to enjoy a huge screen career after parting with him, as leading lady in theatrical films to major actors in their prime like John Wayne (twice), James Stewart, Gary Cooper (twice), Charles Boyer, Bob Hope (three times), and Fred Astaire (dancing with him), among numerous others. So in case anyone's curious about what Paulette Goddard looked like and doesn't happen to know (if you attend New York University in New York City, "Goddard Hall" is named after her), here's a photograph from Modern Times, her first film with Chaplin. Does anyone else agree with me that a photograph of Goddard should be included in the article as a matter of course, particularly since photographs of his other wives appear? Jump Forward Immediately (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Considering that Lita Grey and Oona O'Neil have pictures in the article I see no reason why Goddard need be excluded. Mediatech492 (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The article, in my opinion, has enough photos as it is and we need to draw the line somewhere. Images are nice for illustrative purposes, but too many can ruin it.  We must be careful not to burden the article which is already bursting at the seams with images.Talk ''' 18:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The issue here is that there are loads of very good pictures that could be used in this article, but there's just not enough space for them all, and therefore only the most relevant should be used. Although I definitely agree with you that Goddard was an important element in Chaplin's life in the 1930s, there's just not enough space in the 1930s section for another picture. The poster for Modern Times is much more relevant as the film was one of the high points of Chaplin's career and marked his transition to more openly political themes. If we had more space, it would be nice to use a photo of him and Goddard as well, but as I already stated, there's just not enough space. Furthermore, I would like to point out that only two of Chaplin's four wives have their images in the article. Lita Grey's image is included because the scandal related to her was one of the biggest of Chaplin's career and in fact almost ended it – it occupied Chaplin for a whole year, delayed the making of The Circus, and would haunt him for a long time afterwards. This was much more serious than any of the headlines generated by his relationship to Goddard (also, I don't think it was necessarily the fact that Goddard couldn't prove her marriage to Chaplin that lost her the role of Scarlett O'Hara; let's remember that Vivien Leigh was at the time still married to another man but living with Olivier. Based on the archived correspondence between those involved in the casting process, it was the fact that Goddard was under contract to Chaplin to make The Great Dictator at the time that made Selznick decide against her; Chaplin's tendency to take years to complete a film was notorious). The first image of Oona O'Neill is included for similar reasons, as the marriage was seen as hugely scandalous and inappropriate; the second in which she is together with Chaplin and some of their children is fitting because in the last decades of his life, Chaplin wanted to portray himself as a 'family man'. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * Also, anyone who is reading the article and becomes curious about what Goddard looked like can click on the link to her page. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * The Scarlett O'Hara topic is intriguing and practically every reference I've encountered and many documentaries bring up the issue of the nebulous marriage to Chaplin as being a stumbling block; I've also pored over Selznick's many memos myself and they're so voluminous that many different perspectives appear over the stretch of time, some of them conflicting as his thoughts change. One of the oddest things about this Wikipedia article on Chaplin is that it's illustrated with so many film posters. I can't think of another biographical article of any actor with three substantial sized reproductions of film posters, in every other case I've seen on Wikipedia, they're relegated to the article about the film itself, probably because of some Wikipedia fair use ruling. To paraphrase what you said earlier, if a reader wants to look at a poster, in practically all other cases except this particular biographical article, he clicks on the link to the film.  And in an article in which such a premium is placed on space for illustrations, there's actually a photo of his Hollywood Walk of Fame star, something that literally fits the description that "if you've seen one, you've seen them all."  I know there was a unique delay in Chaplin receiving it due to his political views but that could be noted in a line of text; how can the absence of a photo of Goddard be perceived as sensible when the article actually succumbs to the Wikipedia cliche of harboring yet another in the countless identical photographs in articles of stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame?  Jump Forward Immediately (talk) 20:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * , I'm sorry that you don't like the differing of opinion, but I think it a pretty poor show that you now feel the need to criticise other areas of the article just because you can't get your own way.   Cassianto Talk   21:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * , every word I wrote was a direct response to the previous comment about the motives for Selznick's choice and the larger issue itself, which is the markedly unusual way that space for illustrations is being used on the site. Never deviated from that for a moment, never moved to a different topic. As a matter of fact, I'm beginning to suspect that, speaking of "criticizing other areas," your evident hostility might have more to do with my entry in the previous discussion about the word "Comedian" than it does about this.  As far as this business that I "can't get [my] way," I'm not nine years old and that line of thinking would never occur to me. That having been said, I'm also not interested in entering into some unfortunate dynamic with a fellow Wikipedia contributor like yourself.  Jump Forward Immediately (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "evident hostility" is evident only to you it appears. To make a distinction between my "evident hostilit[ies]" here and the previous section is both false and deluded.    Cassianto Talk   22:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ".....I think it a pretty poor show that you now feel the need to criticize other areas of the article just because you can't get your own way" sounds a trifle hostile to me and I should think would to anyone, and as for your response that my recognition that this had more to do with the previous "Comedian" discussion than with photographs was delusional, I'm not a mind reader so I'll happily defer to your more intimate knowledge of your own motives. Jump Forward Immediately (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The advantage of including images of posters is that they illustrate better than simple film stills how Chaplin was perceived and chose to portray himself when these films were released. In the poster for A Dog's Life, we not only get a famous image from the film, but also lines like "The one and only" (illustrating how Chaplin was imitated and also considered 'unique') and 'in his first million dollar picture' (shows Chaplin's popularity and the public's obsession with the amount of money he was making). As for Modern Times, there is one good quality still in Commons, but I would say that the poster is more effective, as in it the Tramp's facial expression is very stern and there isn't any hint that this is a comedy film; it therefore demonstrates how his films were becoming heavier and more polemical than before. The third poster, with its tagline 'Chaplin Changes - Can You?' shows how Monsieur Verdoux was a new beginning for Chaplin, and also alludes to the profound change in his public image in the US during this time. In other words, the posters have not been chosen arbitrarily but because they illustrate the themes of Chaplin's career as well as the historical context better than simple film stills. This applies to all other picture choices as well – we cannot simply have a gallery of the important people in Chaplin's life. As for the Walk of Fame image, I do not object to it being replaced with something better, but given that I feel that the image should be appropriate to the theme of 'Awards and recognition', I am not entirely sure what other image to use. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

In theory it would be great to have an image of Goddard, but in practice it just isn't really possible. She can only go in the "Travels, Paulette Goddard and Modern Times" bit, but there isn't space. The only way it could be added is to remove the Modern Times image, but since that's one of his *major* films (top 3 best known, probably) I definitely think that's more important to have. Lita Grey got in there because The Circus (even though it's one of my personal favourite Chaplin films) isn't one of his most acclaimed, so doesn't need focusing on so much, and Oona O'Neill was easy to get in because there's no other picture that would be relevant to that section anyway (and she was his wife for 35 years, after all). I'm surprised you're complaining about the posters: the article would look a bit boring if it was all black and white publicity stills. As I said in a recent edit summary, the posters add colour and variety (not to mention Suzie's excellent points about how they give insight into his career: the Monsieur Verdoux image, in particular, was chosen precisely for that reason...the Modern Times one as well, since it illustrates the comment given in the caption). We all know that "Walk of Fame Star" images are boring, but at least it allows us to put an interesting tidbit in the caption (and what other image would we put there anyway?) -- Loeba (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually there's plenty of room in that section for another illustration simply by moving most of the long but superb caption into the text, where it would be more effective, and slightly moving the poster up a bit. We're sort of ignoring a whole aspect of Chaplin's life (see his autobiography) when there's no indication that this was someone, by dint of being literally the most famous and embraced man of his generation on a global scale, who went through sensationally beautiful women like McCormick's reaper through stalks of wheat. A photo of Goddard, in sharp contrast to the rather dowdy-looking pictures in the article, would correct this in a fell swoop since this is one of those cases where a picture really is worth "a thousand words."  Jump Forward Immediately (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * For the last time, we cannot have an image of Goddard just because she was important in Chaplin's life for eight years - she was important but not the most important element in his life at the time, his films were. There is no point in including photos simply because they are beautiful – their relevancy to the themes of the actual article is far more important. We are NOT ignoring Goddard, her name is even in the heading of that section. Your reasoning seems to be that if we don't include a photo of someone, we are ignoring their influence in Chaplin's life. Following this logic, we are also ignoring Chaplin's father, brother Sydney, his first wife Mildred, Fred Karno, Max Linder, Mack Sennett, Douglas Fairbanks, Joan Barry, etc. because we don't include photos of them. That's absolutely ridiculous. For the last time: the photos that accompany the article have been chosen because they are most relevant to the themes of the text. You seem to imply that we should instead prioritize photos of the beautiful women in Chaplin's life because they provide eye candy. I'm sorry, but that would lower the quality of the article – it would simply not be as informative anymore. Also, if you are so preoccupied with protecting Goddard's legacy, why don't you focus your energy on developing her page?TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * Actually, I think elevating the ambiance of the article is a good idea since that's sadly lacking thus far, it's unrelentingly drearier in appearance than it has be and I know that the inclusion of that photograph will obviously stimulate interest and readership, particularly with younger readers who are trying to figure out who this comedian, who was the 20th century's most exalted entertainment giant, actually was. I've contributed to hundreds of biographies of film luminaries in Wikipedia over the past decade and a half but this is the only one I've ever seen in which film posters are accorded this much weight and designated to be the only illustration in a section, to the exclusion of any photograph whatsoever as well. Why? Clutter has nothing to do with it. To respond to your closing line, I have contributed a bit to Goddard's page but, believe it or not, I've never particularly focused on her any more than the next commensurately interesting performer.  I think you struck the nail on the head when you mentioned that including her photo would "lower the quality of the article," while I think it dramatically elevates the ambiance and adds a truly important element that's most illustrative of Chaplin's life.  In other words, we're talking about an aesthetic discord between us: you find the photograph itself's presence in the article somehow inherently distasteful, that it looks like a glamour shot from a different realm that threatens to convert the article into a chapter from Playboy Magazine, while I think it elevates the article's ambiance and forcefully illustrates an extremely important general element in Chaplin's life without needing to type an additional word of text (or to type ten thousand words of text), and represents a dramatic improvement. You mentioned that I imply that "we should instead prioritize photos of the beautiful women in Chaplin's life because they provide eye candy." No, I never mentioned prioritizing photos of women, just one woman in particular in one photograph, no additional women remotely necessary.  I momentarily got caught up in going back and forth with you partly because of the bizarrely cavalier way that you seem to claim ownership of the article.  It's not an important enough issue for me to pursue since more pressing matters currently hold a more urgent claim on my attention than a Wikipedia article, so I'm not going to call in reinforcements at this time and see who else might agree with me.  Jump Forward Immediately (talk) 01:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, I cannot but reiterate that since this is an encyclopedia, we should focus on the article being as informative as possible. The problem with focusing on aesthetics is also that what is considered beautiful varies from person to person – for example, I and several other users find the page, as is, to look good. You disagree and that is fine; however, what I take issue with is your insistence that because you find the page 'dreary' due to the inclusion of three film posters (out of a total of 25 images), the photos should be changed to ones you find more pleasing to the eye. You ignore the fact that these posters are informative and relevant to the themes of the article, and insist that they should be removed because you find them ugly, and to make room for a studio publicity photo of Goddard. Having a publicity shot of Goddard is not adding to the informative value of the article; your only arguments for its inclusion are that she was important in Chaplin's life (as were several other people, but for some reason you're not insisting on us including their photos) and that it's a pretty photo that would make the article more appealing to those who are not actually interested in the topic. It's not Wikipedia's primary purpose to turn anyone searching for information to a fan of any topic; the primary aim is to provide information. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

While we're on the subject, I think one of the images in "Background and childhood" should be removed (the workhouse one was added recently, and it does have some worth but I don't think we can have two). So which do you guys think is better to keep, the one of Hannah Chaplin or the one of the workhouse? Or I guess we could remove the quotebox, although I personally find it interesting and insightful... -- Loeba (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Could the two be merged somehow? As in, the quote would be placed in the description of the image? Otherwise, keep Hannah's image, as I think Chaplin spent the majority of the time that he was separated from his mother in Hanwell rather than in the Lambeth Workhouse. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3


 * I personally would remove both images. They don't really add as much benefit to the article as the other pictures do. If there are available pictures of Chaplin with his mother, though, that might be worth including. There are also too many statue images in one spot. I would just use one or two. Snuggums (talk / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 22:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC


 * Which ever image Charlie passed FAC with would be the safest bet I think.   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   22:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I don't think there are any images of Chaplin with his mother; in fact, there's only one known picture from his childhood. I wouldn't delete Hannah Chaplin's image though (unless of course an image of Chaplin as a young boy is available), because she was such a central influence in Chaplin's life.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * I think the point of combining the images of the statues was to show how many have been dedicated to Chaplin globally; I believe it's quite unique for a film star.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * You're absolutely right about the statues, Susie, it's a unique series of photos for a supremely unique performer. Jump Forward Immediately (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Placing them in different spots—with or without image groupings—would be one thing, but this many in one spot just clutters the article. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 22:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's very true Susie, his time spent at the actual workhouse was only about a week, I think. Snuggums, I know neither image is great but I think this is the only one that actually shows Chaplin during that time period, and he's so small (he is in the third row, right in the middle) that I'm not sure there'd be much point in it...I still think the one of Hannah has worth, since her illness had such an impact on Chaplin's childhood and then his whole life. I have thought before about expanding the caption to make the image more useful...I'm not really sure why I didn't actually! I'd forgotten, by the way, that there's actually an image of Chaps playing Billy the Pageboy - . It would be pretty good to have that in the article, wouldn't it? I'm sure it must be PD, it's over 100 years old... -- Loeba (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, looking at those two photos now and realising that copyright shouldn't be an issue, I think I would actually prefer either the workhouse group image (it's small but I think it gives a sense of the poverty he experienced) or the Billy the Pageboy image to replace Hannah's portrait. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * It would definitely benefit the article to give a more elaborate caption for Hannah as well as Lita and Oona. Yes, that image of him playing Billy the Pageboy is in public domain since all images taken before January 1, 1923 are automatically free. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 23:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * All images published in America before 1923 are PD, but the UK has different rules. Even so, I think it must be PD, I'd just need a bit of help on it (I learned all about American copyright laws for this site, but not my own country's!) The page boy one would go in the "Young performer" section. I guess we could just upload the Hanwell image for the childhood section...By the way, the Oona caption couldn't get anymore elaborate, could it?! The Lita one used to say "bitter divorce", therefore hinting more at why she is relevant, but it was removed. I'll add it back. -- Loeba (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the solo picture of her, and would probably add mention of scandal in the caption for her and Lita. "Bitter divorce" seems POV though. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 23:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I've added both of the "childhood" images we discussed here. Good additions. -- Loeba (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes they are :) <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 20:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:PEACOCK
I have just gotten a message on my talk page saying that my understanding of WP:PEACOCK is excessively strict. I question reverting "Speculation about Chaplin's racial origin existed from early in his career" to "Speculation about Chaplin's racial origin existed from the earliest days of his fame" when the first sentence is an objective, rather than subjective, treatment of facts.Curb Chain (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Fame is not synonymous with career. People are often not famous at the beginning of their career. Also, your proposed revision still needs to be true. If you're going to replace fame with career, then you should double check the source (In this case, it's David Robinson's Charlie Chaplin: His Life and Art. You should look at the source before you change it. If the source says earliest days of Chaplin's fame, then is should stay that way, I think. Otherwise changing it misrepresents both the facts and the source. Rylon (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 06:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The prose in this article are mostly paraphrases of the sources. The article reads poorly and unscholarly.  Simple changes I suggested can improve it, rather than treating a biography article with haughty adjectives.  Scientific objectivity can be applied to all aspects of writing.174.3.125.23 (talk) 05:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think fame is a haughty adjective in the instance you cite. MOS:WTW says to use common sense and that the guideline has occasional exceptions. WP:IAR, explicitly says ″If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.″ I think we can say that Charlie Chaplin is famous. He died 37 years ago and people still know who he was. In addition, his last major role was over half a century ago, but people still impersonate his tramp character. Fame is being widely known for something, it's something beyond notability, and it's not subjective when applied people Charlie Chaplin. MOS:WTW may say that the word fame is subjective, but the MOS is wrong in this case and WP:IAR backs me up. Rylon (talk) 06:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't necessarily go against MOS, i.e. things like "he rose to fame" or "he was famous for _____" are perfectly objective. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> <b style="color:#454545">(talk</b> <b style="color:#454545">/</b> <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 06:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * True, but MOS:WTW, particularly the WP:PEACOCK portion, is written poorly. And the editor above seems to have taken it to mean an absolute ban on some words. If you take a look at Curb Chain's user page you'll see that he runs a find on a list of words and edits those words out without any consideration for context. Rylon (talk) 09:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Rylon is quite right when he says "Fame is not synonymous with career". Chaplin's career started in 1899, when he was 9, but people didn't start speculating about his heritage until he was famous. It's simply an accurate statement of facts (and "fame" is actually an understatement when it comes to Charlie Chaplin in the 1910s). Curb Chain, you really do seem way too sensitive when it comes to "peacock" words. We would be doing our readers a disservice if we didn't make clear how exceptionally popular this man was (and same goes for any other major personalities in history). The article also talks a great deal about how unpopular Chaplin became (one user even complained that it was too negative) so you cannot claim that it lacks neutrality. -- Loeba (talk) 10:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Oscars Stolen
According to [http://awards.yahoo.com/post/110569686197/charlie-chaplins-first-oscar-reported-stolen Yahoo! Movies] (via The Hollywood Reporter) Chaplin's first Oscar (from the very first Academy Awards in 1929) was stolen. I'm unsure if this belongs here, but I would think, given the history of the item itself and its relation to Chaplin, it would be wise to mention it somewhere. Thoughts? Vyselink (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think if we include it somewhere, it should just be as a footnote to the bit where his getting that Oscar is mentioned.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * That makes sense to me. Vyselink (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Or it could just be mentioned on the film's article? -- Loeba (talk) 11:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That makes sense as well. I googled this and it doesn't seem like there's any official statement from the Chaplin office, just reports from the Hollywood Reporter and the Telegraph – which makes me think that maybe we should not include it anywhere at this point? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * While The Daily Telegraph and The Hollywood Reporter are both reliable sources, I'm not sure if there should be anything on a claim like this that didn't come from Chaplin or his family. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 13:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

While I do not know if it should be included, and will go with either decision w/e the consensus, I do want to point out that if we waited for "official" claims or responses from celebrities family/agency/whatever, a lot of information would not be known. Vyselink (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it depends a lot on what type of information we're talking about. In this case, given that there has not been any official statement either from the Chaplin office or the French police, I'm wondering where these few media outlets received this fairly specific information from, and why the office does not seem to be wanting to make a statement about it? I think we should maybe just wait for a little while and see how the story develops. It's hardly essential information on Chaplin, so there's no harm in not adding it immediately. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 02:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * My thoughts exactly, Susie. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 02:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Cause of death
Any particular reason why the cause of death keeps getting removed from the infobox? Siri and Google Now need the information. Is there a reason for it or just vanity? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I personally agree that cause of death should be included in infobox, Richard, but why would Siri and Google Now need it? <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 22:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And now Cortana and Watson use the infobox data too. All three use the harmonized format of the infoboxes to answer specific questions. What was Charlie Chaplin's cause of death? You can see they use the infobox data when the date in the text is different from the infobox, because of typos, or one is corrected and the other is left uncorrected. I am interested in causes of death and how they change historically. What is the rationale for leaving it off? It seems arbitrary like the classical music people deleting infoboxes ... because they can, not for any reason. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't quite see why Wikipedia articles should be changed because other webpages/services/apps use them for information... While I am of the opinion that infoboxes are very useful, I think they should list just the 'bare essentials'. In the case of someone who died young or violently, it can be wise to include the cause of death in the infobox. There was nothing particularly interesting/controversial about Chaplin's cause of death. The infobox does mention that he died aged 88, so most people probably already understand from that that he died of 'old age'. What really worries me is that if non-essential information like that is allowed to the infobox, other non-essential bits will be added as well, and soon it will be as long as the article itself... TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 02:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3