Talk:Charlie Chaplin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Charlie Chaplin is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 2, 2014.

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2016[edit]

Please change "Statues of Chaplin around the world, located at (left to right) 1. Teplice, Czech Republic" to "Statues of Chaplin around the world, located at (left to right) 1. Trenčianske Teplice, Slovakia" because the statue is located in Slovakia, not Czech Republic. Also, the file "Chaplin statues.jpg" says in the description the location "Teplice, Czech Republic". However, this is wrong - it can be seen in the source files of the collage, where is linked the original file "Trenčianske Teplice, socha Charlie Chaplina.jpg". Trenčianske teplice is a town in western Slovakia [1]


Matthew444444 (talk) 16:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done and Good Catch!  Paine  u/c 22:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


Q1: Where in the article body is this "Source" entry used?

  • Vance, Jeffrey (1996). "The Circus: A Chaplin Masterpiece". Film History. Indiana University Press. 8 (2): 186–208. JSTOR 3815334. 

Mitchumch (talk) 06:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Q2: For citations number 226 "Maland, p. 181; Louvish, p. 282; Robinson, p. 504." and number 442 "Louvish, p. xvi; Maland pp. xi, 359, 370." is "Maland" for the 1989 or 2007 publication source?

Q3: This is possibly connected to Q1. For citation number 189 "Vance, p. 208." is "Vance" for the 1996 journal article or the 2003 book? Mitchumch (talk) 07:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Q4: For citation number 134 "Chaplin, pp. 255–253." the page range is incorrect.

Q5: For citation number 354 "Louvish, p. 168; Robinson, pp. 166–170, pp. 489–490; Brownlow, p. 187." does "pp. 489–490" belong to author Robinson or is this citation missing an author? Mitchumch (talk) 10:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll get back to this soon, it's unfortunately been several years since Loeba and I wrote the article so I don't have the sources readily available at the moment.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
FYI. There may be a coding issue with Template:Sfnm as reflected in citation number 383 "Robinson, pp. 455, 485; Louvish, p. 138(for quote)". The spacing and period is missing. Please see Template talk:Sfnm section Issue with code? for my current effort to resolve issue. Mitchumch (talk) 08:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Issue resolved. Mitchumch (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
@Mitchumch: two instances of "Maland" without a year ramain. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 23:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
@Finnusertop: I know. I added Template:Cn with "Is "Maland" for the 1989 or 2007 publication source?" appended. Mitchumch (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Since the references section only includes the 1989 publication, I would say that. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Scratch that; just noticed the 2007 one listed. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


The word "Sir" is currently displayed in boldface. Since it's an honourific, I would recommend removing that special typesetting. Eliko007 (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Changed it to plain text in the lead. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I've reverted as the honourific should be in bold face. See Edward Elgar, Ralph Richardson, George Robey, Noel Coward, John Gielgud, and any of the others at WP:FA. CassiantoTalk 00:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I examined Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Honorific_prefixes and it appears that the relevant policy suggests boldface for the first instance of the honourific. Eliko007 (talk) 16:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


Following on from the edit war regarding Chaplin's self-identification as an anarchist, I think this should be mentioned somewhere, though not necessarily in the lead. More broadly, it would be good to address what his political opinions and activities actually were.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

The only one edit waring was you. If Chaplain self-identified as an anarchist, then he was. Subjective views with regards to other interpretations are irrelevant, unless they are conflicting. CassiantoTalk 19:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
What are you talking about? All I did was revert the removal of text that was accurate and well-sourced. Looking at the history that text seems to have been removed and re-added before.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
While I agree that more could perhaps be said about Chaplin's political views in the text, I think more research needs to be done into that subject before we add anything. It would be misleading to label him an anarchist because he stated it in an interview he did late in life. If my memory serves me correctly, there's not a lot that we definitively know about Chaplin's views. He was certainly on the left politically for his whole life, but I doubt he discussed his beliefs in depth in public at any point in his career. It seemed to me that Eliko's edit was just another case of a person stumbling across an interesting statement and adding it without doing any further research into the subject.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
I think Chaplin's speech at the end of the "Great Dictator" is probably his definitive political statement. As the speech shows, he firmly believed in democracy, but was highly critical of market capitalism where workers were left in poverty. Mediatech492 (talk) 22:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

"Charlie" in northeastern Isaan region of Thailand[edit]

Looking for something to watch on TV with a Thai-Isaan girlfriend and her 6-year-old daughter, they came across "Charlie" on Youtube. Both had seen it before and loved it, especially the 6-year-old. Someone had done comic commentary over the old silent movies in the language of northeastern Thailand or Isann, which is identical to Lao language in the southern parts of that country. To them the commentary was what added to the antics of Charlie. I wonder who did this and when. Quite a production I would think. I wonder if it has been done in other countries/languages. Maybe worth researching and adding to the page. The "Isaan Charlie" films are titled "Thai dub" but they told me it's actually Isaan language, not Thai, which is spoken in the rest of Thailand and Bangkok ( JuanTamad (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Reverted edit, again[edit]

@Sagaciousphil: Why did you revert my edit on 04:51, 12 January 2017‎? Specifically, did it violate a Wikipedia policy or Wikipedia Manual of Style? Mitchumch (talk) 12:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

My edit summary reads: "Please don't change citation style without gaining consensus per WP:CITEVAR". What is the meaning of your heading "Reverted edit, again"? I don't believe I've ever reverted any of your edits before. SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
@Sagaciousphil: For "Reverted edit, again", see Reverted edit from Talk:Charlie Chaplin/Archive 7. In response to WP:CITEVAR, a quick review of policy appears to refer to the formatting types of inline citations. I don't think the policy you referenced is applicable to this edit. According to WP:CITEVAR, the following is to be avoided:
  • switching between major citation styles, e.g. parenthetical and <ref> tags, or replacing the preferred style of one academic discipline with another's;
  • adding citation templates to an article that already uses a consistent system without templates, or removing citation templates from an article that uses them consistently;
  • changing where the references are defined, e.g. moving reference definitions in the reflist to the prose, or moving reference definitions from the prose into the reflist.
Please specify which of the "to be avoided" conditions I violated. Mitchumch (talk) 12:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
The key phrase is: "editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style". The "style" of the sources list was without indentations when it passed FA so that is the established style for the article and consensus would be required to change it. As far as I'm aware the indentations also cause accessibility issues especially for those using mobile devices. Also, the bullet points let those using screen readers know that it is a list. I will leave it to others to comment further. SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
@Sagaciousphil: Your use of the phrase "editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style" completely ignores the definition of "citation style" and the detailed "to be avoided" conditions discussed immediately beneath that claim. My edit does not violate the "to be avoided" conditions. If it does, then please specify which condition it violated.
The key term discussed in detail in WP:CITEVAR is "citation style", not "any style". Please review Wikipedia:CITESTYLE. It has nothing to do with indentation vs. bullet points, only the "style" of inline citations. For example, APA style, ASA style, MLA style, The Chicago Manual of Style, Author-date referencing, Vancouver system and Bluebook.
FA-class articles remain editable and there is no Wikipedia policy that says otherwise. Your application of WP:CITEVAR appears invalid in this instance.
I checked the mobile device mode here and see no accessibility issues and bullet points appear in that mode. I can't see the impact in mobile mode due to reverted edit. Even if true, the solution would be Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) not a revert. I have been making substantial edits to the "References" section since October 2016 to improve functionality without objection. Mitchumch (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)