Talk:Charlie Chaplin/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Possible misinformation and bias in Great Dictator section

There's no intention to edit war or argue about the section, but some explanation may be helpful about the added and now reverted details.

• Churchill's opinion about the film, that he thought it was "fantastic," seemed more relevant to the small section than a lengthy opinion and quote by a single author, Charles J. Maland, who isn't notable enough to warrant a WP article. Hence, the rationale for deleting Churchill's opinion, "There's no need to have so much information about Churchill," and replacing it with Maland's lengthier opinion seems unwarranted.

• The section says the film was "controversial" with no clue as to why. Therefore the rationale given for deleting the brief explanation about it, we've already made clear it was a controversial topic, is wrong and makes nothing clear.

• As part of the same reversion above, the paragraph again seems chopped up, with a comment about his reason for a talking vs. a silent film, now surrounded by two disconnected important details: one about Britain then being at war and the other with the unexplained "controversy" about an anti-Nazi film. The rationale for adding that fact, Also important to include bit about this being first spoken dialogue film of Chaplin's, important or not, does not explain why the brief and relevant explanation about the controversy should be summarily deleted.

• Another rationale for deleting the explanation about the controversy was: what studio heads of MGM etc. thought is not relevant here. That seems to be a weak rationale for removing the explanation added:

with some politicians, such as Joseph Kennedy, the U.S. Ambassador to England, telling the Hollywood studios to "stop making anti-Nazi movies or use the film medium to promote the democracies versus the dictators."[217] According to actor Douglas Fairbanks Jr., Kennedy put "the fear of God" into the studio heads.

In fact, Chaplin was one of the main targets of Kennedy's threats, even if less effective. And Fairbanks' father was co-owner, with Chaplin, of his studio.

• Some of the other material deleted and reverted tends to create an obvious bias by emphasizing Maland's conclusion about Chaplin's . . . five-minute speech in which he looked into the camera and professed his personal, anti-capitalist beliefs, as opposed to those of others, including Chaplin and Roosevelt, who saw it differently: where he professed his wish for worldwide peace.

Nor is it necessary to include a supporting quote and opinion by Maland, "Henceforth, no movie fan would ever be able to separate the dimension of politics from [his] star image", after already emphasizing that Chaplin was an anti-capitalist. A fact, btw, that others and Chaplin considered absurd, having said many times he was not and never was, a communist. The result is that the section of his bio currently gives an obvious non-neutral POV, with opinions focused on supposed "anti-capitalist" leanings vs. what he actually said.

Is all this possible bias and removal of the controversy explanation important? Chaplin might have thought so on the boat trip leaving America. David Robinson—the most cited author in the article—implies its relevance: "the FBI went on to manipulate a smear campaign charging Chaplin with Communist sympathies," and historian Steven Ross added, "he would soon be labeled a Communist in a campaign of rumors and innuendoes." --Light show (talk) 19:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

More information about my reasoning:

• Maland is an extremely respected Chaplin scholar who has written a monograph on Chaplin's star image and its development throughout his career. His analysis is therefore much more relevant than Churchill's comment that he liked the film as it provides the reader with more in-depth understanding of the film's place in history. I did retain the bit where it is says that Churchill liked it – there's no need to repeat that with a quote. We'd basically be writing "Churchill liked the film and said "it's a good film".
• It is explained that the film was controversial because of its extremely political subject, fascism in Europe. You added Kennedy's statement that Hollywood shouldn't make films about the political situation, i.e. again repeating that political films about the volatile situation in Europe were considered controversial. You were not adding any clarifying information.
• Chopped up? There's nothing unclear about the structure: the similarities between Chaplin and Hitler were noted –> he got a film idea from that –> developed said idea and wrote its script before the most active stages of the war began, and began shooting it just after Britain joins the war. I really don't see what is unclear or irrelevant here, these are all extremely relevant facts presented in a clear chronological order. The political background is important in discussing a film that comments on the said political events. Also, an anti-Nazi film developed and shot in 1939 by a major mainstream filmmaker is controversial, I don't see what kind of extra information needs to be added besides the timeline of the events that we have already written; Chaplin was basically becoming a political commentator before this film. And again, none of what you added actually gave any clarification either, you just restated that it was controversial. I think it is pretty clear from the context (early stages of WW2, the US not yet sure what to think of Hitler officially) to anyone but people who want to argue for the sake of personal kicks. Furthermore, this version passed FAC, so it seems you're the only editor so far who finds the section confusing?
• Once again, you are also not getting your facts right. If you had read in depth about Chaplin, you would know that he was the sole owner of his film company. It is true that Fairbanks was co-owner of United Artists, the distribution company, but that didn't have any actual influence on Chaplin's filmmaking. He also died during the filming of The Great Dictator.
• You added weasel words to the actual description and then added a lot of info on what Churchill and Roosevelt thought, deleting everything else about the reception of the film. Maland discusses the actual reception of the film with the critics and the audiences and how the film changed Chaplin's public image, which is extremely relevant, more so than what the two leaders thought. I did retain some of what you wrote about Churchill and Roosevelt though, as you can see.
• Surely you understand that someone professing anti-capitalist opinions is not automatically a card-carrying member of the Communist party? He openly criticized capitalism, knowingly professed his opinions in a climate where he knew it would give him some trouble, and was unfairly hounded by the FBI for it. All of that is neutrally conveyed by the article, expunging these facts because you don't understand the difference between having Left-leaning opinions and being a member of the Communist party would make it extremely biased. This is a conversation we have had about 10 times already.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Actually, I don't think we've ever had a conversation about his anti-capitalist or communist leanings. Previous discussions were focused on the lawsuits and phony accusations from the Mann Act, after which you and Loeba agreed to state that they were "part of a smear campaign to damage Chaplin's image."

As for whether Maland's opinions being kept in while some reasons for the controversy are kept out, makes the section non-neutral, I still believe it does. The section simply states, "Making a comedy about Hitler was seen as highly controversial, . . ." But it fails to explain why. Here again are some simple facts which would help explain to average readers why making the film was considered "controversial":

From September, 1939, until January, 1940, all films that could be considered anti-Nazi were banned by the Hays Office.(Eyman) U.S. ambassador to England, Joseph Kennedy, considered an isolationist, told the Hollywood studios to stop making any pro-British or anti-German films. Kennedy felt that "British defeat was imminent and there was no point in America holding out alone: 'With England licked, the party's over,' said Kennedy." (Wapshott) According to actor Douglas Fairbanks Jr., Kennedy put "the fear of God" into the studio heads. But the only thing the article says about the "controversial" aspect, is that "Chaplin's financial independence allowed him to take the risk."

But apparently financial independence goes only so far, for soon after the film was released, the "smear campaign" against him began in earnest. (see more detailed sandbox version) Some in Britain might consider this British citizen's defiance, which cost him his career in America, would make him a hero. But that's only a wild speculation. --Light show (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Light show, as usual, you are either severely lacking in basic reading comprehension or just want to do this for attention (or both). Making films about current political figures during the time they are in power and in charge of major events unfolding, is ALWAYS controversial, especially so when you're in the US and making a left-leaning parody about Mussolini/Hitler in the late 1930s and when the US was still 'neutral'. We provide links to articles about WW2 and Hitler, so in case the readers are confused about this event/figure, they can go there. Also, please consider that this film was well into production before Kennedy even made that comment or Hays banned anti-Hitler films! And even if there were space for more detailed explanation for what controversy was in this case (which I am not saying there is, you are literally the first person who has issues understanding what is controversial about making an anti-Hitler film in 1939, before Pearl Harbor), your addition is not providing it. You're simply re-stating the same thing; you fetishize quotes, as usual. As for your not understanding what 'anti-capitalist' means, yes we have talked about it before, in the very case you just outlined. You are not making any sense. The very Maland quotes which you find unnecessary (not knowing who he is in Chaplin scholarship is a great indicator of how poor your knowledge about Chaplin is) specifically explain how this film began the 'smear campaign period'. So at the same time, quotes from a Leftist Chaplin scholar whose life's work has been analysing his star image and who pinpoints the openly political GD as a time of change in Chaplin's image in the US (leading to his witch hunt) are 'bias', but we're at the same time not emphasizing strongly enough that GD was controversial and began this change? Just what DO you want? We state the same thing also at the opening of the paragraph. Your last lines are completely incomprehensible to me – you're saying Chaplin did The Great Dictator because of being British? He planned a film about Hitler in 1937/8 and filmed it in 1939 as a pro-UK, anti-US gesture? And that he's a hero for it (which FYI, he is not seen as – he is seen as a hero by some for resisting the Western tendency to try and passively pacify/not care about Hitler and his persecution of the Jews, for making Hitler into a joke), so for some reason it is offensive to write in this article about his ideological beliefs? We're trying to write an encyclopedia here, heroes and villains (or speculation) have no place here.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 01:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Interpretation of speech

I added some material to the GD section and removed what turned out to be OR regarding the focus of his speech being against capitalism. I added a quote from Robinson from the page that had been cited. Watching the speech supports that impression, which speaks nothing about economics or capitalism, and more about dictatorship, industrialization, slavery, liberty and democracy. --Light show (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Light show, please go and educate yourself about Marxism and anti-capitalism, because you clearly do not understand what these terms mean at all, or their historical context. I'm not sure why I am even replying to you anymore, but here's a list of key bits from the speech that pretty clearly express Chaplin's socialist (or anti-capitalist), anti-fascist views:

1.) talking about equality between all humans, not wanting to be an emperor; 2.) saying that greed has caused present misery (i.e. WW2 – if this isn't an anti-capitalist statement then I don't know what is!); 3.) Machinery as having replaced humanity (again, classic Marxism); 4.) Universal brotherhood; 5.) People have the power...

May I also add that the content of the speech is not something that is debated by Chaplin scholars; it's seen as a clear expression of Chaplin's political views, which were openly anti-fascist and socialist. There is no controversy about this within Chaplin scholarship. In all my interactions with you on WP, it has become clear that you understand 'anti-capitalist' as automatically somehow derogatory and biased, and that you really struggle to see how it can just be a neutral description of a political stance a person took in the 1930s/1940s. Perhaps you have been wrongly taught that words like communist/socialist/anti-capitalist are automatically slurs, as I understand they are in some parts of the US? It seems to me that something like this is at the root of your fixation about this issue? In any case, please do yourself a favour, and go read something academic about 1930s socialism and anti-fascism. It will clear things up for you. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 00:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

I wouldn't go so far as to say the US deems them slurs per se, but many citizens do feel they carry negative connotations. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify that I definitely didn't mean that the US or its citizens as a whole don't understand the content of these words and deem them as slurs (Charles J Maland himself is American and his book on Chaplin's star image was published by an American university press!), hence "in some parts of the US" (meaning conservative communities where these words have strong negative connotations and are taken to mean that the person is anti-democratic and anti-American) :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

I knew what you meant, Susie, but even conservative citizens view it as more of a negative term than they do a slur. No worries. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. However, I'm again disregarding your habitual PA-style comments per guidelines, to avoid personalizing discussions. That leaves about one sentence from your reply, which basically supports the fact that you are relying on your interpretation and synthesis instead of reliable sources. You wrote: "here's a list of key bits from the speech that pretty clearly express Chaplin's socialist (or anti-capitalist), anti-fascist views." I'm personally not interested in your political philosophy, but simply want to correct such blatant and undue opinions. With your reverting those necessary corrections without so much as a rationale or prior discussion, combined with your PA blitzes above, the concept of "polite and effective discourse" is not apparent. Try reading the top of this talk page, to be polite and avoid personal attacks.--Light show (talk) 01:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Light show, pointing out that you are using your own, incorrect interpretations on very clearly defined terms to make changes to an article is not the same as making personal attacks. You have over and over again had issues with the fact that Chaplin was socialist and anti-fascist in his political views, and the more I discuss this with you the more apparent it seems to be that the root of the problem is that you do not understand the terminology and perceive mentioning Chaplin's ideology as being biased and derogatory. You are the only one stirring controversy about whether or not Chaplin's speech in GD is an expression of his political views, which were openly anti-fascist and socialist at the time. I can only re-iterate, this is not something Chaplin scholars debate about; these are facts. You are editing the article based on your own bias and misunderstanding, which you do not seem to recognise at all. We are all biased to an extent; the key to successful editing is to be aware of it. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 01:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Wrong again. I have never expressed issues about whether "Chaplin was socialist and anti-fascist in his political views." Where do you come up with these ideas? Again, I'm just trying to ensure that bios avoid OR. Yet you continue to ignore the guidelines about that, taking on the role of self-appointed expert and article owner, supporting opinions with citations which almost contradict the commentary, as I tried to clarify.--Light show (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

That line in the article is not OR, it is clearly footnoted, and in general, the article relies on a wide range of sources, not the opinions of the editors. By listing all of the elements within the speech which are quite clearly anti-capitalist, I was merely explaining to you which elements are widely considered 'anti-capitalist' and why scholars recognise them as such since you said you did not see it (it might also be useful to read anti-capitalism). I was not directly quoting anyone and my message is not the basis from which the article was written. However, you saying that we should change the wording and add another quote because you personally do not see anything anti-capitalist in the speech, due to clearly attaching negative connotations to the term and to not having read the sources on which this article is based on, is very clearly OR.

You have a habit of coming to this article, claiming bias and errors, and then changing large parts of the text (mainly by erasing any mention of Chaplin's political ideology and adding a copious amount of direct quotes). This article went through a FA review quite recently, how did it pass if it is so full of errors and bias as you claim? You claim you are doing this purely out of concern for the quality of the article, but at the same time you do not even bother reading the books cited. How can you know it is erroneous and biased when you haven't done your research? If you really think this article completely misrepresents Chaplin (and based on the fact that you always have some new bit to complain about, that is what you think of it), why don't you take some time to go through the research material (=read the books so that you actually understand the discourse, instead of cherry-picking from Amazon blurbs) and then explain how, based on these sources, this article is biased and wrong? It is very difficult to take your claims of serious bias, OR and errors seriously when you don't seem to have read extensively about Chaplin, but claim to still know much better how this article should have been written. I think it sounds quite reasonable that you thoroughly familiarize yourself with the material cited before criticizing its use. Also, please note that there is a difference between claiming ownership and resisting changes based on shoddy research and OR. Personally, I am not sure there's anything else to say, this discussion is bringing me flashbacks. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

After again ignoring the irrelevant efforts to discredit an editor, your lengthy comments and digressions can be refocused on the same improper use of your synthesizing "widely considered" details from "scholars who recognize them as such." Which essentially supports your improper use of OR. BTW, I've already said I thought the article was well written, but this is a 21,000-word article, and I'm only trying to point out that the 450-word section about GD needs improvement. Some suggestions and reasons:

1) This sentence is unsupported: Chaplin concluded the film with a five-minute speech in which he looked into the camera and professed his personal, anti-capitalist beliefs.[225] It includes two sources, neither of which support that fact. Robinson, one source, explained Chaplin's purpose clearly, to express the "fears and his hopes for a world in the throes of its most terrible war." And Louvish says nothing about the speech being about anti-capitalism or even remotely close. That's true of Maland also, with regard to the GD film and speech, as he repeatedly describes Chaplin's purpose for the film and speech as his expression of "anti-fascism." The writers naturally and correctly describe Monsieur Verdoux as criticizing capitalism, as noted in that film's section, but not for GD, and certainly not the speech.

The error is even more exaggerated by the next sentence (Henceforth, no movie fan would ever . . .) where you quote Maland, leaving the "anti-capitalism" reference implied. But Maland himself actually implied the opposite, when he even gave the GD reviews by the CPUSA, which mentioned nothing about capitalism in its reviews: "Masterpiece of Comedy Lashes All Oppression" and "Picture Ends With Eloquent Plea for Peace." And parts of the reviews, notes Maland, called it a "genuine people's film against war and fascism." Chaplin would presumably be insulted if he saw his pleas misinterpreted as an attack on capitalism, as you have done.

2) The result of this misinterpretation, and other reasons related to the "controversial" aspects mentioned earlier, is that the essence of the brief GD section becomes nonsensical. Why? In the order presented in the section, there's a continual disconnect between facts and conclusions:

One paragraph is focused on the still unexplained, yet "highly controversial" aspects of making GD (you expect readers to read the WWII article to understand why.); The essence of Chaplin's downfall is wrongly implied as related to some "anti-capitalist" speech; and that a film which received five Oscar nominations, had the most widespread and enormous reaction of any film Chaplin ever made (Maland), was an "overwhelming financial success," (Maland), had a fifteen-week run in NY, earned more income from worldwide sales and any other Chaplin film, (Maland), was #3 of the top 10 moneymaking films of the previous five years, and voted #3 of 2,400 films that came out that same year, nonetheless "triggered a decline in Chaplin's popularity," per the section. Who wouldn't feel confused? Then the the section explains that Churchill and Roosevelt loved the film, and Roosevelt and others had Chaplin read it on the air. A U.S. president wanting him to read an "anti-capitalist" speech on the air is confusing, nonsensical, and obviously wrong. (Chaplin in fact wrote that Roosevelt's New Deal "saved capitalism from complete collapse," and was therefore among the "finest reforms in the history of the U.S.")

I suggest that the ridiculous "anti-capitalist" conclusions be kept where they belong, in Monsieur Verdoux; that the "controversial" aspects of his film be briefly explained for the non-scholar; and that although his speech was harmful to the film and affected his career, the reviews which understood Chaplin's purpose and willingness to make it at great personal risk, should be added to avoid Maland's undue negativity. To that last point, even Maland's covering a review in Catholic World is worth considering, which described GD as "More devastating than any bomb invented, his caricature of tyrants will long out-live their tyranny." --Light show (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

In deference to the primary editors, some of those suggested changes can be made directly or else put in a sandbox for discussion first. --Light show (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

It's been a while since I checked in here but looking at this edit I must conclude that it is not an improvement. The detail from Maland is crucial while the bit about Joe Kennedy is trivial. Binksternet (talk) 21:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Weren't you told not to come here again Light show? Cassianto^Talk 20:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Light show, Do you want me to spell it out for you? You were warned about your disruptive behaviour a while ago and I really think you should dissapear sharpish. Cassianto^Talk 18:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Please knock off the barking. --Light show (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

But you were told to steer clear as you are a trouble-maker. This is again evident here. Cassianto^Talk 19:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

As typical, it's just the opposite. As an editor above also noted, your "evident hostility" usually has little to do with any actual improvement to the article, but appears as more troll behavior. Since you've added nothing to the discussion here, your labeling me a "trouble maker" is comical. The self-imposed IBAN for you and the team is still in place. Please abide by it.-Light show (talk) 21:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Simply by not having you anywhere near this article is an improvement Light show. You are not engaging in a collegial manner and appear to know nothing about this article at all. As usual you rock up and try to enforce your POV which, of course, nobody is interested in. Oh and there's no need to link to "troll", it's a term I have been familiar with since coming across you. Cassianto^Talk 21:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Which is true?

Not sure if this is a chicken or the egg argument, but this article currently states that:

The Nazi Party believed that [Chaplin] was Jewish and banned The Gold Rush on this basis. Chaplin responded by playing a Jew in The Great Dictator and announced, "I did this film for the Jews of the world."

Whereas, over at the The Eternal Jew (1940 film) article, they claim:

Charlie Chaplin was also included in this sequence and inaccurately identified as Jewish, possibly as a consequence of his role as the Jewish barber in The Great Dictator.

Nothing major, but it just irks me as they both seem to be backed up by reliable sources. (I also brought the issue up on that article's talk page).

Good point! I unfortunately don't have any of the Chaplin books here at the moment, but hopefully someone who has them can re-check this and maybe add a clarification to the footnote. I recall that the Nazi party hated Chaplin from the beginning of the 1930s, and a Google search seems to confirm this. For example, there's this paragraph in an article about The Great Dictator published in the The Guardian in 2002:

"Years ago, Ivor Montagu, a close friend of Chaplin's, told me that he had been in Berlin in 1934 and had come across a book called The Jews Are Looking at You, a parody of a children's series, The Animals Are Looking at You. In it, Chaplin was described as a disgusting Jewish acrobat. The Nazis had been deeply offended by the rapturous reception given to Chaplin on his visit to Germany in 1931. Montagu sent this book to Chaplin, and felt that it may well have been the spark that led to the production of The Great Dictator." (http://www.theguardian.com/film/2002/oct/11/artsfeatures) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 22:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Charlie Chaplin

Recent new evidence, (a letter sent in the 1970's to Charlie Chaplain which he is believed to have hidden away) has recently come to light that questions his place of birth.

He is now believed to have been born to traveller gypsies in a place known by the name of the Black patch in Smethwick once a part of Birmingham but now in Sandwell because of many factories that surrounded the area at the time but are no longer there.

Charlie Chaplains son Michael believes the letter to be correct and has suggested a monument of some kind be placed at the site which is still parkland to this day.

original info obtained from https://www.facebook.com/groups/TheBearwoodPage/?ref=bookmarks further research leads to these news articles.

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/experts-999-per-cent-certain-9723266?fb_ref=Default#ICID=sharebar_facebook

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-blog/8333101/Charlie-Chaplin-was-the-entertainer-really-born-in-Smethwick.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2117714/Was-Charlie-Chaplin-born-gypsy-caravan-West-Midlands-Letter-locked-away-decades-hold-answer-mystery-MI5-CIA-solve.html

80.189.244.186 (talk) 06:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I wouldn't believe Facebook in a month of Sundays. The Telegraph and the Daily Mail are also quite speculative over the information. Cassianto^Talk 06:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, this is probably the tenth time someone brings this up on the talk page... please take a look at the archived discussions. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 08:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Chaplin biopic could use a section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As this is a biography article about Chaplin, it would benefit the article, IMO, to include a section devoted to the only biographical film about him: Chaplin. The film, like any film, takes creative license, but its tone is very factual and biographical throughout, including real characters, events, and even exact quotes.

The WP article about the film is actually read by more people than read any of the articles about the films he made. And hardly any of those films are biographical or tell anything about his real life, although most have sections and detailed commentary. However, the Chaplin biopic only has a brief one-sentence mention, and is difficult to even find.

I think a section about the film could include commentary with comparisons with his real life, describing how or where the film is accurate or innacurate. Of course, there's already a link to the film, but there are still a few problems. First, the film article is very brief, listing plot and actors, and not too informative beyond that. Second, all the other films and people in his life also have links within this article, but still have commentary and context to his life. So at least my overall first impression is that this significant, Oscar-nominated film bio, is essentially hidden within the article, and thereby made insignificant, trivial or even irrelevant to this large biography.

Support section addition. --Light show (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose This is possibly the most ridiculous request for a section I have ever heard. This article is about Chaplin, the person, not a film about Chaplin, the person. Would we be writing about Chaplin, the person in Chaplin, the film? No. Cassianto^Talk 00:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose Why not just concentrate on expanding the film article? If I were interested in finding out how accurate it is or in finding any other information specifically about the film, my first instinct would be to go to the film article. Adding more information, let alone a new section, about the film to the article on Chaplin would overemphasize its importance. As for your second point, they are discussed more in depth because they are relevant biographical information (i.e. it would be difficult to explain Chaplin's life and career without them); Chaplin was made more than a decade after Chaplin's death, he had nothing to do with it. The film has nothing to do with his life or career per se but is simply a later representation of it. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 00:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Charlie Chaplin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120615070714/http://www.chaplinbroadway.com:80/ to http://chaplinbroadway.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Spoken Wikipedia

I am a classic film buff who wishes to contribute to the Spoke Wikipedia project. I would love to work on a spoken version of this article. If that is not advised please let me know. I have already begun work on it, but can stop if requested. Docontheweb (talk) 14:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Wow that's quite an undertaking! I expect it will be at least an hour long. Good on you though, look forward to hearing it. --Loeba (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Seconding Loeba, this sounds wonderful! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Latest editions

Any ideas? I really don't think warring is the best policy. Cassianto^Talk 18:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Accuracy is the only valid policy. Mediatech492 (talk) 18:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure, sure, WP:IAR, but edit warring will get you blocked, regardless of your intentions. How about a discussion instead? clpo13_(talk) 18:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

But based on your edit summary here, you're not being accurate. I asked on your talk page which films you think Chaplin wrote that he also didn't direct or produce. I'm quite sure there were none. Anyway, this is kind of void: we're using "filmmaker" in the lead sentence because it summarises his role without us having an overly-long lead sentence. If we have "screenwriter", someone's bound to add editor and producer as well. That's overkill. But I've added all these roles to the infobox so can we leave it with that and be happy? --Loeba (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

How is it overkill? The are all separate roles with their own skill set requirements therefore each worthy of mention in their own right. Mediatech492 (talk) 18:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Alright well that's something we can discuss. My view is that we have a good system right now: "filmmaker" is there as an easy summary at the start, but more details on his roles are provided in the infobox and further down the lead. I wouldn't strongly oppose mentioning all his roles at the start - it's amazing that he did so much - but I definitely prefer "filmmaker". Lead sentences that lists several different occupations don't look great IMO, and it's better to be selective or, if possible, use an umbrella term. We're lucky that, in Chaplin's case, we have that with "filmmaker". --Loeba (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. The lead is supposed to be a quick summary without being too verbose. For most readers, filmmaker covers the other roles adequately, but they can learn more specifics while reading the rest of the page. clpo13_(talk) 19:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, "filmmaker" is a concise and effective way of summarizing his work. Using "director, producer, and screenwriter" in place is needless overkill when one word can describe it all. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed; "filmmaker" is definitely the better choice, especially in Chaplin's case. He didn't just act in, write, direct and produce his films, he obsessively controlled every aspect of them (he sometimes even did the make-up and hair styling on his productions...). I'm ok with a more comprehensive list in the infobox, though.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Mediatech492 has been blocked and I have restored the article to the last stable version. Cassianto^Talk 01:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Is a summary quote by a noted racist, neutral?

At the end of the section about Chaplin's communist leanings is a very long quote by an American noted for being a "racist". The quote was removed yesterday because summarizing that section with the opinion of a political extremist is a "poor example" of public opinion and a better one should be found. However, an editor quickly restored the quote, claiming it was POV to remove it. They did not explain what was POV about the edit.

In any case, the question then is whether a cherry-picked quote from someone like John E. Rankin, added over 2 1/2 years ago (originally as a quotebox for added attention,) is acceptable. Wouldn't this make at least that section seem extremely biased and in violation of NPOV? --Light show (talk) 17:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

We've been over this before. This exact point. But I'll explain the reasoning again: Rankin's comment was widely published in the press at the time and is widely reproduced in Chaplin biographies. It definitely had an influence on Chaplin's popularity and was a factor in the public's changing view of him. It's good to show this to readers; yes Rankin was an extremist and I personally deplore his views, but this is the sort of vitriol Chaplin faced. It helps readers understand how bad the situation was. I don't think there's any suggestion that Rankin's views were fair - in fact there's a massive quote box from Chaplin saying that he was "the object of lies and propaganda by powerful reactionary groups". We're fully acknowledging that the media and public reaction was unfair and unfounded. --Loeba (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

If you're using Rankin as an example of an extremist, as opposed to a general public opinion, then why not state that fact in the article, and not just here? It would be simple to add those qualifiers to the article. A typical reader would not draw that conclusion. BTW, a large quote by Chaplin in his defense is of little value and also not neutral. By implication, and from your reply you're actually defending Chaplin: by comparing his own statements as opposed to those of a noted extremist, you're concluding that Chaplin was a victim. But by keeping out what Rankin was, you're hiding that aspect it would seem. --Light show (talk) 18:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

This article isn't about Rankin, it's about Chaplin. The fact he might or might not have been a racist is neither here nor there. Cassianto^Talk 18:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

You were the one who insisted that we explicitly say Chaplin was subject to a smear campaign. You wanted to add various other things to prove that it was an unfair attack, including an edit yesterday, yet you have a problem with me thinking Chaplin was a victim? You kept saying that we hadn't done enough - that the article still made it look like it was Chaplin's fault - which is largely why I decided to add that quote from him. Honestly, would anything please you? There's a reason people think you intentionally try to be difficult. Okay, we can put in the article that Rankin's quote was an extreme example. I disagree with you that the average reader won't work this out, particularly in the context of everything else, but I guess it doesn't hurt to say it outright (until someone claims that is POV, anyway...) --Loeba (talk) 18:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Loeba; firstly, lovely to see you back for another season, how's everything? Secondly, Light show will never be happy with this or any other article which I, you, or any one else belonging to our "clique", has written. Let's just humour them until they get bored. Then they can disappear. Cassianto^Talk 18:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Loeba: Nice try on the addition, but you've again avoided stating what you acknowledged above, that "Rankin was an extremist." I disagree that the average reader will "work this out."

As for your major sacrifice of adding the other well-known fact that Chaplin was target of a "smear campaign," after I "insisted," and against you and your editing team's desires, Thank you. The topic was explained more here. IMO, those two words added to a 15,000-word ultra-bloated article, after a long and ridiculous argument, could be the two most important words in the article. But please add to the article not simply that Rankin's quote was extreme, but that it was a cherry-picked quote from a racist and political extremist. OK, you can leave off "cherry-picked." And BTW, is it always necessary for you, Cas and THS, to personalize biography discussions and instinctively resort to PAs?. It makes your replies twice as long and I see them as crutches, fwiw. --Light show (talk) 19:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

1) "extreme example" vs "extremist" - semantics semantics. You're majorly nitpicking (and again being difficult after I've tried to be flexible). 2) I'm not suggesting adding "smear campaign" was a sacrifice - in fact I distinctly remember saying I was glad you encouraged the article in that direction (something I'm not above doing, if I was wrong I admit it) - but I'm highlighting your hypocrisy here. 3) The article has never been 15,000 words, or close. 4) You can act like you're high and mighty by apparently not making personal attacks (which I know I don't do much, I don't care if you claim otherwise, and what I said here was more an expression of my frustration than an attack) but making rude comments about people's hard work is worse. --Loeba (talk) 19:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry Loeba, there's no use trying to discuss with this person. It's clear that when LS has decided something, he is not willing to ever re-consider his opinion, he just wants everyone else to agree with him. There's not a lot anyone can do until LS is willing to reconsider his attitude and approach towards other Wikipedians, so I suggest we just ignore him. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

@Loeba: It's 14,500 words to be exact. And those don't include the reference section. And describing a quotation as being "extreme" verses a person as being an "extremist" is slightly more than semantics. --Light show (talk) 20:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

11,728 words of readable prose (which is what matters). --Loeba (talk) 20:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I added some explanatory details about Rankin, noting that he helped establish the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), covered in his article. However, I still feel that adding this extremely nasty quote, made by a noted political extremist, and placed at the very end of the section, adds a non-neutral aspect to the material. BTW, I was including the 1,500-word Notes section in my total word count, since it's readable prose. --Light show (talk) 18:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Synth problem still not fixed

Six months ago I pointed out some errors in the citations. One such error is still in the Great Dictator section, which includes an unsupported statement:

Chaplin concluded the film with a five-minute speech in which he looked into the camera and professed his personal, anti-capitalist beliefs.[225]

Neither of the two sources given support that statement. Robinson explained Chaplin's purpose clearly, to express the "fears and his hopes for a world in the throes of its most terrible war." And Louvish similarly says nothing about the speech being about capitalism or even remotely close to that subject.

Can someone explain why it hasn't been fixed? As it is now it's an editor's synthesis conclusion, which is against guidelines. Thanks in advance. --Light show (talk) 04:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

This is the version that passed FA: [1]. The term "anti-capitalist" was not there at the time. Someone else must have added it in the last year. I wrote that paragraph but I assure you I know how to use sources properly. --Loeba (talk) 08:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Fine, but I'm not sure what any of that has to do with my question. I'll go ahead and rephrase per the cited sources unless someone else wants to fix this. --Light show (talk) 08:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Since I'm on record as one of the FA writers, I want to make sure no-one thinks I (or THS) was using the sources wrongly. Rephrase but please keep it brief and without quoting. A one or two word summary of what the speech expresses should be possible and sufficient (or else just keep it to "personal views". --Loeba (talk) 08:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I rephrased some of the key aspects to a few words. There's a good overview of the speech with numerous reviews in Eric Flom's book. --Light show (talk) 17:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, but what is your rationale for removing Louvish, and replacing it with Maland? If you're using Flom as your source, you should add that as a source rather than remove other sources.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

I didn't use Flom, but just wanted to note the link here. I replaced Louvish with Maland, because I didn't have Louvish's book at hand. --Light show (talk) 17:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

In other words, you had no reason to remove Louvish. I've fixed it now, but in the future please don't remove sources from an article that has successfully gone through FA review just because you don't have access to all sources used in its writing. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

When I reviewed Louvish six months ago I found he said nothing about the speech being about anti-capitalism or anything remotely close. I removed the cite since I don't have the book handy and I can't recall exactly how he did describe the speech. Maland and Robinson seemed good enough. But Louvish did claim that Chaplin's decision to give the speech was strongly affected by his meetings with Einstein and Gandhi. --Light show (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes careful not to remove sources; they will all be there for a reason. I know one of them was specifically to cite the fact that the speech lasts 5 minutes and it was probably Louvish. As for your edit, I do think there's more to the speech than just pro-peace and anti-facism - it's quite a general plea to improve humanity: [2] I don't know, I feel like there's a better word to summarise it but not sure what right now... --Loeba (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Robinson's cite said it lasted six minutes. I was only using terms used by sources and tried to keep it brief, although more could be added. --Light show (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh that's right, another user at some point changed it to five minutes and linked the speech to prove it...hmm well we could just change it back to six to reflect Robinson. I dunno, whatever. I appreciate that you kept it brief. We could always expand with a footnote. That Flom book does look useful, I'm interested to look at that when I have time. --Loeba (talk) 19:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Light show, you so much as make another critical comment here and I'll be opening a topic ban request from this too to add to the Sellers, Kubrick and image lists. Take your vendetta elsewhere.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Politics

It would be good to have an objective account of his politics, rather than just allegations and denials.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Comedian vs comic actor

User:Kailash29792 has changed "English comic actor, ..." to "English actor, comedian, ...". To me a comedian is one who stands up and tells jokes or funny stories whereas a comic actor acts "straight" in situations which are themselves comic. For instance in "City Lights" with the flower girl he acts straight to the girl and (somewhat pathetically) accepts that she isn't going to give him his change. We, the audience, see the joke from the situation. Now consider how the likes of Groucho Marx would have handled the same situation: "[to girl] Hey where's my change? [speaks to camera] Who can you trust these days?". Even the opening sequence is played straight; he's just trying to find somewhere warm and dry to sleep, the joke is in the situation not the acting. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, if you look at the talk page archives, you'll see there's already been at least one lengthy discussion on this, which if I recall correctly ended with "comic actor" being the preferred term. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 15:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Because actors like Adam Sandler, Owen Wilson, Paul Rudd and Jim Carrey are listed as comedians, I thought Chaplin is no different. But he wasn't always a comic actor; ever seen Modern Times? Kailash29792 (talk) 15:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you take a look at the previous discussions, this issue was already discussed there. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

'Filmmaker' vs. 'actor, director, composer, screenwriter, producer, & editor'

For what it's worth, my college roommate was a 'filmmaker' -- he had a 16mm camera, and shot films (when he could afford to buy film). He was not an actor, a composer, or a screenwriter (worked in 'concepts'); a producer sort of (though never commercially), an editor only rarely. And many, very successful current Hollywood and independent 'filmmakers' do only some, or only one, of the 6 major components listed here for the films they 'make', that Chaplin did in making his. Somehow, however we describe Chaplin's multi-faceted talents and creative genius, we should do so in a way that clearly emphasizes and distinguishes all the many different talents he poured in making his films, from what my college roommate did.
That said, including 'filmmaker' in the lede is OK, as long as the whole list for Chaplin is in the InfoBox, and in the body of text of the article -- and that would make a nice compromise perhaps to assuage those holding out for 'filmmaker', for whatever reason(?) - (pride of authorship, maybe?). --- Professor JR (talk) 19:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! Also you might want to read Wikipedia:Ownership of content#Ownership_and_stewardship. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

The reasoning for having "filmmaker" in the lead sentence is given above, it seems unfair to suggest it's purely stubbornness/ownership. It's based in clear thinking - including the fact that Chaplin's specific roles are stated lower down in the lead and we'd be repeating ourselves... --Loeba (talk) 21:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Article fails to capture "familiar pattern"

How is it that this premier online encyclopedic article fails to capture biographical content indicating a repeating pattern of contracts and affairs with actresses much younger than himself, in the run up to the Barry legal entanglements and the O'Neil marriage? Every source I examined made clear that all associated with Chaplin knew this as a pattern. And—here I will speculate—I imagine if academic literature of film history is consulted, the matter has almost certainly been discussed in terms of sexual harassment (given the power relationship existing between a studio-contracted actress and a Director of a film for which she is being considered). I leave it to those dedicated to this page to introduce this accuracy (and balance) to the page. In the same vein, the article's coverage of Barry matter and of the federal prosecution present the matter in a far more positive light either than expected of a balanced account, or that would reflect the tenor of news perceptions at the time. I believe this is selective reading/reporting of the biographical sources. 50.179.252.14 (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

What The...?

What the heck happened?! In English,we have a normal-without costume Sir Charles Chaplin. But when you switch the language to Bahasa Indonesia, the picture totaly change into the tramp! Personaly myself, I prefer the normal one, I think the mustache is kind of creepy you know.. :3— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2015‎ 139.228.49.9 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 9 November 2015‎ (UTC)

How to join you this flimi Jonam ayrahca (talk) 05:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Unfamiliar picture

I don't know wikipedia policy on pictures presented in articles so forgive me if I'm wrong but wouldn't it make sense to use a picture of Charlie Chaplin that most people are familiar with? If I randomly came across this webpage without searching for it and it didn't say Charlie Chaplin I would have no idea the current image is that of Charlie Chaplin. Most people recognize him as having a mustache from the silent films he was in. Why not use a picture like that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.188.73 (talk) 01:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2016

The following: "A teenage Chaplin in the play Sherlock Holmes, which he appeared in between 1903 and 1906" is grammatically incorrect - it should read: "A teenage Chaplin in the play Sherlock Holmes, in which he appeared between 1903 and 1906" TomPRMcNeil (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)  Done Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Reverted edit

TrueHeartSusie3 Why did you revert my edit on 06:04, 7 October 2016‎? Specifically, did it violate a Wikipedia policy or Wikipedia Manual of Style? Mitchumch (talk) 13:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

No violations that I could detect (in fact, I recently made a fix per the Manual of Style), but "silent era" isn't as specific as "silent film era". Not everyone reading this page will automatically know what "silent era" refers to. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not opposing the use of "silent film era" but rather the way you'd titled the sections, i.e. years first. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Why? Mitchumch (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

It looks better and makes it easier for the reader? Can you explain why you think the years should be listed first, you didn't really give a reason for that in your edit summary? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 21:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

The same reason you gave. To my knowledge, my edit did not violate a Wikipedia policy or Wikipedia Manual of Style. So, how do we get beyond this disagreement based solely on personal likes and dislikes? Mitchumch (talk) 02:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

You get past it by gaining consensus. In my opinion, it is much easier to read and looks better if the years are listed second.Rcarter555 (talk) 03:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, well it is a FA so maybe we should leave it as it is currently? I can't really think of other FAs which would list years first. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 06:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

There is Elvis Presley and Catherine Zeta-Jones. Don't think there's any policy or guideline specifically advocating for one use over the other as long as the range itself is accurate. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I guess what I mean is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". However, if Mitchumch is really determined to change it, I'm fine with it as it's not a big deal and doesn't change the content itself though. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Then I'll change it back. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 20:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2016

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

References

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

 Done and Good Catch!  Paine  ^u/c 22:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion

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. Cassianto^Talk 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)

Anarchism

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. Cassianto^Talk 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

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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uK8SEDL7DE). JuanTamad (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Questions

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

• Vance, Jeffrey (1996). "The Circus: A Chaplin Masterpiece". Film History. 8 (2). Indiana University Press: 186–208. JSTOR 3815334.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)

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 (talk ⋅ contribs) 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)

Reverted edit, again

@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)

Sir Charlie's knighthood

Sir Charlie was to be knighted by the Queen in the 1950s but his knighthood was delayed due to whispers over his communist links. I don't see this in the article. Isn't this notable? AlanArkin55 (talk) 14:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

They were a bit more than whispers, I mean he was booted out of the US in 1952. I don't recall hearing that any definite plans had been made, I might be wrong though. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 15:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

There were definite plans made and, as the information appears in the Dictionary of National Biography, it's probably notable enough for inclusion here. The DNB says:

"Anthony Eden's government wanted to honour the comedian with a knighthood in 1956 but refrained from doing so because of fear of retaliation from the United States. Chaplin's failure to become an American citizen, accusations by conservatives that he was either a communist or a communist sympathizer, and his problems with the IRS made the comedian unpopular with the United States government. Also, his marriages to two sixteen-year-old women and subsequent divorces and the Joan Barry paternity suit severely damaged Chaplin's reputation with the American public. When the Foreign Office's American department was asked about US reaction if Chaplin were to be knighted, its officials expressed objections. Relations between the United Kingdom and America were strained because of the Suez crisis, and these British officials were particularly sensitive about doing anything that would antagonize the United States. Consequently any thoughts about knighting the controversial comedian at this time were dropped."

I hope this helps. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2017

He was a Jew Hesanangryelf (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. See footnote 14 in the article Cannolis (talk) 20:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)