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.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 2, 2014.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 22, 2010 Good article nominee Not listed November 12, 2013 Good article nominee Listed December 15, 2013 Peer review Reviewed January 14, 2014 Featured article candidate Promoted A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 16, 2013. The text of the entry was: Did you know that in 1972, Charlie Chaplin received an Honorary Academy Award for "the incalculable effect he has had in making motion pictures the art form of this century"? Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 4, 2004, March 4, 2005, February 7, 2009, and February 7, 2013. Current status: Featured article

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers / Core FA‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Top-importance). This article is listed on the project's core biographies page. England FA‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. United States FA‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. California: Los Angeles FA‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as Top-importance). Media FA‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Media To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Mackay Radio Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite NPOV : Content (media and publishing) Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper Other : Answer requests for comments Comedy FA‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0

Template:Vital article

Responding to this repeated reversion, insisting that he should not be considered an American actor, filmmaker, or composer:

1. He was an unknown bit part silent actor in England;
2. He achieved his main, if not only, notability in the U.S.
3. He was not a British filmmaker per MOS purposes, nor was he a British composer, except for a few of his last films;
4. For the purposes of WP, his notability is therefore mainly from being an American actor, filmmaker and composer.

A similar discussion came up for Olivia de Havilland. And FWIW, the British film, Chaplin (1992), supports this. To therefore exclude his notability as an American filmmaker, and replace it with English filmmaker only, would be misleading in the extreme. In fact, he never moved back to the U.K even after he left the U.S. --Light show (talk) 09:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only dispute is your own. I didn't give a "rationale" in the edit summary as its self evident. Chaplin is an English actor because he's English. He is not an American. Does a Spaniard who stars in the NBA stop being Spanish? Regards his stage career, he was part of the Karno troupe that made him. Without that there is no Chaplin. As the Boulting Brothers stated regarding Peter Sellers, "he's the greatest comic genius this country has produced since Charles Chaplin".BT Curry (talk) 09:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong in saying Chaplin was unknown in England, he was actually a popular stage performer long before he got in front of a camera.Nationality means country of citizenship. Chaplin was born a British citizen, and never took citizenship in the United States. Therefore it is misleading to say he was a American. The fact that he was a politically active foreigner was why the FBI was so determined to have him being Blacklisted. Mediatech492 (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, while IMDb isn't something we should cite per WP:WikiProject Film/Resources#Questionable resources, the linked trailer actually never says anything about citizenships anyway, and the film itself (which is mainly based on Chaplin's autobiography and David Robinson's biography on him) clearly notes he wasn't a US citizen. The opening sentence should for the most part only include nations where one has citizenships. It therefore is misleading to call him American as others have noted. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to what nationality we list living people as, citizenship comes first and where they obtained notability comes second. Chaplain clearly is more notable for his American work then his British work. However, if he never obtained American citizenship, he should not be listed as American. If somebody shows reliable sources that he obtained American citizenship, he should be listed as British-American. JDDJS (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, that's not the case here, so "American" doesn't belong in opening sentence as it would incorrectly imply he had citizenship there. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He retained his British citizenship throughout as evidenced by his substantive knighthood and style of "Sir". If he had have become and American it would have been an honorary knighthood only and he would not have been entitled to the style of "Sir". Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citizenship focus

It seems that all of the replies rely on the fact that because he chose not to become a U.S. citizen, and by default remained a British citizen, then his notability statement should not mention America. The notability guideline states, On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. Add to that the MOS guideline, which makes details like citizenship often secondary:

The opening paragraph should usually provide context. In most modern-day cases this will mean the country ... where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable.

And of course, since he never, until late in his career, filmed anything in England, either as actor, director, composer, screenwriter, producer or editor, stating that he was "an English filmmaker" in the first sentence is erroneous context and misleading; it implies he lived in England as a filmmaker. We should not assume everyone will read or understand the subsequent facts, such as that 99% of his notability came from his films, not his early-career music hall vaudeville acts with Fred Karno's company. It wasn't until he began filming with Essany, an American film studio, that he became a star.

Chaplin saw himself as an American when he visited England after he became a film star. Michael North, in Reading 1922 (Oxford, 1999), writes: When Chaplin arrived in England, he felt sadly estranged, having become very much an American... Dan Kamin, in The Comedy of Charlie Chaplin (2008), referred to him as an "American artist."

So maybe Encyclopedia Britannica offers the best compromise, describing him in its lead sentence as a "British-born American actor and director, who won international fame ..." Although the guidelines also state that birth and death places, if known, should be mentioned in the body of the article, and can be in the lead if relevant to the person's notability... Since his music hall period had little to do with his notability as most people know it, it's questionable whether saying where he was born should be in the opening sentence.

In any case, since he was never an "English filmmaker," that statement should be rewritten to be up front and honest with readers. Had he become a U.S. citizen during his nearly 40 years as an American filmmaker, this citizenship issue would be moot. But just because he never did, is no excuse for redefining his career and misleading readers unfamiliar with him. --Light show (talk) 07:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As to why this issue is important, IMO, it's because it may affect numerous other bios. Stan Laurel, for instance, is also wrongly described as an English actor, when he similarly only did some early music hall work in England. And Alfred Hitchcock, who did become a U.S. citizen, and made most of his films in the U.S., is also misdescribed as an "English film director and producer." --Light show (talk) 07:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly it's important to you. Chaplin was English, or more precisely a Londoner. Hollywood is the location of all the major film studios. You seem to think that once you work in Hollywood you change nationality. In an alternate universe, if your point of view was indeed the case there wouldn't be any other nationality in film but American, there wouldn't be Meryl Streep's speech at the awards ceremony two months ago about most of the workers in the room being foreign. An Englishman in New York wouldn't apply either...using your point of view. BT Curry (talk) 08:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about "... was an English comic actor who found greater fame in Hollywood as an actor, filmmaker, and composer during the era of silent film"? BTW, let's avoid the term "American ..." unless you can show he was also active in either Canada or Mexico. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, his career is already in the lede. As a featured article it's best to avoid duplication. Edward Highgate (talk) 09:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't clear. The above suggestion was to replace the contentious "... was an English comic actor, filmmaker, and composer who rose to fame during the era of silent film" not to duplicate it. The only duplicated word then is "actor". I intentionally removed the adjective from the Hollywood phase since he did so much more than just comic acting. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better to use something less repetitive (if mentioning Hollywood at all) like "who rose to fame during Hollywood's silent film era". I was about to say "rose to fame in Hollywood", but he did previously gain recognition for his stage work in London. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the body of the article already is more than sufficient to detail how and where Chaplin made his success. Lets not try to use the lede for purposes other than intended. Mediatech492 (talk) 12:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citizenship/nationality is a legal concept that leaves no space for interpretation. Chaplin was a UK citizen for his entire life, and while he resided and worked in the US for four decades, he was still legally considered an alien by the US authorities; to claim that he was an American is simply false. As for whether he identified as an American, no, he stated publicly that he identified as English, and his films are thoroughly influenced by his British background (e.g. they take place in urban settings which mimic Kennington, where he grew up). His refusal to apply for US citizenship was one of the reasons why he got into such trouble in the US the 1940s and was eventually booted out of the country. Yes, he is an important figure in American film history, but that does not change his nationality — following your logic we could also state that he had no nationality given the importance of his films to film history in general. That it's even necessary to have this discussion is quite troubling, as is Light show's campaign to introduce wrong information to Wikipedia in order to satisfy his own peculiar and misguided patriotism. LS, you're not approaching an article by first doing the research and then editing based on what you've learned, but are instead attempting to shape the article according to your opinions, by only using source material that suits your particular ideas. This is not how Wikipedia is supposed to operate. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

Very well put, Susie. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very poorly put, Susie. There are two parts to your comment: one dealing with his legal status and citizenship, and the other a repeated violation of AGF guidelines by mind-reading and implying an agenda. And unfortunately, both parts are wrong and off-topic.

The guidelines are clear: The opening paragraph should usually provide context. In most modern-day cases this will mean the country ... where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable. In other words, this is not about how he would apply for a passport or run for office. It's a purely encyclopedic definition that WP uses for describing notability, which is the key requirement for any article. What he did growing up, or what settings he mimicked when producing films in America, or what his problems with the U.S. government were, which may have been related to the smear campaign against him, is off-topic. This man is interested in his citizenship; but when he and D. W. Griffith, Douglas Fairbanks and Mary Pickford founded United Artists, his legal citizenship was mostly irrelevant, as it should be in the lead. --Light show (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't intending to chime in on this (beyond responding to Martin) but when Susie states the user Light show is "attempting to shape the article according to your opinions", that's exactly the case. Besides that, congrats on getting this to featured article status Susie. Edward Highgate (talk) 19:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not my opinion, Chaplin's. During a New York bond rally in 1918, Chaplin yelled out to the crowd: Although British-born, I am 144 percent American, and would be in the trenches if it were not for a physical disability. --Light show (talk) 19:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other reliable sources describe him as a British-born filmmaker:

The Encyclopedia of British Film, Oxford (2013); The Routledge Companion to British Cinema History, Routledge (2017); The American Film Institute Desk Reference, Dorling Kindersley Publishing (2002); Encyclopedia Britannica, EB (1998). --Light show (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And a multitude of sources state English. Roger Ebert states he was a British filmmaker, so English or British. There is no consensus for any change. BT Curry (talk) 21:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: on describing Chaplin's nationality as a filmmaker

Should Chaplin be described as (A), an English (or British) filmmaker, or (B), a British-born filmmaker? 20:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• B: His notability as an actor, director, composer, screenwriter, producer and editor, came in America. Stating that he was "an English filmmaker" could be is misleading since it implies he lived in England as a filmmaker. --Light show (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• A: He was an English citizen his whole life regardless of where he resided during most of his life. As noted above, the fact that he refused to become a US citizen is one of the reasons he got into legal trouble with American authorities. Light show, you quite blatantly are disregarding what constitutes one's citizenship/nationality, and are trying way too hard to prove a faulty point. Please desist per WP:POINT and WP:IDHT. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note guidelines: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page. --Light show (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Light show's comments are littered with original research and personal opinion. Chaplin was English, made his name with the Karno troupe in the British music hall, worked in Hollywood for much of his career, followed by making films in England, before being knighted for his work. As stated previously Light show seems to believe that once you work in Hollywood you lose your nationality. If this were the case, with most of the major film studios being in Hollywood, there wouldn't be any other nationality in film. Meryl Streep's recent comments about the variety of nationalities wouldn't apply. The location of the film studios is your nationality, according to Light show. You again put forward your own point of view by saying it implies he worked in England as a filmmaker. It doesn't imply anything of the sort. In terms of English or British, the film critic Roger Ebert called Chaplin a British filmmaker, but Chaplin is best known as a Londoner, born and bred in England, hence English is more specific. BT Curry (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the threaded discussion section below is for personal comments like this. And BTW, none of my earlier comments are opinions. If they are, and you point them out below, I'll strike them. --Light show (talk) 21:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To use the most recent example, you stated it is misleading, that's your opinion. Your comments above are littered with them. Roger Ebert referred to Chaplin as a British filmmaker, you are saying Ebert is misleading, that would be your opinion. BT Curry (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chaplin wasn't a "English citizen". There was, and is, no such thing.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, British nationality law refers to British citizens as opposed to the constituent countries. BT Curry (talk) 22:45 16 April 2017 (UTC)

A Light show, that is patent nonsense. He is English and British. A persons nationality doesn't change, unless they explicitly give it up, which he never did. scope_creep (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since he was born in England in 1889 he would have been born a citizen of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland", As a legal foreign national in the United States he would have had to carry a passport, and on that United Kingdom passport under the heading "Nationality" it would have said "British Citizen". Mediatech492 (talk) 13:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it would have said "British subject", I think.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

b British born, for that is what he is, I doubt most anyone even knew he was British (I did) or that he retained his citizenship. L3X1 (distant write) 14:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its a silly survey. Chaplin is English and held British citizenship his whole life. As recent as 2014 foreigners from outside the UK named him among the best known British icons (just read it in Adele's page) in a poll conducted by the British council. I'm here for another reason (question below). AlanArkin55 (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC) sock coment L3X1 (distant write) 02:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANot just British born, but British for his entire life. The first sentence of a bio lead should first state a person's nationality (as per MOS), and that's what our readers expect us to do. To call him an American would be false and misleading. See also the above discussions. Light show isn't doing this to make Wikipedia more accurate, but it attempting to change content to reflect his opinions, which is very concerning. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

If you read the RfC more carefully, you'll discover that describing him as American is not part of it. --Light show (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Groundhog day with the same editor pov pushing. As far as I'm concerned Light show qualifies as a disruptive editor, evidenced by changing the nationality of non Americans to American actors (look at the users edit history). I reverted the users edit on here as Chaplin being English is not altered by the users pov. Edward Highgate (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC) sock vote L3X1 (distant write) 02:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A - with a preference for English, seeing as he was born in London. It's not possible, as far as I know, to be born in "Britain". Cassianto^Talk 17:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why not?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can only be born in either England, Scotland, Wales or Ireland. London is in England. Why use "Britain" to describe Chaplin's birthplace when we can be more accurate and say "English"? To say "I was born in Britain" is like saying "I was born in Europe". It's far too vague. Cassianto^Talk 08:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not impossible to be born in Europe.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that it was. Cassianto^Talk 12:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A, obviously. He has achieved a degree of success and renown in the UK and actively refused to take US citizenship.To suggest he was not British (or English) is misleading and damaging. (And to !vote B because of one's own ignorance that CC was English is bizzare. I suppose that's we should be grateful that this rather silly brouhaha has managed to educate one person, even if it has wasted the time of numerous others). All the best, The Bounder (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B. Summoned by bot. Wording is preferable given long career in US, despite never having acquired citizenship. Coretheapple (talk) 12:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A On further consideration I'm going with "A." I think that to make this "B" we would, as a matter of consistency, have to utilize similar terminology for other actors with similar backgrounds. Stan Laurel, whose career trajectory was similar, is described as "English." So I think that with Chaplin we have to go with "British." Coretheapple (talk) 14:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

• Comment: It seems that the RfC choices between A and B are still a bit complex and some of the replies drift off into other topics. A few observations: The RfC is not questioning whether Chaplin remained a British citizen (or subject.) It is not implying that he ever became an American citizen. It is not implying that for nationality purposes he should be described as an American, although he said he was relevant to his profession.

The issue is whether the lead introducing his notability as an actor, director, composer, screenwriter, producer and editor, which came during his 40 years in America, should say he was an "English actor ..." or a "British-born actor ..." As it is, the lead seems to intentionally downplay his relationship to America, with only a single mention: At 19, he was signed to the prestigious Fred Karno company, which took him to America. Took him to America? But that's not the only trivialized America-related detail in the lead. There's also this one: Chaplin was forced to leave the United States and settle in Switzerland. Not only was he never "forced" to leave, but he was never "forced" to "settle in Switzerland." He chose Switzerland over England for other reasons. In fact he did not like skiing, and disliked cold weather and snow. That was one of the reasons he said he loved California.

As for some of the survey comments, Snuggums states up front, "He was an English citizen his whole life ..." User:Scope creep similarly focused on his nationality. User: Mediatech492 the same: "British Citizen". User:THS, "Not just British born, but British for his entire life." And Cassianto, "English, seeing as he was born in London."

Although no one denies he was born in Britain, the "A" votes prefer not to include that fact in the lead. That has the effect, IMO, of misleading countless readers unfamiliar with Chaplin, making many who don't read the massive article assume he spent his career in England. --Light show (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is your POV and is not a factual based finding. Cassianto^Talk 18:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Light show, please stop wasting everyone's time and stop undermining whatever credibility this encyclopedia has by trying to bend it to suit your whims instead of facts. It's only you who believes that Chaplin's work in America is downplayed in the lead. As for your absolutely ridiculous claim about the US not booting him out – yeah sure, technically he could have tried to go back, but the cancelation of his return permit was a strong message from an American government already convinced Chaplin was an enemy, and had he returned it would have meant a thorough investigation and interrogation (possibly leading to a trial). I'm not going to bother with explaining anything more, because it's patently clear it's not that you don't know these things, it's that you just want Wikipedia to reflect your opinions, not facts. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

I agree, the demonstrated facts do not support the assertions of "User:Light show". It is time to end this conversation and move on. Mediatech492 (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not my opinion. I'm going by the facts in the article only. Chaplin decided to hold the world premiere of "Limelight" in London, since it was the setting of the film...Maland has concluded... that the US government had no real evidence to prevent Chaplin's re-entry. It is likely that he would have gained entry if he had applied for it....The couple decided to settle in Switzerland.

Although it's still off-topic from the RfC, since you insist on arguing about it, the lead which you wrote is still obviously misleading: Chaplin was forced to leave the United States and settle in Switzerland. So if you want to continue arguing about it, argue with yourself, not me. --Light show (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There's no reason to rake Light show over the coals for this proposal, and the world wouldn't end if it was enacted. I object to the attacks on them for "wasting time." This is not a waste of time. My initial view was to go with B. However, I switched to A when I noticed that the general practice in these matters is to go with the citizenship of the actor, as with his friend and contemporary Laurel. Cary Grant, who became an American citizen, is correctly referred to in his article as "British-American." Ditto Elizabeth Taylor. I am not aware of "British born" being utilized to denote British performers who spent most of their careers in the U.S. but did not become U.S. citizens. Coretheapple (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "utilized." Very reliable sources describe him as a British-born filmmaker: The Encyclopedia of British Film, Oxford (2013); The Routledge Companion to British Cinema History, Routledge (2017); The American Film Institute Desk Reference, Dorling Kindersley Publishing (2002), and Encyclopedia Britannica, EB (1998), with its opening description: "British-born American actor and director, who won international fame ..."

There are some options for adding accuracy to the lead, with some suggestions beginning with, IMO, the most accurate to the least:

1. He was an actor, filmmaker, and composer.
2. He was an actor . . . who spent most of his career in America.
3. He was an American actor . . . who was born and raised in England.
4. He was an English-born actor . . . who spent most of career in America.
5. Current lead: He was an English actor . . . . (His minimal connection to America in the lead is from being part of a tour, and noting later that he "was forced to leave the United States and settle in Switzerland.")

According to the MOS guidelines, even mentioning his place of birth or citizenship in the lead sentence is debatable since it's typically in the infobox only. And then we have someone like Alfred Hitchcock, who did most of his films in America and even became a U.S. citizen, is still described as "an English film director and producer." --Light show (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Addendum) Is his place of birth any more significant than his choosing to spend the last 36 years of his life in Switzerland, where he is buried? Is it relevant that his public appreciation seems to have come mostly from outside the U.K., with his final one being a knighthood by Queen Elizabeth II, "though he was too weak to kneel and received the honour in his wheelchair"? --Light show (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well like I said, the skies won't fall if B is utilized, If you can find that a preponderance of reliable sources describe him as something other than British, I'll flip-flop back to B. Coretheapple (talk) 18:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Light show, it's only you who thinks it's unclear from the lead that Chaplin spent the most important years of his career in the US. According to the MOS, we give official citizenship priority, as is logical. Chaplin wasn't just born in England, he was English/British for his whole life and his Britishness was important to his works and identity, as has been outlined above. You seem to be waging a campaign to change the nationality of several famous figures to American, regardless of whether they ever held citizenship —e.g. Claire Bloom, Omar Sharif and Maximilian Schell— but based on your weird interpretations and misguided patriotism. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

Unlike some, I prefer to just go by WP guidelines. --Light show (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]