Under the heading "Biography: 1889–1913: early years: Background and childhood hardship", the second sentence claims "His paternal grandmother came from the Smith family, who belonged to Romani people" (emphasis added). This is a pretty egregious example of WP:UNDUE. No evidence beyond hearsay is provided to substantiate this claim, and curiously, the article on Chaplin's father, Charles Chaplin Sr., makes no mention of it; it lists his mother as simply being "Ellen Elizabeth Smith (1838–1873)".
In his "Autobiography", Chaplin states "My [paternal] grandmother had Gypsy blood--French or Spanish--inherited from her mother. My father has always been inordinately proud of that wild Romany blood." But without anything to actually substantiate such claims, they should be considered under the same doubt as the beliefs of so many Americans in the days before DNA tests, who would claim that their "grandmother was part Cherokee" -- a favorite bit of family folklore, but not one to be taken as factual. (My own father-in-law, for example, spent his entire life believing that his grandmother was Oglala Sioux, and his physiognomy supported this; he looked much like the Native American actor Jay Silverheels. He believed that White Buffalo Calf Woman was his spirit guide, and he frequently inveighed against what "the white man" had done to America. But a DNA test done shortly before his death showed he had 100% German and English ancestry.)
Having "gypsy blood" was at least as frequently a figure of speech as it was a claim of actual genetic ancestry, and in lieu of objective evidence, it should be taken on those terms. It should be qualified here to say "claimed" or "believed", and it should definitely not be stated as "...belonged to" -- a claim of possession which should be reserved for facts established beyond any doubt.
Bricology (talk) 20:20, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed, it should be changed. The link to Variety should probably be removed as well as the website adherents. We need biographical Chaplin sources that clearly states this, but for now, those one seems to be suitable for removal. ~2025-41988-25 (talk) 07:38, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- Reference number four also seems applicable for deletion, his name is just mentioned in the link and nothing more, doesn't seem to be any context etc. ~2025-42073-85 (talk) 01:46, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
level-3 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Done Day Creature (talk) 06:58, 21 February 2026 (UTC)