Talk:Roscoe Arbuckle

message: Roscoe hated the nickname Fatty and used it only for professional purposes.
There is also a piece on how Virgina Rappe was seriously ill for weeks before the infamous party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.196.232 (talk) 23:34, 2 October 2002 (UTC)
thread_title: Two points

message: Why did User:Kingturtle delete the additional further reading? I, Fatty is a resent book about Roscoe Arbuckle. Isfisk 10:03, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional reading

message: What's the point in having a photo of his signature? Dystopos 16:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: its fairly intresting- nothing to apparently get worked up about tali 25/02/06 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.159.67 (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  autograph 

message: In the Charlie Chaplin article is mentioned that he was the first to earn $ 1 million a year (1917). Who was the first? Can somebody answer this question? Thanks, Alexander 84.154.4.109 09:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  $ 1 million contract? 

message: Why were the specifics of the charges against Arbuckle removed from the article? Specifically, that he was accused of having raped Rappe with a champagne bottle and crushed her with his weight? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charges from the Rappe incident 

message: "having raped Rappe with a champagne bottle" -   thought it was a coke bottle?  tali25/02/06 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.159.67 (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Coke or champagne

message: See this - http://silent-movies.org/Arbucklemania/Burial.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by PAustin4thApril1980 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not Buried

message: The following sentence doesn't seem to be neutral:  "Newspapers, particularly those controlled by William Randolph Hearst, made a fortune endlessly crucifying Arbuckle in spurious and surreally vicious articles and editorials (the New York Times stated that Rappe was lucky to be crushed to death during the rape before having to consciously endure "a fat man's foulness")."
In particular, the phrase, "made a fortune" is biased.  While it may be true that people bought more papers because of this type of reporting, do you think that that phrase belongs in this type of article?  --Misterfilmgeek 18:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased sentence 

message: Telling the reader that Arbuckle's wives sued for divorce on the grounds of "desertion" and "cruelty" is hardly neutral, given that at the time parties to a divorce had to show just cause, and claimed "desertion" and "cruelty" as a matter of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mejiro (talk • contribs) 15:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's neutral because it's a legal, documented fact, regardless of whether or not the charges were true. Still, due to what you say, it probably is misleading and I don't think it would affect the article much if it were removed. --96.230.27.53 (talk) 03:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The divorces 

message: This matter doesn't justify an entire paragraph, nor the aggrieved tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mejiro (talk • contribs) 15:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudonym 

message: I move that the title be changed to Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle, or at least "Fatty" Arbuckle. Arbuckle detested being called Fatty, and when he had control of his own films he made certain that his credits read Roscoe Arbuckle and that "Fatty" appeared only in quotes and referred only to the character he played. Saxophobia 10:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tough call, Sax, but I lean towards renaming the article just Roscoe Arbuckle, with a redirect from Fatty Arbuckle. Encyclopedia and library catalogs seem to favor this. My second choice would be Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle. Last choice would be the present title. Rizzleboffin 00:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title of article-  suppress the "Fatty" 

message: I myself feel VERY strongly that the name of the article should be changed to Roscoe Arbuckle, or at the very least Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle. "Fatty" was a character, not his name- unlike Buster Keaton he did not adopt the nickname- his friends never used it. (To draw an analogy, it seems that everyone in the news media says Louis "Scooter" Libby, but on Wikipedia the article heading is Louis Libby). I would make the change, but somehow I can't find how to do it. Saxophobia 18:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Roscoe

message: Did the Hays team ban his films before or after the scandal?  Was the ban ever lifted?  Did the ban actually cause studios and theater chains to destroy the copies of his films?  What exactly was the "ban"?  Tempshill 16:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hays office 

message: While doing some research on Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle, I found an (article ) that mentions the banana incident: however, the source paper is the Independent; which, as far as I can tell, is a tabloid. Should we give the Independent the benefit of the doubt and use them as a source anyway?Jopari 14:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, they'd hate to hear themselves called a tabloid. By the looks of it, they reference the banana story only as a movie legend, not as anything they haveproof of... JustIgnoreMe 23:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proof of the Pancho anecdote 

message: 80 years ago, the case that Roscoe Arbuckle fought is mild compared to today's Hollywood scandals. 
The scandle was reported through newspapers and reels of the day. They were few and far between and sensationalized accounts. It was left to the readers and viewers to fill in the blanks between reports. (Today, we can see news minute by minute or day to day)
Fatty Arbuckle's career ended after he was accused and then acquitted in the death of Virginia Rappe. It was shown that she died  from a ruptured bladder and secondary peritonitis. (The peritoneum is the container of abdominal organs) 
Arbuckle's accuser, Maude Delmont wasn't present for any of the events she described and was not called to testify. Delmont testified that Arbuckle used a Coca-Cola or champagne bottle on Rappe. There is no way in this universe that a bottle of any kind could be used via the vagina to rupture a bladder or peritineum.
The accuser, Delmont had been involved in crimes of extortion, fraud, racketeering and bigamy.
If the Arbuckle/Rappe case was today, we would see a different picture.
We would see an every-day picture of La-La-Land.
--The One and Only Worldwise Dave Shaver 02:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You very much can rupture a bladder via the vagina. Look into peritonitis and female anatomy. --96.230.27.53 (talk) 03:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yesterday and Today 

message: The account of the scandal seems to be incredibly biased in Arbuckle's favor and doesn't present the facts accordingly. I personally have no opinion as to whether he was innocent or guilty, but the article needs cleaning up to provide a more factual point of view. --96.230.27.53 (talk) 03:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: POV Dispute

message: "Small time actress Virginia Rappe became ill at the party and died days later. Soon Arbuckle was accused of the crime ..."
This passage needs a rewrite:  "accused of the crime" does not follow from the previous sentence (which does not mention crime). I'll leave this to someone more familiar with the facts.
Karl gregory jones (talk) 15:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Passage Needs Rewrite 

message: Virginia Rappe wasnt technically aspiring.  She had been in a handful of movies and was dating a major producer.  She wasnt major by any means but she was close to what we'd now call a 'b actress' (thus why she got to play alongside newcomer Valentino).  I dunno I still feel this term should be changed because there wasnt anything aspiring about it.  What do you guys think? --Maggiedane (talk) 12:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Aspiring" implies she hadn't yet achieved any success. I'm not sure of a beter term though. "Minor"? "Second tier"? Perhaps instead of a short phrase it'd be better to devote a sentence to describing her career. Something like "Rappe had achieved some success as an actress, appearing alongside Valentino..."   Will Beback  talk   21:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Valentino wasnt anyone during her lifetime.  He was a b actor himself.  I think a description in the opening paragraph would be overkill, but maybe down in the scandals area someone could properly elaborate.--Maggiedane (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a fine solution. It's sufficient to simply call Rappe an "actress".   Will Beback  talk   21:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Virginia Term

message: Under second trial should that be Heinrich instead of Heinsen?  67.71.141.132 (talk) 07:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heinsen 

message: I tried to edit in the details that were left out - namely the ones that pointed to Arbuckle's possible guilt - the party goers who heard Rappe screaming behind the door, etc, but it was just quickly edited back out.  It's a fact that these reports were made, so why is this being edited out of the article?  You call that neutrality?
It's clear that this article is heavily defensive of Arbuckle and is being patrolled by biased Arbuckle fans or family.
There are books that defend Arbuckle, but there are also books that condemn him, like Fallen Angels: Chronicles of L. A. Crime and Mystery by Marvin J. Wolf, Katherine Madger.  I have no idea what really happened, no one alive today does.  But at least the book I just mentioned presents the facts instead of just burying the fact that reports were made that point to Arbuckle's guilt.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.44.36.169 (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is very biased and is being patrolled by Arbuckle fans or family. 

message: The villain of the piece was Maude Delmont. Apparently the only crime this evil woman had never been charged with was "murder"! She had met Rappe only the day before the party. When Rappe went up to the Arbuckle suite, Delmont was then invited to join then later. Delmont then had sex with one of the guests in a bathroom on the opposite side of the suite to Arbuckle's room. Arbuckle found Rappe lying on the floor of his private bathroom, he then placed on his bed and asked for the hotel doctor to come to the room. The physician blamed drink for her condition. Arbuckle then left to attend to a prior business meeting.
 
The whole story, that Arbuckle raped Rappe with his fist, bottle or other implement was concocted after the fact by Delmont nearly a week after Rappe had died. Delmont, the only person alleging foul play, told all and sundry that Arbuckle had attacked Rappe. If that was the case, how would she have known as other witnesses at the party noted Delmont had been absent before events unfolded with Rappe. Interestingly the maternity sanatorium that accepted the sick Rappe removed her sex organs suggesting that she may have died from an illegal abortion. 
This article should stress conclusively that it was Delmont, a convicted liar, fraudster and racketeer, who started the rumours and it was the Hearst press that published the lies with impunity. It should also say explicitly that Delmot's motivation for the claims was to extort money from Arbuckle (sic blackmail). However it is my opinion that the story she concocted soon grew out of her control (after being seized on by the Hearst press machine) therefore ruining her original scheme to extort cash from Arbuckle. Instead her spiteful mendacity cost Arbuckle his life and she never saw a penny.
This article is completely the wrong way around. Arbuckle was totally exonerated at the third trial. Therefore all the rumours and lies that got him to court were false and should not be purported as facts. At the moment the article simply has a concluding nod, that he errrr, was acquitted. Not good enough. He was more than found not guilty. Even the jury at the time found the case so completely without merit, they made the unusual request that the great injustice inflicted upon Arbuckle should be written into the official trial record. But that vindication seems to have been completely overlooked in this article in the need (even almost 90 years after the fact) to keep going with the salacious and vicious lies of Delmont. This nasty bitch was such an unreliable witness even the prosecutor Brady, who rested his entire case (and future political career) on her, refused to allow Delmont to give evidence in open court. Yet this article does not make that clear thus downplaying her credentials as a professional fraud and liar. No other witnesses at the party, either those who knew Arbuckle or those who didn't know him (and there were several), testified that he was involved in any sort of impropriety with Rappe, leaving the only person making such claims to be Delmont a convicted liar, thief and habitual criminal.  
I agree that this article is POV but its POV is to include the lies, as facts, even today this article still casts doubt on the innocence of the man who it's trying say was innocent. The section on the trials should state clearly in this order:
#firstly there was no case to answer
#the witness to the alleged crime was a crook.
#Arbuckle was eventually found absolutely innocent
#the lies that he was alleged to have committed and how they were a complete fabrication.
#the outcome - the end of Arbuckle's career/his accuser, Delmont escaping any censure for her lies 
If this was a proper encyclopedia then this is what should be sorted out, not allowed to be circumvented by 90-year-old lies masquerading as facts.
:This is not a page for discussion of the case or for lengthy rants.  A "proper encyclopedia" is not in the business of calling people "a nasty bitch." Clockster (talk) 03:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I second Clockster. Djathinkimacowboy 19:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  And I second the "nasty bitch" writer. So now it's even :) As an extortionist, liar and woman who happily ruined an innocent man's life, the epithet fits Ms Delmont to a T 116.231.75.71 (talk) 13:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  To all  the Arbuckle haters 

message: I removed this sentence: "It was also revealed that Hubbard and her mother-in-law were members of the first California Regent of the Daughters of the American Revolution, hard-line feminists who were clearly biased against Arbuckle and any form of domestic abuse."
This is an undeniably biased sentence about feminists rather than about Arbuckle.  I am editing the sentence to include information from other sources so that it is not some strange rant about how feminists are "clearly biased."  I'm a bit distressed that this sentence has been in the article for well over a year, completely unquestioned. Clockster (talk) 03:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In retrospect, I decided to merely edit the sentence and not remove it completely. Clockster (talk) 04:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV issue: Arbuckle a victim of "hard-line feminists"? 

message: It appears to me that aside from some slop that still needs cleaning up, the article is very good, well planned out and the chronology is very good. I did some slight streamlining, removing unverified/uncited statements. We also need to clean up the titles of works that no longer have Wikipedia articles. All that red looks stupid.
Arbuckle was innocent and was clearly framed by both Delmont and William Randolph Hearst. The jury in the third trial wrote him a note of apology, and it even seems as a sort of condolence note. I cannot fathom why there are dummies out there who insist he was guilty. He tried to help Rappe as best he could. Buster Keaton, who was a trustworthy man, spoke out often in defense of Arbuckle.
This article is very good and should be left basically intact. Maybe some of the slightly heavy writing can be pared down in future. If time allows, I will do it without removing or damaging any properly sourced facts.75.21.113.40 (talk) 09:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you have misinterpreted the meaning of "all that red," stupid-looking or not.  Red links have a purpose, as outlined at WP:REDLINK:  "A red link...signifies a link to a page that does not exist in Wikipedia. Sometimes it is useful in editing article text to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable. One study conducted in 2008 showed that red links helped Wikipedia grow."  Indiscriminate deletion of red links defeats the purpose.Monkeyzpop (talk) 02:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My thanks for that excellent clarification of the "red links". Djathinkimacowboy 20:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm, Monkeyzpop, I just popped back in because is there not: 1) Encouragement to remove the "red references" and 2) Barnstar awarded to editors who patrol for them and remove them? You ought to tread carefully when you jump in to "help". So, "Indiscriminate deletion of red links defeats the purpose." You say - does that mean Wikipedia is wrong in encouraging their removal? Not to blight out the word, just the nonexistent link! Jeez, fellas! Djathinkimacowboy 05:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back to the reality of the article, please ... 

message: ...because we don't need it. What we need is a few editors willing to patrol this page, especially against certain IP edits that are silly and unnecessary edits. Djathinkimacowboy 19:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality banner removed... 

message: I'm not sure about "Brief comeback and death" as a section heading. It implies that both his comeback and his death were brief. Death is, of course, permanent. 213.122.225.6 (talk) 16:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguous section heading 

message: Is there a need for this ? Does it illuminate the life or career of Mr Arbuckle in any way ? Are the alleged "scandals" even scandals ? An accidental poisoning, a disappearing writer, these events are somehow related to Roscoe Arbuckle ? Or are we just trying to paint Hollywaood as an enclave of evil people, sordid den of criminals,  bla bla bla ?
Seems like this section should be removed. 116.231.75.71 (talk) 13:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the section should be removed. Or at the very least remove "five major Paramount related", since two of the scandals had nothing to do with Paramount. At the time of her death, Olive Thomas worked for Selznick and Jack Pickford worked for Goldwyn. At the time of his death, Thomas Ince was an independent producer, releasing through First National. Pikabruce (talk) 13:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  similar concurrent scandals 

message: This is a very well written article. the summary of the trial is clear, tight, and gripping. 74.72.136.132 (talk) 04:36, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bravo 

message: Nobody is ever forced to plead guilty. This is not in the cited source, however the source is one chapter of a 9 chapter treatise and I didn't check the other chapters. GA-RT-22 (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think "forced" was meant literally. It was just bad wording. I've changed it. --Zundark (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious