Talk:Roscoe Arbuckle

Two points

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)

Additional reading

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)

autograph

What's the point in having a photo of his signature? Dystopos 16:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

$ 1 million contract?

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)

Charges from the Rappe incident

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)

Coke or champagne

"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)

Not Buried

See this - http://silent-movies.org/Arbucklemania/Burial.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by PAustin4thApril1980 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Biased sentence

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)

The divorces

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)

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)

Pseudonym

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)

That is your (anonymous) opinion, and I'm still sticking to my guns. I want the title of this article changed or modified, and there is no good reason why it shouldn't be. Saxophobia 23:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Title of article- suppress the "Fatty"

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)

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)

Agreed. It's good to see that someone reads this, maybe one of the editors will make the change. Arbuckle went through enough in life, he shouldn't have "Fatty" hanging over his head in an encyclopedia article. Saxophobia 01:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Roscoe

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)

Hays office

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)

• The ban was announced on April 18, 1922 and another statement lifting the ban was issued December 20 of the same year. I'm not sure if it's the full text, but here's the quote from Will Hays outlining the agreement to embargo Roscoe's films with his studio.[1]Joe JJC 20:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Proof of the Pancho anecdote

While doing some research on Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle, I found an (article [2]) 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)

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)

Yesterday and Today

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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaxdave (talk • contribs)

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)

POV Dispute

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)

I'd say this accurately and concisely summarizes my feelings on it to. Almost the ENTIRE account of the incident cites NO sources. This is completely unacceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetirvine (talk • contribs) 15:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

yup, what they said —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.226.63.38 (talk) 23:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Spot on. Arbuckle had planned a big party to celebrate his $1m contract with Paramount, with a bunch of starlets being invited, bootleg alcohol brought to the hotel and then he is presented as a very shy and chaste man! Whatever happened in his room Arbuckle did not try to deny it was first about a sexual romp. Now the public at the time, as much as today's is perfectly capable of understanding that the whole tragedy capped with the 3 trials looks a lot like a botched cover up. This analysis is much less biased than trying to depict a sorry accident whose victim is a practically sanctified Arbuckle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.170.22.225 (talk) 11:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

This article should be named Fatty Arbuckle

We should go with the common usage, just like Babe Ruth is not George Ruth and Cher is not Cherilyn Sarkisian. Kingturtle (talk) 17:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right about the general principle, but what evidence do we have for the predominance of one name over the other?   Will Beback  talk  06:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I second that the article's lemma should be "Fatty Arbuckle".

There is no doubt that "Fatty Arbuckle" is the most common and recognisable variant of the name. Just to cite one tiny incident, Mark Pendergrast uses it in his book about Coca-Cola. Also check out this Google Fight.

I appreciate that Arbuckle supposedly hated the "Fatty" epithet, but that didn't stop him from using it for most of his career. Maikel (talk) 12:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

A common use name is usually accepted (or ignored) by the target. Arbuckle considered fatty derogatory, actively rejected it and the film community did not use it outside of his films. This article already provides considerable detail to the reader in regards to his name and nicknames. It would a BLP violation if Arbuckle were still alive so I believe it would be disrespectful to use it. Wayne (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbuckle made it very clear that "Fatty" was the name of a character he played and not a name he wished to be called by. Saxophobia (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

Who added that tag yet didnt add a discussion? Whats unneutral about this article? Its pretty well sourced on any controversial points. Im removing the tag.--Maggiedane (talk) 09:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is not neutral, at least not as it pertains to the Rappe scandal. I came here to get a general overview of what happened, but I quickly had to turn elsewhere. This article is overly defensive of Arbuckle and overly critical of Rappe, portraying her as some kind of licentious whore at death's door (And there are no citations for her alleged "heavy drinking," "reputation for overimbibing," or supposed numerous substandard abortions.). It is not even-handed at all, as though it was written by a bunch of disgruntled fans. It reads like the writer(s) is/are bending over backwards to prove Arbuckle's innocence. It definitely needs balance. There is more to the story than this article lets on. If it was really as pat as it is made out to be here it would not be much of a scandal.--Anonymous

As an example, it is written "If she had undergone a botched abortion during the days immediately before, the blow might have been enough to badly damage her already compromised internal organs. This would also account for the statements that a delirious Rappe was alleged to have made later during the party, statements along the lines of "Arbuckle did it," or "He hurt me," without implicating Arbuckle in any rape or violent attack on her."

First of all, this is pure conjecture (and based solely on another unproven theory no less) so "would account for" should be "might account for." Actually, it should not be there at at all because it might account for it, but then again it might not, and the entry should not takes sides, especially when the hypothesis in question is not even based on real evidence. Second of all, trust that your reader is smart enough to realize that the alleged statements do not explicitly indicate rape or an attack. That last line about implicating Arbuckle decides for the reader how they should interpret those alleged statements. It is a subjective judgment presented as objective fact. Unless you have actual evidence to the contrary, it should be up to the reader to decide whether they feel Arbuckle is implicated in an attack. The whole section on the scandal reads like that, taking circumstantial evidence and theories and presenting them as fact in Arbuckle's favor. If the article was really neutral, it would not try to conclude anything for the reader that has not been proven.--Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.21.22 (talk) 10:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I can take credit (blame?) for having added the "If she had undergone..." section. At the time I wrote it, I cited author Andy Edmonds as the source for that theory of events. To be fair, I should have provided a better citation of her book, 'Frame-Up!'.

Regardless of how tilted the view may seem, there really isn't much to said about 'overdefensiveness' observed on the part of a man who was perfectly innocent. In some cases, a lack of criticism of one party might indicate bias; in this on there just isn't much real criticism of Arbuckle to be made in the first place. The point about Rappe deserving a better characterization is well taken, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.64.212 (talk) 10:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless you were there, I'm not sure how you could possibly claim that the man was “perfectly innocent.” Never ceases to amaze me how oblivious so many are to their own bias. (Walker Snarling) (talk) 23:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Passage Needs Rewrite

"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)

Virginia Term

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)

"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)

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)

That sounds like a fine solution. It's sufficient to simply call Rappe an "actress".   Will Beback  talk  21:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Heinsen

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

This article is very biased and is being patrolled by Arbuckle fans or family.

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)

it seems to me that part of this article on Roscoe is factual, and part of it is not. Whether we will ever know the truth is incidental, he was tried several times and came out not guilty each time. Let's not throw stones at the poor man, his career was wrecked and his life destroyed because of it. I am hoping to find the truth. Look for a book on Roscoe due out in 2013, 80 years from his death. (Dorothy Davies.)

Its worth noting here that a recent television program "Paul Merton's Birth of Holywood" goes into the case in some detail. Whilst not providing any references it does interview David Yallop, author of "The Day the Laughter Stopped". Perhaps the references needed, especially relating to Maude Delmont can be found therein. Roscoe was tried three times. Two hung trials and a total aquittal. Articles such as this should stick to the facts where they can be BACKUP UP with references, not parroting 80 year old heresay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EntropyJim (talk • contribs) 18:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Factually reporting the claims of the time is not “throwing stones at the poor man.” I agree that the article is heavily biased in favor of its subject. (Walker Snarling) (talk) 23:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

To all the Arbuckle haters

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:

1. firstly there was no case to answer
2. the witness to the alleged crime was a crook.
3. Arbuckle was eventually found absolutely innocent
4. the lies that he was alleged to have committed and how they were a complete fabrication.
5. 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)

I second Clockster. Djathinkimacowboy 19:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

POV issue: Arbuckle a victim of "hard-line feminists"?

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)

In retrospect, I decided to merely edit the sentence and not remove it completely. Clockster (talk) 04:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Back to the reality of the article, please ...

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)

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)

My thanks for that excellent clarification of the "red links". Djathinkimacowboy 20:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

Neutrality banner removed...

...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)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. No consensus to move the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Roscoe Arbuckle → Fatty Arbuckle – Per WP:COMMONNAME. In a Google war, "Fatty Arbuckle" handily beats "Roscoe Arbuckle," 496K to 146K. "Fatty Arbuckle" also wins at Google Scholar, 1770 to 212. I don't see how Arbuckle's preference overrules COMMONNAME, which is a policy. CityOfSilver 22:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. I do think "Fatty Arbuckle" is far more commonly used. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support This is probably a perennial battleground, I see both points of view, but I think in this case common name wins. I also note that several of his films had "Fatty" in the title, so he must have been prepared to live with the name up to a point. PatGallacher (talk) 11:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• No rename He was, I believe, more commonly billed as Roscoe Arbuckle than as Fatty Arbuckle, and as mentioned it was his preference. As a legitimate compromise, however, I suggest Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle, which is in line with other WP listings such as George "Gabby" Hayes, and is how IMDb lists him. In any event, redirects should be in place. Monkeyzpop (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Such double namings are generally deprecated on Wikipedia. In the case of George Hayes I believe it is necessary for disambiguation, and even there it might be worth looking at whether this is the best approach. Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle is a bad solution since nobody is going to enter that in the first instance. Redirects are already in place, that much is surely non-controversial. PatGallacher (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose "Fatty" was his character name, and public nickname, but his professional name always remained "Roscoe Arbuckle". Note that the Encyclopedia Britannica uses this, rather than "Fatty": [3]. WP:NAMINGCRITERIA says that "Article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject by." Of course "Fatty" would get more internet hits, but I don't think that makes it more appropriate. As a comparison, "Cambridge University" gets way more google hits than "University of Cambridge", and colloquially it will almost always be called the former, but it's official name is what we use on WP. The same should apply here - we should use Arbuckle's professional name ("Roscoe"). As long as we have "Fatty Arbuckle" as a redirect, it's fine. --Lobo (talk) 19:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

  Regarding the naming criteria issue, we have, per Google Scholar and Encyclopedia Britannica, 213 sources that call him "Roscoe Arbuckle" versus 1770 that call him "Fatty Arbuckle." And again, COMMONNAME is a policy that specifically overrides an article subject's preference: Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. CityOfSilver 21:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Fatty was his characters' name, not his real-name (as pointed out above). If he was alive now, this would be a possible BLP attack issue, as Roscoe hated that name. Lugnuts (talk) 07:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

• Even in books FA > RA. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC).
  

Ambiguous section heading

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)

Arbuckle was not tried for rape as claimed in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.165.156 (talk) 12:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

similar concurrent scandals

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)

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)

Bravo

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)

Dubious

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)

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)