text:
Seshat

Seshat (𓋇𓏏𓁐 sš3t, under various spellings ) was the ancient Egyptian goddess of writing, wisdom, and knowledge. She was the daughter of Thoth. She was seen as a scribe and record keeper; her name means "female scribe". She is credited with inventing writing. She also became identified as the goddess of sciences, accounting, architecture, astronomy, astrology, building, mathematics, and surveying.

Origins
Seshat is attested from the Second Dynasty, where she assists King Khasekhemwy with the "stretching the cord" ritual.

Roles
As the divine measurer and scribe, Seshat was believed to appear to assist the pharaoh in both of these practises. Seshat assisted the pharaoh in the "stretching the cord" ritual. This ritual is related to laying out the foundations of temples and other important structures in order to determine and assure the sacred alignments and the precision of the dimensions. She was also the "mistress of builders", and laid the plans for the construction and expansion of sacred sites such as temples. Her skills were necessary for surveying the land, to re-establish boundary-lines after the annual floods. The priestess who officiated at these functions in her name also oversaw the staff of others who performed similar duties and were trained in mathematics and the related store of knowledge.

She also was responsible for recording the speeches the pharaoh made during the crowning-ceremony and approving the inventory of foreign captives and goods gained in military campaigns. During the New Kingdom, she was involved in the Sed festival held by the pharaohs, who could celebrate thirty years of reign, recording the regnal years of the king and his jubilees on leaves of the ished or persea tree. It was she who recorded, by notching her palm, the time allotted to the pharaoh for his stay on earth.

"Mistress of the House of Books" is another title for Seshat, being the deity whose priests oversaw the library in which scrolls of the most important knowledge were assembled and spells were preserved. One prince of the Fourth Dynasty, Wep-em-nefret, is noted as the Overseer of the Royal Scribes, Priest of Seshat on a slab stela. Heliopolis was the location of her principal sanctuary.

Seshat also appeared in funerary contexts, where, along with Nephthys, she restores the limbs of the deceased.

Seshat was closely associated with Thoth (Djehuty in ancient Egyptian), the reckoner of time and god of writing who was also venerated as a god of wisdom, with whom he shared some overlapping functions. She was variously considered to be the sister, wife, or daughter of Thoth. Seshat is the inventor of writing and Thoth taught writing to man.

Iconography
In ancient Egyptian art, she was depicted as a woman with a seven-pointed emblem above her head. It is unclear what this emblem represents. This emblem is the origin of an alternate name for Seshat, Sefkhet-Abwy, which means "seven-horned". Usually, she is shown holding a palm stem, bearing notches to denote the recording of the passage of time, especially for keeping track of the allotment of time for the life of the pharaoh. She was also depicted holding other tools and, often, holding the knotted cords that were stretched to survey land and structures. She is frequently shown dressed in a cheetah- or leopard-hide, a symbol of funerary priests. If not shown with the hide over a dress, the pattern of the dress is that of the spotted feline. The pattern on the natural hide was thought to represent the stars, being a symbol of eternity, and to be associated with the night sky.

Emblem
The Seshat emblem is a hieroglyph representing the goddess Seshat in ancient Egypt. As the emblem symbolizes this deity, it sits atop her head. The emblem was a long stem with a seven-petal flower on top and surmounted by a pair of horns; the archaic form had seven petals (the vertical shaft as 8), (as a vertical, with two crossed lines-(4), as a 'star', and one horizontal, giving 7+ the 1-vertical shaft), and surmounted by two enclosing sickle-shaped signs, two falcon-feathers on top.

Alan Gardiner identified the emblem as a "conventionalized flower (?) surmounted by horns." Alternatively, the symbol may represent a device similar to a groma.

The famous 24th century BC Palermo Stone has multiple uses of Seshat's emblem. It occurs on the obverse of the Palermo Piece (at Palermo Museum), 1 of the 2 large pieces of the 7—piece Palermo Stone. It is used on the obverse, Row III (of VI rows), and is used twice in King Year Record 34, and 40 of King Den. It is also used elsewhere on the stone for God Seshu, the male counterpart of Seshat (Seshait or Sesha-t).

The reading is approximately: "YEAR: To create (a) Statue for Seshait, Statue for Mafdet." (The King Year 34 register has the clearer of the two styles of Seshat Emblem, with larger spacing between the two vertical feathers. Note: the Gardiner font reads left-to-right; the Palermo Stone is written opposite: right-to-left. A large renpet (hieroglyph) for YEAR, precedes the register (forms its starting border).)

Worship
Seshat barely appears outside of her official role as the recorder of construction and written projects and did not have a temple or cult dedicated to her.

title: Seshat


text:
Sopdet

Sopdet is the ancient Egyptian name of the star Sirius and its personification as an Egyptian goddess. Known to the Greeks as Sothis, she was conflated with Isis as a goddess and Anubis as a god.

Names
The exact pronunciation of ancient Egyptian is uncertain, as vowels were not recorded until a very late period. In modern transcription, her name usually appears as Sopdet (Spdt, lit. 'Triangle' or 'Sharp One'), after the known Greek and Latin form Sothis (Σῶθις).

History
During the early period of Egyptian civilization, the heliacal rising of the bright star preceded the usual annual flooding of the Nile. It was therefore apparently used for the solar civil calendar which largely superseded the original lunar calendar in the 3rdmillenniumBC. Despite the wandering nature of the Egyptian calendar, the erratic timing of the flood from year to year, and the slow procession of Sirius within the solar year, Sopdet continued to remain central to cultural depictions of the year and to celebrations of Wep Renpet (Wp Rnpt), the Egyptian New Year. She was also venerated as a goddess of the fertility brought to the soil by the flooding.

She was long thought to be represented by the cow on an ivory tablet from the reign of Djer (Dynasty I), but this is no longer supported by most Egyptologists. During the Old Kingdom, she was an important goddess of the annual flood and a psychopomp guiding deceased pharaohs through the Egyptian underworld. During the Middle Kingdom, she was primarily a mother and nurse and, by the Ptolemaic period, she was almost entirely subsumed into Isis.

Myths
Sopdet is the consort of Sah, the personified constellation of Orion near Sirius. Their child Venus was the hawk god Sopdu, "Lord of the East". As the "bringer of the New Year and the Nile flood", she was associated with Osiris from an early date and by the Ptolemaic period Sah and Sopdet almost solely appeared in forms conflated with Osiris and Isis.

Representation
She was depicted as a woman with a five-pointed star upon her head, usually with a horned hedjet similar to Satis. In the Ptolemaic and Roman period, the European notion of the "Dog Star" caused her to sometimes be represented as a large dog or as a woman riding one sidesaddle.

From the Middle Kingdom, Sopdet sometimes appeared as a god who held up part of Nut (the sky or firmament) with Hathor. In Greco-Roman Egypt, the male Sopdet was conflated with the dog-headed Anubis.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Sopdet


text:
Talk:Ancient Egyptian religion

July 2017
STOP!!! As it stands now (July 2017) this a great page in terms of accuracy, referencing and lack of bias. It's the best Ancient Egypt page I've read on Wikipedia, and I've read most of them. Please don't screw it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.168.148.250 (talk) 09:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

 * I wrote nearly all of the current version of this article, and I'm happy to hear that you think of it so highly. But I have learned a great deal about ancient Egyptian religion since I stopped working on this article, and trust me, there is a lot to improve. For the past several years I've been working on improving sub-articles on the same topic (my favorite being ancient Egyptian deities). I do intend to come back to this one someday, when I feel knowledgeable enough about all of the subtopics to treat them all accurately, and rest assured that when I rework it I will do so carefully. No other Wikipedians seem interested enough to work much on ancient Egyptian religion topics, so I don't think you'll need to worry that this article will change anytime soon.

 * Incidentally, when leaving a new comment on a talk page, please click "new topic" so your comment will go at the bottom of the page. A. Parrot (talk) 00:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I find it laughable the amount of Bullshit in this article
Maybe it's from the sources but you couldn't be more wrong about so many things. So animals weren't considered sentient beings by the AEs? They were just objects. Like for Christian's. Allanana79 (talk) 16:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have any reliable sources that contradict what this article says, please cite them and explain what exactly what you think should be changed. Otherwise, your comment is pointless. A. Parrot (talk) 23:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Uhh yeah. Look at their 41 Ideals of Ma At. That should be a clue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allanana79 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I assume that you mean the forty-two declarations of innocence connected with the weighing of the heart against Maat, but that doesn't clarify much. What are you arguing that the article should say? A. Parrot (talk) 01:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

November 2018
Does Anubis or Osiris judge souls? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:4019:9050:8453:447F:13FC:C1B8 (talk) 02:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

 * Osiris, as ruler of the afterlife, judges the soul. In the familiar "weighing of the heart" scene, Anubis oversees the scales that weigh the heart, but it is Osiris who presides over the judgment. A. Parrot (talk) 05:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Honors World Religions
— Assignment last updated by Jad Mada (talk) 05:22, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

The difference between ancient Egyptian religion and Hinduism
Let's study the difference between ancient Egyptian religion and Hinduism 196.224.27.224 (talk) 18:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

The ancient Egyptian religion was a polytheistic belief under the worship of the main god
The direction of worship of the ancient Egyptians has basically remained unchanged. It can be inferred that the ancient Egyptian religion was a polytheistic belief under the worship of the main god. Ancient Egyptians respected north, so they faced north. In the painting, even when turning sideways, the eyes and shoulders are facing the north to express worship of the northern god. The so-called saying that painting does not understand perspective ignores the pious beliefs of the ancient Egyptians. 黎显慧 (talk) 22:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ancient Egyptian religion


text:
Talk:List of Mac models grouped by CPU type

iMac/eMac G4s
There seems to be a little difficulty ascertaining the specific model of G4 processor used in the LCD iMac and eMac. Apple doesn't specify in either their developer publications. Not having hands on access I'm unable to run utilities which might divulge that information.

What utility would you run? I have a G4 15" SuperDrive (800MHz) iMac- david
 * I would think Apple System Profiler would do it... - Hephaestos 00:29, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

68040s
Some of the Macs listed in the 68040 category actually used the 68LC040 processor (no FPU). Unfortunately some models could have either one, depending on the configuration in which you bought it -- a given Centris 650 might have either one.

 * Yes, I'm sure my Performa 636CD came with an LC040 processor. As far as I'm aware, that was the only configuration, but I'm not certain enough to make the change myself. Dcrosby 03:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Performas
There are an awful lot of Performa models which probably ought to be listed.

Edit of the 68030 macs section
I edited the 68030 macs section a bit with the correct info, my sources are

http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_lc/index.html

Click on the links from there on each sytem,

The info on everymac is quite accurate.

When i first edited this articl i changed the listed speed of the LC III, i know the speed is 25mhz also becuse i owned one.

The LCIII+ was just missing, it a boosted version of the LCIII with a faster processor and an fpu.

Twood1130 21:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Intel CoreDuo chip.jpg
Image:Intel CoreDuo chip.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

PC compatibility cards
Ought we to mention these in the article as well? --92.17.45.229 (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Did you make that table in Word? Did Microsoft ... added a Wikipedia output mode?

 * The source code, which defies all rational explanation:

Reorganization of the Intel chip section
I am not (yet) an expert at the intel architecture, but the overview table seems to be organized by process die size and has no entry for 32 mn process chips that follow on from Nehalem such as Westmere, Gulftown, Clarkdale or Arrandale. Am I missing something or can someone confirm this should be split differently? Bmike8 (talk) 22:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

M1 generation
Regarding the Apple Silicon chips: Should the M1 Pro and M1 Max be considered part of the same CPU generation as the original M1, and therefore be part of the same table? They appear to be using the same CPU IP based on the A14 as the M1 does, as noted by Anandtech, rather than being rebased on the A15. I think they are probably best thought of variants of the same overall generation, just as the PPC 7400, 7410, etc are shown together as variants of the overall PPC G4 generation further up the page (and likewise akin to the generations of the various 68k and x86 chips as well). Tomiĉo (talk) 23:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

 * I would also consider them variants of the same generation since, as far as I know, they have the same microarchitecture but arranged differently (more cores, memory channels, whatever). --typhoon (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion
This article has been proposed for deletion because: "No assertion for why CPU type is a notable characteristic per LISTN to highlight these; runs afoul of WP:DIRECTORY and is unsourced."

I object for the following reason(s):

There is a lot of interesting info here, seems to be a shame to lose it. Exact specifics are not actionable anyway. DGerman (talk) 19:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Although it is true that there is no assertion of a notable characteristic, I will edit the article to insert that assertion.
 * It does not run afoul of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. It has a unique and important context and is not merely a simple listing or index.  CPUs are the most important factor in the quality of the items listed and there typing is a key characteristic of the items.
 * It is not true that it is unsourced. There is an explicit section "Sources" with 5 sources in it, as well as 8 linked references.  —GoldRingChip 12:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey Gold. In terms of being a notable characteristic, are there sources outside of directory-type listings/price guides or lists of Mac models where these are treated as notable things worth discussing? There's lots of "Intel processors" and "Apple silicon" talk in the aggregate, and the sources you added to the top again demonstrate the importance of talking about chips in Apple's computers, but that's outside the scope of literally listing every single chip.
 * Secondly, WP:V requires inline or site-specific reliable sourcing. Much of the content in the list is beyond stuff like Apple's specifications (which need to be specifically cited, not just "go check these sites" which is what the article currently does) and Everymac and MacTracker (which sources from Everymac) aren't really reliable sources for our purposes, anyhow—they're personal historical blogs that don't have any editorial policies. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 15:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You're right, that there needs to be more (and better) in-line citations! I've added some to a reliable (enough) source.  I (or other editors, please!) could do more, but that's a start, I hope. —GoldRingChip 20:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the solution is simply to copy/paste the article onto an Apple-specific wiki (if they want it) and let Wikipedia delete whatever they want. I don't think it's worth editing this site anymore; all of the broad topics are generally well covered, and covering anything in depth is probably a waste of time since someone will come along and delete it eventually. --typhoon (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Fv Arifulislam2121 (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


text:
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.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 ) 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)
 * "Innocent until proven otherwise" is the general principle. He was acquitted on top of that. If you have evidence that goes against the one provided in the court, make sure to publish it in some RS media or peer-reviewed journal, so that it can be incorporated into the article. Nakonana (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2024 (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. Djathink  imacowboy  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". Djathink  imacowboy  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! Djathink  imacowboy  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. Djathink imacowboy  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.  City O f  Silver  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": . 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.  City O f  Silver  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)

title: Talk:Roscoe Arbuckle