Talk:The Untouchables (book)

Proposed merge with The Untouchables
I'm not sure this should be done, since I just separated the different aspects out. I feel the disambig page should be just a disambig page, and the novel should have its own distinct article. --DarrenBaker 06:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Novel or Autobiography
This article makes zero sense, I mean look, he "Untouchables is an autobiographical book that was written by Eliot Ness and Oscar Fraley in 1957," but the title is "The Untouchables (1947 novel)", how can it be published in 1947, and 1957, and how can it be an autobiography, and a novel?--Dp462090  |  Talk  |  Contrib  |  03:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think The Untouchables (1957 book) might be best. There are a couple of books with similar titles, so The Untouchables (Book) may wind up getting turned into another disambiguation page. Everything I'm finding indicates 1957: Since Ness is listed as author or co-author it could be autobiographical, or it might just be a "historical novel" (AKA "based on a true story"):  Ness provided Fraley with a short written account of his part in the Capone investigation, along with boxes of newspaper clippings, case files, financial reports, and other souvenirs of the period. Fraley slowly fleshed this material out into a book-length manuscript, The Untouchables (Messner, 1957), which appeared some two years after that fateful golf course meeting. The Legend was still in its infancy.  Ewlyahoocom 10:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ness, Eliot. The Untouchables. New York: Messner, 1957; 1987 reprint.
 * Ness, Eliot, and Oscar Fraley. Untouchables. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Julian Messner, 1957.

Who's Untouchable
Many people agree with this article that the term "Untouchable" refers to the agents. Are we sure about this? I have not read the book, but it is not explicit in the movie. To me, the term makes more sense in referring to the criminals since Ness has such a hard time finding sufficient evidence to arrest them.Mingramh (talk) 05:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's explicit in the book that the Untouchables are the agents, who cannot be influenced by bribery or threats. (For that matter, my recollection is that it's explicit in the movie as well, although it's been a while since I've seen it.) --Paul A (talk) 06:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

While the movie is not an attempt to be historically accurate, they at least clarify who the Untouchables are when Ness is offered a bribe and refuses it. The crooked politician offering the money responds to the effect "you think you are Untouchable." Later when the accountant member of their group is murdered in an elevator at the back of the police station, the word: 'Touchable' is written in blood on the wall above him.

It is my belief that this was a pun by the reporters of Chicago since 'Untouchables' were also the lowest caste of society in India. The double entendre allowed they to praise the incorruptable agents while labeling them pariahs among local law enforcement.74.192.208.139 (talk) 07:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible vandalism?
Right now the first paragraph ends by saying the unit was nicknamed "the madarjats", but that doesn't seem to be anything. Context strongly suggests it should be "the Untouchables", but there are some other comments that make me suspect the article has been targeted for vandalism before. (There was a time when I cared enough about Wikipedia to try to figure out the mess...) Shanen (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)