Talk:Sherlock Holmes/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Untitled

The fact that some people choose to believe (or play at believing?) that Holmes is real and Conan Doyle "acted as Watson's agent for publication of Watson's memoirs" is interesting -- but I think these repeated asides detract from the text and may confuse. I suggest they be gathered into a seperate section on Holmesian fans. --Tarquin

I'm not sure that the Nero Woolfe or World Newton stuff really belongs in this page. It's a bit like putting something in the Adolf Hitler article about some science fiction author's book which has Hitler as a robot from the planet Gninichfarm. The Holmes stuff is obviously not as much of a non sequitur ; but to my eyes it definitely looks out of place. Mintguy

I agree with Mintguy. But perhaps there is room in this article for some discussion of the awful Young Sherlock Holmes and the wonderful The Seven Percent Solution and other post-Conan Doyle resurrections of Holmes... Slrubenstein

I agree. I'm not sure where the line should be drawn on this. Maybe, non-cannonical references should placed after the Conan doyle related stuff, I don't know. Mintguy

I agree it should come at the end. Like it or not "SH" is a character in novels written by other people besides Conan Doyle, and in movies not based on Conan Doyle's writings -- this is grounds for inclusion in the article, but I agree it must be clearly delineated, Slrubenstein

Would the piece on logic be helped by a reference to Sebeok, T.and Eco, U (eds), The Sign of Three: C S Pierce, Sherlock Holmes and Dupin, Canada, 1983? Sebeok and also Eco write extremely well on Holmes' ideas and logical thoughts.61.68.36.250 08:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Isis I don't want to get into an edit war over a single word, but unexpected is certainly wrong as he was suffering with Cancer for a number of years. I cannot understand your objection to the word unfortunate. Mintguy

I think "unfortunate death" is a common cliche in English, and ought not to be parsed for NPOV the same way we might parse other phrases. An analogy would be saying "God Bless You" after someone sneezes -- even people who do not believe in God use the phrase, because the phrase as a whole has a meaning distinct from its parts. Slrubenstein

I can understand the objection to "Unfortunate." Some people consider all deaths unfortunate. With the exception of Hitler and Pol Pot and a few other world leaders I will decline to name, I personally consider almost all deaths unfortunate also. Back to the article, though: I'm opposed to "tragic," "untimely," and "unfortunate" deaths, as they imply an attitude the reader might not share. And I've never heard of a death that's exactly timely: "Uh, could you come back at 6? I'm busy now." Koyaanis Qatsi

But true Christians consider all deaths "fortunate" because the soul gets to be in God's presence forever after. -- isis 00:06 Jan 18, 2003 (UTC)

Well if all deaths bar the noted exceptions are unfortunate the the expression 'unfortunate death' suggests additional reasons for lamenting the death, as in the case of a composer dying before completing a symphony or an sportsman before completing a record run of successes etc.. Mintguy

I'm not a true Christian, or a false Christian, or religious of any stripe. --Koyaanis Qatsi

Same for me KQ. As for Jeremey Brett his death was unfortunate (in excess of the normal misfortune of death) for his legion of fans because he didn't complete the Canon and for anyone with a commercial interest in the same. Thus an unfortunate death. So if there are no more objections, at some point in the future when I have something more useful to contribute to this article, I'll put the word back. Mintguy

I'm not interested in an edit war over it; I was just stating my objection. Though for the benefit of people unfamiliar with his work, you might explain what drives people to term the death "unfortunate" (as you did above).  :-) best, Koyaanis Qatsi

well the original sentence read "...all but nineteen of the Conan Doyle stories were filmed before the unfortunate death of Jeremy Brett in 1995." which I think does just that. Mintguy

I agree with Mintguy. It's quite clear what is meant by the above sentence. Isis, could we please have the word back? -- Tarquin 10:25 Jan 18, 2003 (UTC)

'Jeremy Brett died of cancer in 1995, which many people viewed as unfortunate.'

Isis all I can say is "good grief". Now it looks just plain daft putting in that second clause like that. The expression is unfortunate death. Mintguy

Anyway I'm off for a few days now.. See ya later.

That was precisely my point: Any way you make it NPOV sounds silly. "Unfortunate" involves a value judgment that is NOT neutral, so the best thing to do is not go there at all. That he died of cancer is a fact, and one that I didn't know -- I assumed he died because he was old, because everyone else who starred in the movie My Fair Lady was already dead -- so it adds something of substance to an encyclopedia article, which the former version did not, and maudlin sentiment in the articles undercuts the credibility of the whole project. -- isis 11:06 Jan 18, 2003 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, when would his death have become "mature" instead of "pre-" ? -- isis 23:58 Jan 18, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, "premature" is a bit odd. But I really don't see a problem with "unfortunate". It is quite clear from the context why it was unfortunate -- it prevented the completion of the filming of the entire body of Holmes stories. I don not think there is an NPOV problem here. Saying "shome thought i was unfortunate" is just woolly. -- Tarquin 00:02 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)

Some of you thought it was "unfortunate"; some of us didn't. That makes two points of view. To be NPOV, you need to say who thought it was unfortunate. Nor is it "quite clear" to me why you think it was unfortunate -- do you mean if he had died the day after finishing filming the last one, he death would not have been unfortunate? That seems "a bit odd" to me. -- isis 07:35 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)

I've just stumbled onto the page and into the 'unfortunate' death controversy. I honestly don't see the problem with the word in that context. The term 'unfortunate death' is regularly used world-wide among english-speakers. An unfortunate death means simply a premature death as in someone who for whatever reason (illness, accident, suicide, driven to despair by constant editing wars!!!) dies ahead of the supposed 'three score and ten' normal life span. It does not mean we are casting judgments (though bar Stalin, Hitler and some of the combatants in the New Imperialism Wiki War, few deaths would be judged fortunate, unless it was a release from pain, etc) Nor is it a POV except in the most technical, nit-picking manner. It is simply expressing in ordinary easily understood language, using a phrase used throughout the english-speaking world, that the man died prematurely, rather than living to old age. JTD 09:11 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC) 09:09 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)

So according to you the death of the Queen Mum at 100+ was neither "premature" nor "unfortunate" because she did live well past 70, while Hitler's death was "premature" because he was only 56 but not "unfortunate" because of some reason that you don't think violates NPOV. What a crock. -- isis 10:20 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)

I don't think use of the word "premature" or "unfortunate" in this context implies that his death is more premature or unfortunate than the queen mum's. The word's meaning in the context is focussed on the fact that his death prevented the ccompletion of a body of work.

I am concerned with the recent trend in crying "NPOV!" at the smallest trace of anything that isn't numerically quantified. Should we remove the mention of Mozart's "brilliance" too? -- Tarquin 10:47 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)

---

I think Isis, you're so pre-occupied with absolute NPOV that even ordinary general terms in usage are falling foul. Unfortunate is the normal standard term that would be used. If the Queen Mum had died in an accident aged 101 it would be described as 'unfortunate' because otherwise she would have lived longer. But no-one would describe Hitler's death as 'unfortunate'. It is one thing to be 100% precise on complex terms like 'genocide' that needs precision. But making a whole debate about an ordinary term used about ordinary people by millions of ordinary people is NPOV gone mad. To use a term often said in Ireland, cop yourself on Isis. NPOV isn't about constructing a linguistic prison. It is about ensuring balance, using a straight-forward, generally used, widely accepted, universally understood colloqual term. Could we say we died in the prime of his life, or would you get all NPOV and argue 'how do you know it was the prime of his life? Can we talk about an 'oldest' child or will you start arguing 'how do we know they didn't have an earlier child that died? What about a child that was mis-carried? Come on Isis, be realistic. Have commonsense, not NPOV-mania. JTD 20:45 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)

The "whole debate" is NOT "about an ordinary term used about ordinary people by millions of ordinary people". It's about a term used in an encyclopedia that makes a big deal about its NPOV. Yes, "unfortunate" is definitely a "colloqual" [sic] term Brett's fans might use for his dying before he filmed every last Conan Doyle Holmes story, but that's highly subjective and silly, too: What difference could it make whether he filmed any more of them? It isn't as if he's the first, last, or only actor to appear in them; does anyone sit watching him in one of them and think, "He would have been so much better in this performance if he had later filmed the rest"? Encyclopedia articles are not written in colloquial terms, and subjective feelings about one actor who played Holmes has no place in an article about the fictional character. (Fans who didn't even bother to make an article for that actor, BTW.)

Yes, Wikipedians regularly correct references to children to include even the possibility of other children who died too young for there to be a good record of them. Precision is just as important as accuracy in reporting facts. That's one of the main differences between writing an encyclopedia and writing greeting cards. And I think Hitler's death was "unfortunate", even if no one else does -- I wish the SOB had been captured alive for a number of reasons, including that we would be able to be sure when/that he did die. So consider how you'd feel if the Hitler article described his death as "unfortunate" -- that's how I feel when the Sherlock Holmes article describes Brett's death that way -- it sets my teeth on edge. (And how is my NPOV-mania any worse than your NPOV-phobia?) -- isis 01:53 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)

Don't be so rude, arrogant and pompous, Isis. No one else has a problem. Everyone else is scratching their heads wondering what sort of pointless argument is it that Isis has started now. There is NO PROBLEM for the rest of the human race with that word. This is not Isispedia. This is wikipedia. If no one else has a problem, then the work is OK. If it sets your teeth on edge, get them fixed.

As for my supposed NPOV-phobia. I've spent weeks trying to fix POVs and remove them. But some times a little intelligence and cop-on is needed. Where you are dealing with words that need absolute clarity and neutrality, you have to be ultra-vigilant. But where you are dealing with a term everyone understands, which is not taken taken strictly literally by anyone but which conveys a meeting the entire human race (but Isis) grasps, then it is OK to use it. So the word stays, Isis. (And change the topic before this becomes on of those 'you believe what pointless argument 'so and so' started on Wikipedia today' moments, with people nicknaming you the 'unfortunate Isis' over it. Cop yourself on and go and correct the real problems that exist out there over real POVs, not imagining POVs when there are none. JTD 02:21 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks, I always wondered who it was that knew what everyone else in the human race was thinking, and now I know it's you. Shall I address you as "God" when/if I ask for your further guidance? -- isis 03:04 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)

No, Isis. You simply listen to everyone else on the talk-page. Is that too difficult? Or is there an alternative reality you live in in which Isis is right and everyone else who says Isis is wrong really mean Isis is right. If everyone else is OK with it, you are in a minority and the consensus has formed around another viewpoint. That is what happened here, but maybe not in Isis-world. But Wiki isn't located in Isis-world, is it? Wait. let me check . . . yes. it still says 'Wikipedia' on my screen. What does it say on yours? (Anyway issue closed, bye) JTD 03:40 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)

I'm back. Mintguy. Isis - I'm sorry for suggesting to you that Brett died of cancer. Though I never indicated that that was the cause of his death, I had believed (incorrectly) that he had been suffering with cancer. I got my facts garbled. His wife died of cancer, and Jeremy Brett went into depression. The medication he was prescibed for bipolar disorder (and his heavy smoking) exacerbated his heart condition and he was diagnosed with cardiomyopathy in 1995, he died in his sleep from heart failure. Mintguy

For anyone who does in fact enjoy Sherlock Holmes stories in the least bit, Brett's death was very unfortunate. We were denied the rest of the episodes because of it. A very unfortunate and bad thing for all Holmesians Sherlockians and casual readers/viewers. Anyone who states otherwise should not be involved with the sherlock holmes page. Also stating that the 'young sherlock holmes' is awful and that the 'seven percent solution' is wonderful is an opinion and while I agree they would be good to touch on, stating your opinion about them is probably unnecessary to commit? I do agree with moving anything non-canonical to a seperate page, this one is already quite long as others have stated.Reginaldmusgrave 20:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Did Holmes try cannabis as well as cocaine? -Adrian.

No direct evidence for this. Note, however, that Wilson the notorious canary trainer made a plague spot in the East End (iirc) of London; that canaries are often fed on hemp seed; and that the classic report of the Indian Hemp Drug Commission was released around this time (1895, to be exact). One could make something of that. Dandrake 08:52, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

---

What looked to me like vandalism, in my hot-headed way, now looks like accident; simply reverting the list of other authors out of oblivion. Dandrake 01:56, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

It was a browser bug (I'd guess, looking at the diffs). The reason the wiki displays a warning for long articles is that some older browsers can't handle large amounts of text in edit boxes: anything over the limit just gets ignored - which means that one can go in to, say, correct the spelling of "ingratiating", and innocently and inadvertantly wipe out the end of the article. —Paul A 04:19, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Insult

I think there should be mention in this page about the mild insult towards people who think slowly or say something obvious. It has become a widely used phrase/nickname and shows Sherlock Holmes' popularity. What does anyone else think? Mr.bonus 21:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

In the film Pursuit to Algiers, the whole story took place aboard the ocean liner S.S. Friesland. Holmes informed Watson, "This boat will be making a short stop in Lisbon." Watson replied, "No, ship, Sherlock."Lestrade 22:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

The Adventure of ...

I notice that some (maybe all, I haven't managed to see them all yet) Wikipedia articles on the individual stories prefix the title of the story with "The Adventure of ..." (eg The Adventure of Silver Blaze) and proceed as if this were the actual title. However the online verson to which each article points omits these prefixed words. Is the correct title for the example I gave "Silver Blaze" or the longer version? If the latter, then the articles need to be fixed. --Phil 08:56, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)

Annoyingly there's no clear convention on this. The original Strand Magazine publications of the stories begin with "The Adventure Of..." etc, but most collected book editions of the stories omit those prefixes. Except facsimile editions of the Strand stories, which tend to list the stories with the prefixes in their tables of contents... Even Holmesian reference works seem divided over whether to use the prefixes or not, and their writers are likely to care more about it than most Wikipedia readers. You pays yer money, you takes yer choice. Fosse8 06:45, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Actually most Holmesians use a system of four letter abrreviations when referring to specific cases. Much easier than typing everything out. Example: The Adventure of Silver Blaze = SILV. The list is at the bottom of this page: http://www.sherlockiana.net/shklub/links_en.shtml#forkort Perhaps we should mention this in the article? Kerowyn 21:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Few more books...

1. Raymond Smullyan's "Chess Mysteries of Sherlock Holmes" is a primer on Retrograde analysis in Chess and has Holmes, Watson and Moriarty in the cast.

2. Robert Darvas and Norman de V. Hart authored "Right Through the Pack", a bridge fantasy book - in which each card of the pack narrates a bridge deal where that particular card played a central role. One of the stories features Holmes and Watson (I can look this up, don't remember which card).

3. I also have a book called "The Oriental Casebook of Sherlock Holmes" by Ted Riccardi. This book features 9 adventures of Holmes (including the one about the giant rat of Sumatra :). It is ISBN 1-4000-6065-6.

These books ought to be mentioned in the article, but I am not sure under what heading. Binand

To answer Binand's question, they should all be placed under the "non-canon" section.Phoenix Song 00:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Sherlock Holmes Topics Box

Hi, I'm a bit new to Wikipedia, so sorry if this is a stupid question. I did look through the wiki documentation before asking and couldn't find anything. The "Sherlock Holmes Topics" Box/Table that appears at the end of all the Holmes articles has a broken image file link. I would be glad to fix this myself if someone could tell me how to edit that box. I believe it's included in the article through a tag that consists of the word "Holmes" surrounded by curly brackets. Help would be appreciated, even just a link explaining how to edit that. Thanks. --Osbojos 07:59, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Hi Osbojos. The "Sherlock Holmes Topics" Box/Table is stored in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Holmes so you could edit it there. But I think the problem is with the uploaded image file, and that's stored somewhere else in the uploaded image files area. If you've got a replacement public domain image of a magnifying glass, maybe you could upload that instead... P Ingerson 19:40, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Hi, again. I've uploaded a new image. I think it's fixed the problem, but Wiki is so sloooowww today, it's hard to be sure. P Ingerson 14:30, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Looks good to me. Sorry I wasn't quicker to fix it myself. --Osbojos 07:08, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Holmesian deduction

Hi, I know very little about Holmes, but a fair amount of logic. The section on Holmesian deduction makes too much fuss about the logic, but worse than that it seems out of place in the article. Deduction in the strict logical sense is pretty irrelevant — Holmes uses deduction, but no more than many other characters. As the article points out, he excels at induction: finding convincing explanations for the available evidence. Basically, he's a scientist (induction), not a mathematician (deduction). Holmes is an expert in 'deduction' only in the wider sense of reasoning in a precise rational manner.

The stuff on computer reasoning is pretty dodgy: Conan Doyle compares Holmes to a machine to illustrate how his mind works, but I doubt he intended a comparison with 'thinking machines' as the article suggests. Its only in retrospect that we see Babbage's calculating machines as computers (not a common Victorian concept...), and possibly in some sense as 'thinking'. Also, the speculation about "a computer could possibly come with the idea" etc just doesn't make sense. Which computer, programmed in what manner? It opens up a debate that doesn't belong here.

My suggestion is to drop the deduction/man-machine stuff entirely, and just have something on induction/Holmes as scientist. Would this be acceptable to everyone? Jihg 17:06, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

I would get rid of the whole 'Principles' subsection. Nitpicking apart Doyle's simple fictional explanations of Holmes' powers of observation and deduction is not really neccessary is it? I mean we have all realized they are far reaching at best in a lot of the stories. It doesn't need to be explained with variables and equations. The first two paragraphs of the 'Man or Machine' section are good, the rest just drags it out. Reginaldmusgrave 20:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Changes in Holmes' Character

About the cocaine... I believe Holmes stopped taking it. I don't remember what book it was mentioned in, though...Phoenix Song 00:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing in the canon regarding Holmes' rehabilitation from cocaine. There is no explicit mention of it's use after his return from Reichenbach Falls (though some, meaning I, would argue that many of his behaviours suggest a relapse). It was upon this premise that Nicholas Meyer based The Seven Percent Solution in which Sherlock is cured of his addiction by Sigmund Freud. --OGRastamon 05:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

There is indeed something in the canon. "The_Adventure_of_the_Missing_Three-Quarter", found in The Return of Sherlock Holmes.

Basil Rathbone

Just a note: Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce appeared in at least one BBC radio play "The Bruce Partington Plans" in 1939 (broadcast WJZNBC, 6th November, 1939), about the same time or prior(?) to the first Holmes movie with Rathbone. I dont know whether the movie or the play was produced earlier, but this might be an interesting detail. [Source is here] --Mkrefft, 15:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC) (usually at de.wikipedia.org)

External links

I have marked (with numbers) several links which I am submitting for review. First, a general note; Wikipedia is not Google. The list is a bit all-inclusive and should be pared to the most relevant and useful. Numbers 2, 3, and 6 are prime candidates for removal or relocation to Sherlockiana or an as yet created article; Sherlock Holmes Societies,perhaps. The link titles of 4 and 5 are sloppily descriptive. The sites to which these link offer much more, and they have names. 7 is a dead link or rather it links to an index page to which access, at least for me, is forbidden. If it is determined that this is not merely "my problem", the link should be removed or redirected. Number 1 is just a thank you for directing me to a site the likes of which I have been searching this past month. The edit should be deleted immediately and I promise that I will never again make such a trivial change. I hope I haven't violated protocol by ignoring the "unfortunate" debate.

"Sherlockian"

I'm an American, and I've never heard the term "Sherlockian" used before. I'm pretty sure "Holmesian" is the standard on this side of the Atlantic as well. --Funnyhat.

I've heard it. It appalls me... Trekphiler 18:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

If we cut it from the article, we may help to eliminate the usage.

B00P 00:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it's incorrect. The two terms have been used for many years. Yes Sherlockian usually used in the U.S. and Holmesian in the UK. It is a good factoid and should stay.Reginaldmusgrave 20:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

YOURE WRONG

His last story couldnt have been writen in 1957 because Conan Doyle died in 1930

• The 1957 in the article is not the date for the writing of Doyle's last Holmes story. It is when scholar William S. Baring-Gould posits Holmes died -- within the fictional context he inhabits. ~CS 02:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Turtle stuff

I think that the Ninja turtle stuff should be removed, I think that lots of TV shows and cartoons have made their own 'Sherlock Holmes' episode (Star Trek, etc... ) and putting all of them would be huge and putting just one is not encyclopedic...Hektor 15:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

IMHO, if we're going to include "TMNT", we definitely need to include non-canon "7% Solution" & "Young Sherlock Holmes" (or "Indiana Holmes"...). Might do to incl "STTNG" apps, too (tho that belongs better on the Moriarty page, considering...). Trekphiler 18:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Credit due

Whose sketch of Holmes heads the article? Trekphiler 17:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I think its a pen and ink then coloured piece, probably based on Basil Rathbone's pysiogomy. I have a hunch its an american piece-so far so elementary. Do we need to credit it in the article however?. Pydos 17:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The truth is out there

I added this:

"A more subtle analogue is the Fox series "X-Files", with Special Agent Fox W. Mulder in the Holmes role and Special Agent Dana K. Scully as Watson (right down to being a doctor); their investigations are more outré, but we can almost hear Mulder quoting Holmes' famous aphorism, "...whatever remains must be the truth.""

I left off this:

"(This itself draws inspiration from Poe's Murders in the Rue Morgue.)"

I believe it's true, based on Doyle's use of a chimp (I think) as the killer, per Rue Morgue, but don't know it as a fact. And for those who don't know, the quote is, "Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." (I thank Chris Claremont for that; he's the first to quote it that I saw.) Also makes you wonder if Chris Carter read Rex Stout, doesn't it...? Trekphiler 17:38 & 18:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The Sketch is by Sidney Paget, who is credited with the first view of Sherlock Holmes. His pictures were published in the Strand Magazine. Later people, such as William Gillette added other traits.61.68.36.250 08:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Mycroft Wolfe?

Don't know if Stout took inspiration from Doyle, but he could have: Holmes quips, if it were possible to be a detective without leaving his club, Mycroft could be the greatest detective in all England. Cf Nero Wolfe... Can anybody verify & include? Trekphiler 17:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I added a phrase on this subject before reading your remark. However, I agree with the notion that all Holmesian speculation and non-canonical references of this type should be placed in a separate article or articles.

B00P 00:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

the books about him are really good

i read about his adventures when i was of a considerably little age i really like the adventure with the orange pips

Clean-up

I have been through this article for grammar, etc. Except for obvious repetition, I have not removed any content — I leave that for others who are better informed on the subject than I am. However, I have substituted synonyms for repeated words and rearranged the odd sentence to improve its flow. The possessive "Holmes'" (rather than "Holmes's") is now used throughout the article. I have amended the blockquote of Holmes' limits from A Study in Scarlet to match the published version (source: The Original Illustrated 'Strand' Sherlock Holmes, Facsimile Edition), even though the formatting doesn't quite match Wikipedia's Style Guide! Chris 42 23:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

In a reckless attempt to 'take the bull by the horns', I have now rearranged parts of this article to try and ensure a better flow to it. The info regarding the number of stories and the manner of their publication has now been moved to the opening. In addition, rightly or wrongly, I have taken the step of following Wikpedia's Style guide and have reformatted the stories' titles with either double quotes or italics, depending on whether they were short stories or novels respectively. I removed the recent addition concerning the House series, since I noticed this has already been referred to elsewhere within the article. Chris 42 00:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is there so much dying in the "Sherlock" stories?

I like Sherlock stories, but personally there's too much death. I know some people say murders are intriging in some instances but I still don't understand. Is this a series fit for children? And if so, how? Janet6

Fit for children? I wouldn't think so there is death, drug use, and graphic descriptions of the death just to mention a few. I wouldn't think I could call it fit for children just like CSI isn't fit for children. Whispering 00:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, they weren't written for children.

As for being suitable for children... it's a matter of degree. I don't think children over, say, ten will take any harm from the stories. The descriptions of death are not all that graphic, the Victorian language provides a certain amount of distance, and you have more opportunity to protect yourself mentally when you are reading something than when you are, say, watching it on TV or on a movie screen. I think it does children good to do a certain amount of reading of material that is not "meant" for them.

But, you know... I wouldn't think children would like these stories much. The language is difficult, the many allusions to Victorian everyday life are puzzling even to adults, and the quirky charm of Holmes' personality isn't something I'd think kids would relate to. They aren't very good as "puzzle" stories; the, um, what's his name? Jacques Futrelle? "Thinking Machine" stories are better and quite suitable for kids if I recall correctly.

The only reason I can imagine a kid would be interested would be because of having heard so much about Sherlock Holmes.

By the way, I'm personally a Jack London fan, and I always found it simply amazing that people think The Call of the Wild is suitable for children. Far, far worse than Sherlock Holmes, in my opinion. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure they're certainly fine for children. You can't let kids watch, oh lets say The Lion King, but deny them Holmes! Once children are past age ten they're fine. Never did me any harm...although i do now have this strange urge to quote Holmes, and now want to be a lawyer. Pydos 14:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree to some extent, but not just for Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories. Mysterys in most cases involve a death. Look at any popular show on tv. They always start with the death, sometimes more than one. Off topic but even Shakespeare is tragedy. There is a handful of Sherlock stories that don't involve murder and some with no deaths. As far as being fit for children goes, it is way better than almost any tv show you can possibly put on unless it is PBS. I would rate it 13-14 and up?

You have to remember, too, that many traditional childrens' stories involve death and dying. (Bible stories certainly do). In traditional fairy tales, evil beings are killed all the time.

In The Wizard of Oz Dorothy causes the violent death of both the Wicked Witch of the West and the Wicked Witch of the East. To an adult, throwing water on a witch and "melting" her is so surreal as not to evoke much emotional pain, but that's not necessarily the case for a kid. Margaret Hamilton yells as if in pain. To put it in adult terms, suppose Dorothy had thrown acid on the witch? Throw water on someone and she screams, that's a G rating; throw acid on someone and it's PG-13... but does it make a lot of difference to a seven-year-old?

In Dr. Seuss's "The Lorax," the environment deteriorates and we are told, for example, that the fish can no longer breathe in a polluted pond because "their gills are all gummed." The Lorax repeatedly says "They cannot live here, I must send them away." How much difference is there between saying that and "they died?" Or, if you prefer, "they died and went to Heaven?" Dpbsmith (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, in short they are murder mysteries. By definition someone must have been murdered for the story to exist. As mentioned above there are a few stories that do not have a death in them but on the whole that's what Holmes was - a homicide detective. And without a homicide there's not much reason to write a story about him.Padillah 12:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

In any case, death was much more part of everyday experience in Victorian London - you couild saythat the stories reflect that much higher death rate. Esthameian 23:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Page Split

The page is very long. Would it be a good idea to split them into Sherlock Holmes and Sherlock Holmes (books) or similar? smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 13:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

There is already a page that gives a list of the stories, and each of them also has its own article. (In addition, Holmes didn't appear in a series of novels. There were only four — all his other appearances being in short stories that were later collected into anthologies.) In my opinion, the only part of this article that could reasonably be split to another is the rather lengthy examination of Holmes' method of deduction. I purposely moved the paragraph concerning the contents of the canon to the opening. My aim was to give those coming to Holmes for the first time a concise overview of who he was, when he came into being, where he appeared, for how long, and in how many stories/novels, etc. Then you get into an in-depth character description, which only alludes to the story titles to illustrate certain points about the man. The list of anthologies already points you to List of Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes short stories. A lot of people have put a great deal of effort into constructing this article: with the possible exception of the "deduction" piece, which does slow the tempo somewhat, I think it's coming together really well. Plus of course, if you did split the article, you'd have a huge job on your hands to sort out the relevance of the huge number of links to it! Chris 42 18:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Conan the Grammarian

Has the use of Doyle vs Conan Doyle been debated? Conan is not a family name; it does not occur among the names of either parent. —Tamfang 01:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Conan was one of Doyle's middle names. He adopted to presumably liven up the rather common and dreary Doyle. See Stashower, Teller of Tales, and Gilbert, the Doctor and the Detective 61.68.36.250 08:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Question

Didnt Sherlock fight Jack the Ripper in one of his books? I read most of them but I thought he did. user:SaintDante

Not in the Sherlock Holmes canon. However, Joseph Bell, upon whom Holmes is based, was asked to consult on the Jack the Ripper case because of his deductive skills and pathological knowledge. It is alleged that the murders came to an end after he had submitted his solution, but this is an endlessly debated point. Pydos 16:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. User:SaintDante

No problem. Elementary. Pydos 12:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

He did in the movie Murder by Decree. Clarityfiend 01:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Sherlock Holmes

Sherlock Holmes was beleived to be one of the best mysterywriter, or writer in general, of all time!

By whom? SH is hte character, not the author!

Jack the Ripper

In the book "Encyclepedia of Serial Killers" under the Killers in Fiction it reads " Jack the ripper matched wits whith master detective Sherlock Holmes at least 8 times. ( In one bizarre outing, Holmes was the ripper, plagued by mulitiple personalities as he chased himself through fog shrouded london.)" I have read all the books by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and I can not remember once were he was mentioned, let alone eight times. does any one know what the book is refering to? are is it just lieing? I have reseached this page and found nothing. Please tell me if you know. SaintDante 14:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

He would be referring to a number of Sherlock Holmes pastiches which have been written over the years. This is a list of stories that have Holmes chasing Jack.--Roland 01:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. SaintDante 14:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Nazi spinoffs

at the end of the non canon section on this page we have a rather long paragrpah beginning "An other example of Sherlock Holmes pastiche is found in The Curse of the Nibelung: A Sherlock Holmes Mystery...". Does anyone else think it should be re-written to sound more general like "A common setting for non canon pieces pits Holmes and Watson against the Nazis. Most notable were the films made during the Second World War starring Basil Rathbone, but more recently 'The Curse of the Nibelung: A Sherlock Holmes Mystery'. Such pieces were in the spirit of Conan-Doyles patriotism,and indeed the canonic "His Last Bow" describes Holmes versus Germany on the eve of the Great War." If no one objects in the next few days i'll do this,and shift the Nibilung paragraph to the sub article. Pydos 09:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. It seems more general now. Pydos 19:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Question

Can we get some information about the non-canonical speculations of Holmes' and Watsons' relationship? (Ie, the homoerotic reading thereof.) It has come up in most literary discussions of Holmes that I've had, and has been often mentioned in my lit classes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.117 (talk • contribs)

What you are talking about is slash fiction, and does not belong here, IMO. Coyoty 00:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not talking about slash fiction, I'm talking about literary criticism of the work. Analysis focusing on unearthing homoerotic/homosocial subtext has been a solid part of literary academia since the 70s, with the advent of queer theory.

Stuff like this:

• http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0231082738/002-6533821-8904033?v=glance&n=283155
• http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/philosophy_and_literature/v029/29.2carroll.html
• http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1558490914/002-6533821-8904033?v=glance&n=283155

Perhaps a separate page on homoeroticism/homosexuality and criticism in that regard (which could deal with similar instances in other cases as well) and a link from this page u/ "See Also"? gunslotsofguns 11:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be considered slash fiction also. Just because two men live together or actually display emotion hardly constitutes homoerotic subtext. I for one reject the any men who live together or are close friends 'must be homosexuals' cliche. If people insist on twisting everything into homoerotic fantasies, which of course is your right, I don't think wikipedia is the place for it IMHO. Reginaldmusgrave 20:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think it qualifies as homoerotic fantasy if one assumes/entertains/acknowledges the idea that Holmes and Watson had a relationship that wasn't strictly platonic. I see the point about close friends not necessarily being romantically involved, but applying the idea that something is not is just as biased as applying the idea that two people are romantically involved. Different cases have to be treated differently, and in this case, I think that, regardless of personal opinion, several public statements and assumptions have to be taken into account. Though one can't, by any means, think that because it was never strictly denied by Doyle, or because the Holmes-and-Watson relationship seems so probable, their relationship should be considered canonical, one mustn't ignore the idea, because it's certainly relevant to a potential reader of the article. Objectively, the idea of a Holmes-and-Watson romantic relationship should be mentioned to maintain fairness, but certainly not preached. --Elva barr 21:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

A simple reading of The sign of The Four will lead you to this quote: "Love is an emotional thing, and whatever is emotional is opposed to that true cold reason which I place above all things." Holmes obviously had as little to do with emotional relationships as possible. He constantly and consistantly decieved Watson with calous disregard for his friends feelings... He is quite unlikely to have wanted an emotional relationship of any type and fewer still are the people that would have put up with his unemotional, and oftimes thoughtless, disregard for their feelings. No, there was no relationship between Watson and Holmes and any who profess there was one need look no further than the above quote.Padillah 12:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed to some extent, but, again, you can't really ignore the fact that a lot of people see it likely that there was more to Holmes and Watson than platonic companionship. I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm just saying that one can't ignore some public opinion. The article should mention something along the lines of that (or one of the links the unsigned user left in the 'external links' section, whatever), even if it's a passing line. At any rate, the article does not seem to address the close [platonic] relationship between the two characters, which is also self-evident, and, as far as I can tell, passes Watson off as some kind of secretary. --Elva barr 14:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

In all honesty, today's society isn't the best example of 'public opinion,' all I see is immaturity.

These ideas weren't around when Conan Doyle was alive, and it is only in this political climate that such opinions are aired. P.S. Wasn't Watson married to the woman from 'The Sign Of Four?'

    Highcount. 11:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Speculation, albeit reluctant, about the nature of Holmes and Watson's relationship has been present since Levanov's portrayal of Sherlock Holmes, as far as I can remember. That's long enough to warrant at least a mention - although, there certainly are greater problems with this article (like style and flow) than simply not addressing this topic. --Elva barr 12:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Should go in the "persons with a pet subject doing speculative lit crit" article.

Another question

Do the contributors to this article have any problem with this article being in the Wold Newton family members category? There has been a call to delete the category here. I am fighting to keep the category alive, but I would like to know if I should stop trying. Lady Aleena 02:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Sherlock Holmes/Archive 1 has failed, for the following reason:

At 49kb it's an extremely long article. The writing should be more concise. You've also got a lengthy to-do list on this page, much of which indicates that the good article criteria are not met. Referencing is a concern - only two cited, which for an article this size is not really sufficient. Lists should be avoided where possible. And a minor point, but as Holmes is an English literary figure, UK spellings ought to be used. Worldtraveller 23:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Sherlock as a reflection of vistorian attitudes

I recall someone making the comment "Sherlock Holmes would be useless in real life, because he relies absolutely on people conforming to type". That is, he is a reflection of the victoran ide of a stratified society, which itself was a reaction to the industrial revolution. Once you are aware of this, you see it all the time in the books. Any cockney with a Pink'un showing out of his pocket nessesarily cannot resist a wager ("the Blue Carbuncle", I think).

Another fascinating things about the Sherlock Holmes books is their horror of displays of emotion. Persons in distress who visit Baker st are either stiff-upper lipped or raving madmen who faint on the doorstep and such like. The message is that if you give in to emotion, then it's stepping off the edge of an abyss. And, of course, stiff-upper-lipp`edness is connected to social class.

But I need to find someone else's opionion on the matter before I can put it in wikipedia.

Pmurray bigpond.com 00:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Bit pointless to make it, unless it is a brief sentence in the overview. And yes the quote abut the 'pink un' is from The Adventure of the Blue Carbuncle. One could, of course, make a guess nowadays about how someone might react if they were dressed like a chav, so some things never change. "there is really nothing new under the sun" as Holmes once noted (The Valley of Fear). On that subject restaint of emotion is a Ancient Greek characteristic encapsulated in the term "sophrysne". Pedantically yours. Pydos 19:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

No Shit, Sherlock

Um, does the phrase "No Shit, Sherlock" need to be redirected to the Sherlock Holmes page? If anything, shouldn't it be its own page to describe to an individual its meaning in English slang? Seems a little curious to me that it redirects here.Darwin's Bulldog 07:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It didn't need to. Now it doesn't. I've removed the redirect and marked the page for speedy deletion. Coyoty 18:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

---

"Desiccated calculating machine"

As far as I'm aware this attribution to Watson is incorrect. It was a term allegedly used by the British politician Aneurin Bevan about his rival Hugh Gaitskell. John Paines —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.75.128.200 (talk • contribs)

Public Domain Status

Good Afternoon. As Holmes' creator, Doyle died in 1930 does this mean that as it is now more then 75 years after the authors death, that the stories are in the public domain worldwide - including the USA? Lochok 04:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Overlinking story/novel titles

Just a polite note, as I find myself reverting for this reason rather a lot. Wikipedia: Manual of Style (links) states that a page is overlinked if a link appears more than once (though there may be a case where there is some distance between them). For this reason, please do not link a story/novel title wherever it appears on the page — once is sufficient. In one recent edit, I lost count of the number of links to "A Scandal in Bohemia", some of them just a line apart. Chris 42 15:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but note that this is quite a long article. Overlinking is bad when the same links are next to each other, but re-linking is good when the same link appears in different headings that are screens apart. —Lowellian (reply) 11:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Holmes' and Watson's ages

Were Holmes or Watson's ages ever established? I always thought that they (but Sherlock more so) were young-ish, possibly late twenties to early thirties. the previous unsigned comment was left by user:Felixq

Not exactly. Watson completed his medical training, then further military training before he served as an army doctor, Holmes had recently finished a degree (Baring Gould believed Holmes completed at least 2). On this we could base their ages as about 25ish. Its not explicitly noted, but it is a minor topic for Holmsians to debate. Pydos 10:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Holmes is traditionally considered to be born in 1854, following the clue given in 'HIs last bow' which describes him as a 'man of sixty'. However, Holmes is in disguise, so many people dispute this date - some have his age as early as 1840, others as late as 1860. Watson's age is never mentioned. It shoudl be stated, though, that both characters do 'age' in the canon. Watson, for example, starts off as somewhat of a reprobate, adn finishes a respected medical man and citizen.

--61.68.38.15 05:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Quotations

We now have a section on quotations (not of my doing). I would like to suggest that we at least attribute them (as i have done with some of them) but i'm also wondering...should we get rid of this section, and keep the wikiquote link at the bottom under 'eternal links'? Please discuss below; i'd hate to act unilaterally. The two criticisms of this page ar usually

1. length...too long really
2. lack of structure...more like a random trivia bowl (but getting better [see 'failed nomination of featured article'])

Thank you! :-)Pydos 15:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Questions about titles

I posted the following over at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities; in case I do not get a satisfactory reply over there, I am posting my questions here (copied verbatim) as well:

• Is the correct title of the second of Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes novels The Sign of Four OR The Sign of the Four, with an additional definite article? I have seen both titles used for editions of the book. Why has this title confusion happened? Did the second published edition have a different title than the first published edition? I know for a fact that within the text itself, the phrase used is "the sign of the four". My conjecture is that the original book title omitted the additional definite article, which contradicted the text itself, resulting in this confusion. Does anyone authoritatively know the history of this book's published editions' titles?
• And a related question: which title is correct, The Casebook of Sherlock Holmes OR The Case Book of Sherlock Holmes? Again, I have seen published editions with either title.

—Lowellian (reply) 15:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I have the facsimile edition of the The Complete Illustrated Strand Sherlock Holmes. The novel is definitely entitled The Sign of Four. However, regarding your second question, the title in my book is given as The Case-Book... — yet another variation. I had always assumed that Casebook was actually correct, but bear in mind that many of the short stories had The Adventure of... prefix sometimes dropped, depending on their publisher. Chris 42 15:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: the following comment by User:Shimgray was copied by me from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. —Lowellian (reply) 05:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The Sign of Four is the first title in the Bodleian catalogue (1890, 1893); the Sign of the Four doesn't seem to show up until a 1937 US play adaptation. Case book first appears 1927, and Casebook 1986. If you'd like, I can request their copy of A bibliography of A. Conan Doyle (ISBN 0198181906 if you want to check a library) and check - it'll probably be authoritative - or request the books themselves and check the title pages... if so, leave a talk-page note for me and I'll check them tomorrow or Wednesday. Shimgray | talk | 15:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: the following responses by User:Shimgray were cut-and-pasted by me from User talk:Lowellian. Thanks to Shimgray for finding the answers! —Lowellian (reply) 05:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Minor glitch - the wrong books got sent! I'll drop by and check again tomorrow for you. Any other titling queries that need checked? Shimgray | talk | 11:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, this gets confusing. For Case book, it's relatively simple:

• First American edition uses The case book... (June 1927)
• First British edition uses The case-book... (June 1927)

For Sign, however, it's hideous.

• First British edition uses The sign of four (October 1890)
• First American edition uses The sign of four (March 1891)

These are, however, the first published books. It was originally serialised in Lippincott's Magazine, February 1890, as The sign of the four (both UK and US). It was then serialised in half-a-dozen regional British journals as The sign of four later in 1890, and published as a book in October.

So, in one case, the distinction is between American and British publications; I'd be tempted to assume the British one is the one to go with, as it's more likely to be the one the author had a hand in deciding. In the other, though, there's the first publication one way, and then immediately a large number of uses the other, including the first formal publication under its own name (as opposed to just as the name of the story in a larger work). We don't know what name it had in manuscript. In this case, I would be tempted to take "of four" as the title; the Lippincott title has priority, yes, but the consistent use of the other name immediately afterwards seems to suggest that it's the preferred form. Just my interpretations, though. Shimgray | talk | 21:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

However, reading the story will explain that "the sign" is a plus sign and "the four" are the four convicts so the reference is to "The sign of the four" (the four people). Whether that should help identify the title is up for debate but the intent of communication is that the emphatic form of "the" is called for (not just four of something, The four).Padillah 12:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyright

I have removed the copyright section. Wikipedia does not give legal advice, and we do not routinely identify copyright ownership of literary works. Furthermore, the commentary there is unsourced

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

In this case, an account of the copyright situation is relevant, if well-wrriten and properly sourced. Pliny 22:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do you believe that to be the case? The situation involving Doyle's works is not significantly different than that of any other authors from the early 20th century. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to strongly object to the removal of the section about copyrights. I read over the information. It is not only interesting but also notable, for the reason that there were a number of disputes and court cases over the copyright. In response to UninvitedCompany, although the situation may not be "significantly different", there are still a lot of details that apply to Conan's work that don't apply to other works. There are other articles on Wikipedia that cover disputes over estates of creators and artists, whether they be authors, painters, singers, etc. —Lowellian (reply) 21:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Mustache?

"His hair is more often a brown tone and he is often depicted with or without a mustache." I find this statement mystifying, as all characters are depicted "with or without" mustaches. I suppose the author was trying to say "clean-shaven or with a mustache", but this raises another point: I've never seen Holmes depicted with a mustache. Has anyone? (Apart from his various disguises, of course.)

"He is sometimes depicted with a moustache" would be clearer, but no, I have never seen him depicted with one (and he never has one in the Paget illustrations.) Robin Johnson (talk) 09:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The Exploits of Sherlock Holmes

Shouldn't a place like this mention John Dickson Carrs & Adrien Conan Doyles "The exploits of Sherlock Holmes". They have written 12 stories together about cases Watson mentioned in passing but actually never wrote about. If The 7-percent solution and others are worth mentioning why not this one? Or does it belong in some other list at some other site? Kurben 10:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Check out The Exploits of Sherlock Holmes. It is indexed by the definite article "The," which makes it difficult to find.Lestrade 13:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Bold and redlinks

This article has too many bold lines and red links. ^Babub→Talk 19:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Where should this be put?

In the middle of an explanation on Sherlock's deduction skills, it was quoted that "In several stories, Holmes is said not to have known anything at all of philosophy, although he quotes Thomas Carlyle." Obviously, it was a bit out of context. Where should it be moved to? --71.109.37.168 05:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Drug Addiction

There's nothing in the article about Holmes' addiction to opium and cocaine, a very important part of the character.

Where do you think Holmes got all his magic powers from, hmm?

-G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.117.157.7 (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

The Beekeeper's Apprentice

This article makes a lot of references to non-canon spinoffs of Sherlock Holmes; I wonder if it should also mention the Mary Russell series of detective novels by Laurie R. King, which feature SH as Mary's partner and later husband.

As Laurie King has a number of non-sherlock novels, perhaps a brief note and a link to King's won article? ThomasHartman 21:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Museum

Despite being fictional, there is a small museum dedicated to him at the exact address. Simply south 22:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Last I read the exact address is (or would be) part of the Abbey National Bank building. The Museum fakes it. Esthameian 23:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Shanghai Knights?

Well i saw the movie shanghai knights (jackie chan movie). lol. anyways they had sir arthur conan doyle as a character and in the movie the name sherlock holmes is believed to be from a clock... ok just watch the movie you'll understand.

anyways if you did then put a link somewhere of this parody hehhheheh. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Storkian (talk • contribs) 22:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Back to basics?

Why not severely prune and rewrite this article to bring it back to its proper scope?

It is an article about Sherlock Holmes, the character in the Conan Doyle stories and novels. All other portrayals are imitations, some very far from the original. If we are to explore and analyze Holmes, we must restrict ourselves to the canon.

The fact that many Holmes readers like to play "The Game" -- inferring aspects of Holmes that go unstated in the canon -- must be mentioned in this article, but not in such detail. A brief summary is sufficient to point out that Holmes has provoked this sort of intellectual game. That long-standing clubs with eminant members exist to furthur Holmes "scholarship" is the best example of The Game.

The analysis of Holmes's deduction seems terribly overwrought and out of place. These are detective stories that Doyle sometimes dashed off hurriedly. The logic in the fiction doesn't stand up to analysis, nor should it be be expected to. This seems to me to have no place in the scope of this article.

Sherlock Holmes is so pervasive -- the name itself has become part of many languages -- that including a long list of cultural influences is absurd. Limit the list to a handful of the most spectacular.

Perhaps the best approach would be for someone knowledgeable to submit an entirely new article that keeps to the subject.

Steve Emmons 06:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)S Emmons

It is too long and vague as is - perhaps separate out the non-canonical works as a separate article? Esthameian

Disguises

In the list of Holmes posing as other people, i saw that the Hound of the Baskerviles was not mentioned. In the novel, however, Holmes is considered an unknown in the countryside for about 20% of the book. Should this be mentioned?--Will James 09:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Holmes does not use a disguise in The Hound of the Baskervilles. He hides on the moor, but he wears his usual clothing, even having fresh collars brought to him.Steve Emmons 07:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Extlink cleanup

The extlink section needs serious pruning per WP:EL. 64.160.39.153 07:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler alerts?

Should we find some way of placing spoiler alerts on this page? Several of the allusions to Holmes' powers of deduction (necessary for an article about Holmes) reference plots and solutions from quite a few of the books.Padillah 12:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Edits to Women Section

This section read a bit like an essay, rather than an encyclopedia article, so i've made a few minor changes. MattB2 11:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Jeremy Brett.jpg

Image:Jeremy Brett.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 Wikipedia: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 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 07:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

My attempts to improve readability

Greetings all. I have been rather brutal here, but I feel since no-one has tried then it needed doing. It may seen brutal, but it seems more like an encyclopedia entry now. I havent yet removed the sections of WEAPONS or QUOTATIONS yet, but I dearly want to - the former is trivial, the latter is a long list. Comments welcomed! Pydos 20:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree the weapons section is trivia. However rather than delete it, I have appended it to a paragraph where I think it naturally fits, on Holmes being fearless and facing danger etc. The lists of instances of use has been relegated to footnotes to support the text. I think the result (two sentences in the main body of the text) is now in proportion to the importance (ie. small) yet still retains all of the information for those interested in this angle. Samatarou 15:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

well done! The game is afoot now. I had no objection to the information, just the format. Keep it up, and we might just make a featured article yet! Pydos 14:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article Candidate?

The template at the top of this page used to say that this article was a former FA candidate. There is no mention of it anywhere on the talk page, which I've now archived, and there is no sub-page. I have changed it to a former Good Article candidate, as I found a mention of its failing in May 2006. If anyone can actually find a link to some proof that Sharlock Holmes failed an FAC, it will remain as a former GAC - • The Giant Puffin • 12:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Splitting the article

In line with the To Do lists, I think "Holmesian Speculation" should be put into a separate article. At first I was minded to make it a subsection of "Influence of Holmes", but it's just too big and unwieldy, and also too much of a fandom thing. So I propose making a new article "Sherlock Holmes Speculation" and leaving a stub of it (comprising the first paragraph) as a subsection of "influence of holmes", so we have

• 6 Influence of Holmes
• 6.1 Role in the history of the detective story
• 6.2 As an inspiration to fans --> main article "Sherlock Holmes Speculation".

I'd like to invite suggestions as to the title though, as I feel it might be improved. Also are there likely to be any problems moving this stuff to a new article, I've never done this before. Samatarou 23:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well no-one said anything so I've done it. However I kept the societies and museums subsections here as subsections under "Influence of Holmes". Samatarou 16:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

"occasional user of cocaine and morphine"

Can't remember that he used morphine. In Sign of Four he answered that it's "cocain, seven-per-cent solution", but there is no occusion of Holmes using morphine.

He answered that in reply to watson's q, "is it cocaine or morphine"?

He Did Use Morphine, And Quite Often. Connubialis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.213.55.52 (talk) 02:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Sherlockian speculation in midst of article

In paragraph about Prof. Moriarty, the article includes a sentence about how he was possibly Holmes's math tutor. That has absolutely no basis in the stories and was invented by Sabine Baring-Gould. As interesting an idea as it may be, it doesn't belong in the article. The sentence should go. Jmeisen 06:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I can't recall if it was done yet. If not, we should. DreamGuy 16:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Link debate

An anon recently restored the following link with the attached comment:

• Sherlock Holmes Public Library Audio and Text

" my link has been here for years - why suddenly does some newcomer feel the urge to delete it over and over - at least state a reason and why you feel you can delete others non-commercial on-topic links "

At this point, admitting it is your own link makes it a WP:COI concern. I've placed it here for discussion over whether the link is appropriate so other editors can weigh in. I could go either way on it myself. DreamGuy 16:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I am the editor who removed the link twice. Other editors have also deleted it. WP:3RR is relevant here. I did not mean to offend anyone by my actions. I just don't think that articles should have long lists of external links. Wikipedia is not a web directory. I don't feel strongly about the link either except for the WP:COI concern mentioned already. If the anon has a commercial interest I would feel very strongly. My research shows that the link still appears in five other Wikipedia articles[1]. DRoll 09:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

StarTrekian Universe Problems

The tone of the article treats the Holmes character, especially, like this literary universe must be coherent (i.e. "Holmes must be pulling Watson's leg in A Study in Scarlett").

Details that Conan Doyle tosses off may or may not be calculated. He may or may not have cared or known about such inconsistencies. His conception of Holmes' psyche was likely constantly in flux during the process of composing these tales, meaning the given facts are likely to contradict one another here and there; there's no reason to treat these inconsistencies like they're part of a master-plan. While some artists very consciously create literary universes which are exceptionally internally consistent, and create visions which can be treated like "canon"; most of the time treating fiction this way is dumb. I suggest these references should be amended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.180.85 (talk) 01:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Victorian ethics

The author states that, during the Victorian period, lying to the police, concealing evidence, burgling, and housebreaking were "not necessarily considered vices as long as they were done by a gentleman for noble purposes, such as preserving a woman's honour or a family's reputation".

Is the author certain that this statement is true? Because it seems to be an extremely unusual claim. Is there any kind of primary source or evidence to support or prove this?

To be fair to the author(s), this is overall an extremely well-written, well-researched and informative entry on Sherlock Holmes.

Mardiste 01:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right. That needs a source. Wryspy 21:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Meaning the police turned a 'blind-eye' depending on the 'class' of the culprit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.33.94 (talk • contribs)

Doyle

"My sister and I, you will recollect, were twins, and you know how subtle are the links which bind two souls which are so closely allied. " Interesting, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.58.2.101 (talk) 14:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)