Talk:Sherlock Holmes

''''''

Archives
15th June 2002 - 25th April 2007

Info

There is barely any info on the age of holmes, his appearances, and his hometown. Perhaps someone could fix this, or at least state that his age (etc.) is unknown.

Thanks! Powerdrone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.78.46.118 (talk) 00:04, 16 March 2008 (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)

Holme's sister

I will delete mention of Holme's sister. SHe is non-canon.

The large number of authors writing their own Holme's stories is interesting but should be kept separate from the original creation. Also deleting the claim about Moriarty being Holme's math tutor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.229.231.115 (talk) 13:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Now someone has added them again. Instead av starting a delete/revert war I will kindly ask someone to explain why these non-canon elements should be mentioned among information about what Doyle actually wrote. And why just them, and not the many other authors who have invented relatives, love interest and other acquaintances of Holmes. 90.229.231.115 (talk) 20:55, 25 June 2008 (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[2]. DRoll 09:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Deductive reasoning

By definition, Sherlock Holmes engages in deductive reasoning which reaches specific conclusions. It is not inductive reasoning, no matter how hard someone insists it is. Despite what somebody wrote in the Wikipedia article on deduction, deduction involves applying general principles to a situation to figure out a specific aspect of it -- like who the killer had to be. Wryspy 04:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Holmes rarely actually uses deductive reasoning outright (I have actually read the stories; I have a two volume set). His reasoning rarely goes from: "If A, then B." He usually see the aftermath (B),like a large gap in person's steps, and makes an inference as to what caused (B), which would be (A), which would be, presumably, a tall person. But this is not necessarily true, since it might not have been a person at all, but a natural phenomena which just happens to look like a tall person's stride; that is abductive reasoning, i.e. a large gap in a person's steps is caused by a tall person.

Deductive argument:

1. If a person is tall, then that person will have a large gap between his steps (If P, then Q). 2. The person is tall. (P) 3. Therefore, the person will have large gaps between his steps. (Therefore, Q)

Abduction works like this:

1. If a person is tall, then that person will have a large gap between their steps (If P, then Q). 2. There is a large gap between a person's (assuming the gap was made by a person in the first place) steps. (Q) 3. Therefore, the person is tall. (Therefore, P)

This is called affirming the consequent, and it is considered a formal fallacy. Venomous Pen 05:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Read all the definitions of deduction. Deductive reasoning does not have to be as formulaic as natural deduction. For example, Cambridge Dictionary of American English: "the process of learning something by considering a general set of facts and thinking about how something specific relates to them." or "deduce - to reach (an answer) by thinking about a general truth and its relationship to a specific situation." It's about more than just the example you used. The kind of deduction he used only has to fit one definition for this whole debate to be pointless, and I can cite one dictionary after another which give definitions that fit. Wryspy 05:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

If you use that definition, then I can see the argument. However, it, in my opinion, doesn't really does the article itself much justice. I think, for the betterment of the article, we should at least attempt to make a distinction between "general" deduction, like the definition of deduction some dictionary sources use, between logical deduction, which I think is far more relevant to Holmes reasoning. It should be stated, perhaps not in the opening paragraph since I believe we've reached an agreement there for now (though I think linking to the Wikipedia article on deduction is confusing since I think the article is referring to logical deduction, if I recall correctly) somewhere that Holmes' reasoning process is usually better described as abductive, rather than deductive, in nature. Such a clarification ought to be made. After all, I don't think it'll hurt the article, if anything it'll add to its encyclopedic worth.Venomous Pen 05:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I shouldn't have quoted the Wikipedia article on deduction. That actually confused the issue. Wryspy 06:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I think, regarding deductive reasoning, there is just a semantic mix-up. There are various modern, technical senses of the term "deductive reasoning" that exclude the sort of reasoning that Holmes did. However, the term "deductive reasoning" in common usage accords with what Wryspy found in dictionaries: applying general principles to draw a conclusion about a specific case. This usage is long-established in both informal and academic contexts. So, I think it's pedantic and confusing to speak of abductive reasoning in the opening paragraph. "Abductive reasoning" is an esoteric term, distinguished from a specialized, narrower-than-normal meaning of "deductive reasoning". --Ben Kovitz 14:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The length and style of the section on deduction implies a formal treatment of Holmes' methods though. If we are going to settle for the lay meaning of "deduction" then it's hard to justify such a lengthy treatment with all its P's and Q's. Samatarou 04:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Good observation. Reading that section over carefully, I find myself wondering two things: (1) Is all the discussion of modus ponens with P's and Q's shedding any light on Holmes's style or is it actually confusing matters? (2) Is all the discussion of modus ponens actually original research in the manner of WP:SYN? My own thinking is: the modus ponens stuff is not only confusing, it's wrong, as explained later in the same section (about how really Holmes's deductions are powered by his encyclopedic knowledge of many, many general premises); and that most of that section is probably original research. What do you think? --Ben Kovitz 17:04, 4 October 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)

Rent

In the first story Holmes was searching for someone to rent a ap. with him. But Watson leaves Holmes pretty suddenly to marry his wife.

So, If he can "now" pay the rent, why in the first case he had searched for a person to rent it with him?!

It is generally posited that there was some time between Watson's proposal to Mary Morstan and their actual marriage, and that during that time Holmes began to earn enough to afford the rooms himself. But this is sheer Sherlockian speculation; the inconsistency isn't dealt with in the text.--Jmeisen (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

Problem with breaking out "fictional character"

The problem is that doing so is unneccessary, as calling him a "fictional" detective takes care of that. Also, one of the reasons this article failed GA was that its prose didn't flow well. Having such a choppy construction in the first sentence doesn't help advance the article's prose flow at all. Bellwether ^B_C 02:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed

" He clearly demonstrates particular interest in several of the more charming female clients that come his way (such as Violet Hunter of "The Adventure of the Copper Beeches", whom Watson thought might become more than a client to Holmes). "

I could not find any evidence in "The Adventure of the Copper Beeches" that Watson thought Miss Violet Hunter could become more than a client to Holmes. If no one else can find any proof of this comment, it should be removed.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/12.2324.5454/123.23.3454 (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC) 

How about reading the story?
As to Miss Violet Hunter, my friend Holmes, rather to my disappointment, manifested no further interest in her once she had ceased to be the centre of one of his problems ... Z1perlster (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I always interpreted that line as simply meaning Watson was disappointed that Holmes never showed any interest in finding out what happened to her afterwards. Your interpretation is quite new to me. 91.105.22.60 (talk) 05:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It may be new to you, but it's the standard interpretation, and I think a reasonable one to glean from the text. Watson never expresses disappointment in any other case about Holmes's disinterest in following up on clients' fates.--Jmeisen (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, this might not be encylopedia material, but it's both funny and disturbing.

A survey found that 58% of Britons believe that Sherlock Holmes really existed. Z1perlster (talk) 04:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If you rely on a survey conducted on behalf of TV station of that ilk whose audiance is unlikely to reflect the Norm forthe Uk population what do you expect the answer to be. Tmol42 (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sherlock Holmes WikiProject?

There is now a proposed WikiProject to deal with all things Holmes at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sherlock Holmes. Any interested parties should indicate their interest in the project there or at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Sherlock Holmes. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Carter (talk • contribs) 15:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

An addition to the works by other authors section

I am planning on adding other novels that also use Sherlock Holmes as its main character because I have seen a couple of authors use him. --Ilikemangos (talk) 07:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Readability

Anyone else thinks that some parts of this article might benefit from a well placed pcitures och some kind of partitioning?

There are full screens of text in here, it's not all that pleasent reading it all on a screen. The material is good, it just needs some layout improvments. Veddan (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I took a shot at this in the first section.Mtsmallwood (talk) 00:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Reworking

I took a crack at reworking the section on Holmes bad habits. There were a number of redundancies in here, and also some statements that I might agree with as general propositions (such as the surprising nature of Holmes drug use to modern readers and the Victorian sense of honor as being a property of gentlemen only) but these lack supporting references and seem not central to the character.Mtsmallwood (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If it helps, I did a quick google search for Sherlock, Holmes, cocaine and was able to turn up a few articles on the subject of Holmes' addiction. You might be able to find something on the subject of modern interpretations or critics reasons why he was made with such habits while you clean up this section without having to go too far. Hewinsj (talk) 03:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Why sentence(s) removed

I was a bit incensed to find that someone removed sentence(s) of mine without at least considering to tell me why via talk. I can perhaps more understand removing the 2nd sentence. The sentences (in Holmes in reality bloc) were: -One of Doyle's possible "inspirations" might have been Jack the Ripper who was active around about the same time (as Doyle). -Regarding etymology of name Sherlock, possible resembance to Shylock (which latter name some derive from Shiloh)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvis Rofhessa (talk • contribs) 04:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

haha der paule —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.139.71.124 (talk) 09:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Fashion

His coat is called a Tweed Inverness. His hat is called a Deerstalker. His pipe is a Meerschaum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.236.142 (talk) 01:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was a calabash pipe? 208.255.229.66 (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thing is you are both right and wrong! The pipe illustrated is a calabash but the white interial (bowl) could be of clay or Meerschaum and the pipe is sometimes therefore called a Meerschaum. However, Conan Doyle did not describe Holmes as using a calabash or Meerschaum and none of the illustrations show him with one. What is described are 'cherrywood' or a long clay pipes. The pipe (William Gillette) and probably the deerstalker (Sidney Paget) were inventions/adaptions of the former the actor who played Holmes on the stage and the latter who illustrated Strand Magazine. See here. So is a new photograph required! Tmol42 (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Works by other authors

The "Works by other authors" section contains some good works on Holmes, like Baring-Gould and Klinger, etc., but it also has some pastiches, and I think these should be removed. TuckerResearch (talk) 18:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Editing the refs

I have edited the sources and references section.

There was a whole list of works in the "Bibliography" section that were in fact pastiches and Holmesian speculation. I have removed those and added a section called: "References." Here I have put works by Baring-Gould, etc. Please add to these Holmesian "reference" works.

This article needs to be cleaned up, and its sub-pages, like "non-canonical works," etc., need to be cleaned up as well.

TuckerResearch (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The non-canon section of the article seems to have mushroomed to an enormous size again! Most of it was moved to the separate non-canon article about a year ago but now we seem to be back to square one. There seems to be no obvious reason for most of the stuff in the main article section being there: apart from one or two examples it needs moving out to rebalance the overall article, which is far too big. (I would also agree the non-canon article is over large but what can you do? I imposed some structure on it last year but what it really needs is a source which analyses the field of derivative Sherlock Holmes works to give some meat to the article.) Samatarou (talk) 00:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Major edit

I have done a major edit to the page, as per the recommendations, trying to enhance the flow, make it more readable, etc. I believe it is an improvement. Please feel free to edit the hell out of it, however.

TuckerResearch (talk) 00:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Re-Organized page

I have totally reorganized the Sherlock Holmes page at the Wikipedia Commons (here), adding what pictures I could find. I know that there are SEVERAL more out there on the Commons and on the various Wikipedias.

PLEASE put them there and organize them appropriately.

TuckerResearch (talk) 02:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyright Expiry

The page for 2023 says the last copyright on any Sherlock Holmes work (presumably the 1927 “Casebook”) will have expired on 1 January 2023 in America under the “Sonny Bony Copyright Law Extension Act”. Presumably his works were out of copyright in Britain in 1981 as Britain has 70 formerly 50 years after the author’s death. Mention these years somewhere on the Doyle or Holmes page? Hugo999 (talk) 13:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the Casebook page would be best. TuckerResearch (talk) 14:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Spoof in Which Watson wins!

• Years ago a commerical for board game Clue featured Watson beating Holmes! {Apparently inspired by Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce movies of Holmes!} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.74 (talk) 16:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Mycroft

I changed the sentence about Mycroft being more gifted to a statement of fact and removed the phrase, 'according to Sherlock'. In the Greek Interpreter Sherlock and Mycroft take turns at making deductions about two passing people and this ends with Sherlock making a mistake and Mycroft correcting him. Second, in the Bruce-Partington Plan's case, Mycroft himself states that running around is not his cup of tea. So the bit about Mycroft not being a "man of action" is also a "fact". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob2718 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Fourthdoctorwengchiang.jpg

The image Image:Fourthdoctorwengchiang.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Son of Arthur Conan Doyle?

Is that opening paragraph correct or is that a result of bad edits? --68.81.70.65 (talk) 16:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Use of Weapons

At present, the article notes that Holmes uses a cane as a weapon twice, and never uses a singlestick in the canon. However, I recall a story (I'm unfortunately blanking on the specific one at the moment) in which Holmes is attacked and badly beaten by thugs at the behest of the antgonist; he affirms to Watson that the beating would have been much worse but for his skill with a stick, which enabled him to fend off many of the blows. Does anyone recall the title of said story offhand? --BRPierce (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you may be refering to "The Adventure of the Illustrious Client", but I am not sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.230.41 (talk) 22:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

"Holmes and his Woman"

This heading seems inapropriate for the section following it and and might be mistake. Should someone fix it?