Talk:Sherlock Holmes/Archive 2

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)

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)

The Adventure of the Copper Beeches contains a possible reference to Holmes' sister, as I have added to the article, though it may be a figure of speech. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedricthecentaur (talk • contribs) 17:23, 15 January 2009 (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)

On the other hand, Holmes is often held up as an example of deductive reasoning in a formal sense. IF we limit our discussion to that issue: does Holmes formally deduce his results, I think the answer has to be no. To take the analysis of a typical Holmes argument presented above, I would suggest formally its typically more like this:  P->Q, P=>S, P->T. Q S and T are true, there for the only reasonable conclusion is P.

He is certainly not alone in this reasoning. This is classic court-room stuff and even has a legal term-- "the preponderance of evidence." But is it, formally, deduction? By deductive reasoning it is clearly fallacious. Just because P is *an* explanation for Q S and T does not make it automatically the *right* explanation for Q S and T. In fact, there is no logical requirement that Q,S and T have the same cause at all, just so long as there are no other predicate statements that say the disparate causes cannot logically co-exist.

Holmes himself in fact shows us this when he describes his own methodology--  "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." In order for this claim to be logically true, it presupposes the omniscience to know all possibilities and impossibilities. What Holmes really means is "When I have eliminated every other possibility I can think of, the one left must be true." Which fits with his ego, but is hardly a logical conclusion.

SO either Holmes does a very bad job of formal deductive reasoning, or in fact engages in educated guesswork from specific bits of evidence leading to a theory of the whole cause, which would be reasoning by induction. I chose to believe the latter.

24.128.152.165 (talk) 03:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

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 WikiProject Sherlock Holmes. Any interested parties should indicate their interest in the project there or at WikiProject Council/Proposals. 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)
 * Well, all three are wrong - regarding the coat. Doyle never mentioned Holmes wearing an Inverness, nor did any of Paget's original drawings show him wearing one. In fact, on Paget's drawings Holmes is seen in a coat with a hood. Taking Paget as the second best source, Peter Cushing, in his performance as the great detective, quite rightly wore one of such in both his BBC series of 1968 and the TV movie The Masks of Death. Uwe Sommerlad 06:50, 13 March 2009 (MET)

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 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)

Yes, in 'The Illustrious Client, Holmes gets attacked by men with sticks and says something like 'you will recall that i am skilled with singlestick, i had the most of them on my guard but the second got me' or something like that. The section is wrong and should be changed - it is in the story, not just the tv production. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.22.92 (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
I just reverted some severe vandalism in the introduction of this article. Apparently, this page has a history of vandalism. Should the page be locked? Calebyte (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

About him not using a Calabash pipe
I read both on a BBC page about Holmes and in this article, that he never actually uses a Calabash in the books, despite it now being an integral part of the Holmes look. Now, I've only recently begun to read the Sherlock Holmes books and I distinctly remember reading mention of a Calabash. I'm not 100% sure it was Holmes that was using it, however. I'm reasonably sure I thought "Aha, his famous pipe!" when I saw the word, but not sure enough to state it as fact. It would either have been in A Study in Scarlet or in the first 3 chapters of The Sign of the Four (both in a Wordsworth Classics edition: ISBN 978-1-84022-411-5). Can anyone confirm the use of a Calabash in the range of chapters previously indicated, whether by Holmes or by others? If by others, please can you state who. It's just that I'm wondering if either (a) Holmes not using a Calabash is an urban myth (a sort of bizarre double one that counters a supposed urban myth itself) or (b) Holmes using a Calabash has been added into this edition of the book. Devoto (talk) 00:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * See section 24 Fashion above Tmol42 (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I'm still very curious as to who was using the Calabash but at least I know it wasn't Holmes now. Devoto (talk) 01:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The pipe is not specifically mentioned in any Sherlock Holmes story although there are some passages where an unusual pipe possibly calabashes are associated with other characters. The origin relates to William Gillette who was an actor who first played Holmes on stage and wanted a pipe which did not obscure his face! Tmol42 (talk) 01:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry non-smokers but Holmes smokes cigarettes, cigars and two kinds of pipes, one is a small clay pipe and the other is a thin long stemmed pipe with a small bowl that is called a "churchwarden". Never a Calabash or Meerschaum. And by the way there is no mention of a "Deerstalker" hat in the canon either although he on rare occasions wears a hat of that description. Black suit, cigarettes and black top hat, that's the real Holmes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.82.194 (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

"reconsider use of 'canon'"
I think the article should avoid use of 'canon' as a term. It gives an unpleasant impression of a 'star-trek universe' where people struggle to find out what is 'true' and 'not true' about holmes and his life, rather than concentrating on the literary aspects of the novels. As this is an encyclopedia, surely ' the original stories' followed by an explanation that these are those written by conan doyal would sufficient and more mature? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.219.12 (talk) 14:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Re-edit
hi ive re-edited about half of the article to make it flow better (as i see it) and to take out a lot of interesting but not really encyclopedia like trivia, detailed plot descriptiknos charactger names etc. Also have tried to keep a consistant style - holmes in the present tense as he is not dead and never did anything but is a character, and tried to put examples and references to the stories in the footnotes. Moved deduction section to methods because it is i think more of his method than his legacy - he doesnt really deduce anything after all, its a story, even though the method holds up to external scrutiny.

the weapons section is less trivia like and more in the context of his methods, as is his use of disguise i think - a clear link between intellectual method - i.e. deduction and physical, i.e. disguise and weaponry / fighting.

Also split uup the relationships into sections. IMO needs much more on the complex relationship with Watson and much less on the baker street irregulars!

Do edit the hell out of if appropriate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.22.92 (talk) 01:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Date of Holmes' birth
Wasnt Holmes born on 6.01.1954 ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.254.122.163 (talk) 14:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

1954 was in the 20th century so I don`t think so since he was active in the 19th.94.196.3.249 (talk) 15:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.230.41 (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Racism
I think there should be mention of racism, such as descriptions in The Sign of Four, which depicts a native of Andaman and Nicobar as some one more animal than human, his relation with the English former soldier, his treatment by the soldier and his death described with less poise than that of (rabid) dog. The Mormons are given similar treatment in A Study in Scarlet. Yogesh

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.67.96 (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is about the character specifically though. The issues you discuss belong more on ACD's page, I should think. Mezigue (talk) 18:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps. Yogesh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.65.186 (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Physical Strength
It seems as if Holmes' exceptional physical strength merits a mention somewhere in his biography; in "The Adventure of the Speckled Band" he is shown straightening a bent iron poker. However, I'm not really sure where it should go. It's not precisely a skill, but none of the other sections seem better-suited. Opinions? --BRPierce (talk) 18:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Forensics
I have added a short section on forensics, and the section should be expanded with references to specific examples from the stories. Peterlewis (talk) 09:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting angle, but it would be even better with some references to reliable sources. Favonian (talk) 09:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have already added some internal links, but external links are more difficult. The history of forensics is poorly developed unfortunately, but something can be done with a little work.Peterlewis (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

"is an ass"
I don't think that's a hundred percent correct? 212.10.55.8 (talk) 22:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Holmes in Hades
This probably isn't noteworthy enough to include in the article, but I found it interesting that Sherlock Holmes plays an important role in John Kendrick Bangs' 1897 Pursuit of the House Boat, a novel that takes place in Hades. The characters of Bangs' Hades stories are all deceased historical persons (Cleopatra, George Washington, Socrates, Queen Elizabeth, etc), whereas Holmes -- fictional, but also deceased -- shows up to help the "shadows" get out of a particularly tricky situation. Interestingly, Holmes and his colleagues charter a ship to travel from Hades to London, at which point Holmes comments: "For now," he said, with a chuckle, "I can get back to earth again free of cost on my own hook, whether my eminent inventor wants me there or not. I never approved of his killing me off as he did at the very height of my popularity." (p.57) Holmes indeed would return to earth a few years later, resurrected by his eminent inventor. Begeun (talk) 06:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I added this information to the Pop culture references to Sherlock Holmes article. Begeun (talk) 23:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The Revolver used by Holmes
According to the article, the revolvers used by both Watson and Holmes was an old service rifle from the Great War (WWI). Upon further investigation, I found that the British forces in said war was a Webley Revolver. Could this be the most likely weapon? --Spanky (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Where is it said that they used a rifle(!?!) from WWI? Aren't all books about Sherlock Holmes supposed to be set prior to the WWI? Dr. Watson did serve in 5th Northumberland Fusiliers and the books mention several times that he used his old service revolver. Taking into consideration when the first book was written and that it is contemporary that would make it either an Enfield revolver or a Beaumont-Adams Revolver depending on when he served. But one thing is certain - the Webley Revolver was introduced as a service revolver after Dr. Watson already joined the army and most likely he didn't get a replacement gun before leaving his duty. (It's even possible that he had left the army before the Webley was ever introduced.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.12.152 (talk) 22:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Mental Illness
As stated on the wiki page: "The possibility of Holmes having Bipolar disorder (also referred to as manic depressive disorder) has been suggested many times, most notably in the 2009 movie adaptation. Robert Downey Jr.'s portrayal has been called "inauthentic"[by whom?] because of the implications of his performance, but some of Watson's observations in "A Study in Scarlet" provide crediblity to the claim, as Watson notes:

Nothing could exceed his energy when the working fit was upon him; but now and again a reaction would seize him, and for days on end he would lie upon the sofa in the sitting-room, hardly uttering a word or moving a muscle from morning to night."

Sherlock Holmes in his depressive moods didn't potray a sloppy, dirty character as potrayed by RDJ. I believe this is the contention of the fans' comments.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.48.184.167 (talk) 09:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

As a whole Sherlock Holmesis a very intersting and i higly suggest you read some of the stories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.211.30 (talk) 09:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I think there's also a case for him being somewhere on the autistc spectrum. The key is that Conan Doyle's characterisation did reflect research and observation. The current classifications and taxonomies of mental illnesses are arguable to say the very least. LookingGlass (talk) 11:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Article covers both Conan Doyle's writings and his Sherlock Holmes character
Can the article (articles) on Conan Doyle and his work be structured more clearly? Perhaps there should be an entirely separate Article dealing with Conan Doyle's novels to which this Article could more strongly refer? LookingGlass (talk) 11:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Where is Edgar Allen Poe's Dupin?
Forgive me if I missed it, but I didn't find a single reference to Dupin on the page about Sherlock Holmes. This seems like an omission too blatant to leave unattended, doesn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.26.55.249 (talk) 11:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Check out this section. —  Spike Toronto  00:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

British English
The sections of this article that I've been reading have been in British English. If someone who knows the entire article pretty well can corroborate this, then the British English template should probably be added just above the archive box template on this talk page to let editors know they should keep in the same style. –  Ker αun oςc op ia◁ galaxies  18:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Watson's grandchildren
The link to a web page for "a small production company based in central Iowa" contravenes WP:ELNO  policy item four—"Links mainly intended to promote a website"— and is set for removal once again. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Addition to "See also" section.
I was wondering if maybe under "See also" under the section "Other "Holmes-esque" fictional detectives" if Spencer Reid from the Behavioral Analysis Unit on Criminal Minds should be put here considering he is very logical and is somewhat Holmes like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toonboy799 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Cut Other "Holmes-esque" fictional detectives section
DanDud88 created a section on 2 July 2010 on Other "Holmes-esque" fictional detectives. I'm surprised whoever's been watching has let this stand. The list has no place in the article, especially if it's ever going to attempt going for GA status again. It offers nothing of additional informational value, it's trivia WP:TRIV, it doesn't address matters to do with Holmes himself, it's an arbitrary list to which another 100+ detectives could arguably be added not even starting on characters from non-English TV, literature, theatre etc. It makes no sense. I have no desire to start an edit war. I propose we cut the list. Spanglej (talk) 22:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - I agree, for the reasons given. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete it, definitely. At the very least, who's the judge of whether these other detectives are "Holmes-esque" or not? Malleus Fatuorum 22:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. MarmadukePercy (talk) 22:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I strongly agree with the deletion. It was just a bunch of unsourced OR trivia that could be conceivably expanded to contain every single detective known to humankind. Princess Lirin (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I cut Other "Holmes-esque" fictional detectives and Lists of favourite short stories. The collection of short stories are listed already and the full list is given on List of Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes short stories. Spanglej (talk) 01:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

We should include references to House and other clear Holmes inspired characters. 24.184.42.86 (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not unless there are reliable secondary sources that mention the inspiration, otherwise it would be OR. Even if sources exist, I'm not sure this article is the best place for such mentions. Princess Lirin (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's to be kept: as Princess Lirin. If we keep to this standard the size of the list will be self-limiting and we'll be keeping to Wikipedia principles. Delete all unreferenced now, and check each new addition for its WP:RS--Old Moonraker (talk) 09:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Personal Hygiene
The section on personal hygiene runs Holmes is described in The Hound of the Baskervilles as having a "cat-like" love of personal cleanliness. This in no way appears to hinder his intensely practical pursuit of his profession, however; This appears in contrast with statements that, in the first Holmes story, A Study in Scarlet, his hands are discoloured with acid stains and Holmes uses drops of his own blood to conduct experiments in chemistry and forensics. This is entirely daft. Someone can easily be compulsively clean and have acid stained hands - with some acids there is not a lot you could do about it if you wanted to get coloration off. What has using ones own blood to do with cleanliness? We would need much stronger cited examples to show a contradiction in personal habits. Spanglej (talk) 16:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Mary Sue
An IP editor has added a link to Mary Sue in the "See also" section three times, but I really can't see the relevance. Two editors (including myself) have removed it, but it has been re-inserted each time. As the "See also" section is supposed to be for links to articles that are of direct and important relevance, I think it is inappropriate, and I invite the IP editor to explain why I'm wrong - and other people to offer their opinions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Seems like a misunderstanding of the term "Mary Sue". Sherlock Holmes definitely is not a "Mary Sue", and even he was I agree that it would not be relevant enough to include in the "See also" section. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If the relevance is that Holmes is considered a "Mary Sue", then that would have to be made clear in a significant way in either this article or the Mary Sue article, and supported by reliable references. If the link is made based on the opinion of an individual editor, that would make it original research, which cannot be included in Wikipedia. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if there were some relevance, the article in question specifically has: "the term itself is used exclusively for females". Removed the link again. --Old Moonraker (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

'The Game' and Doctor Watson
I removed this passage from the Doctor Watson article: ''Mary seems somewhat less sure of her husband, however, absent-mindedly calling him "James" in the short story "The Man with the Twisted Lip". This may be a simple typographical error on Dr. Watson's part, though some have speculated that it is a wifely reference to Watson's unknown middle name, which could have been "Hamish" (Scottish for "James"). ''

But I'm really not sure whether it should go. We're supposed to cite reliable sources, and this kind of thing is as close to a reliable source as we're going to get on a matter of such detail.

However, we're supposed to write articles from a real-world perspective, not a fictional-world one. This is a serious problem with Sherlock Holmes, because most of what's been written about it is silly play-acting as if SH was a real person, otherwise known as The Game.

Are there any real books about Sherlock Holmes as a piece of literature?

I'm strongly inclined to remove all Game-oriented material, but I'd like to know what others think. BillMasen (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Updated with newest movie? No..but why? (Also, Holmes & Watson in a Fred Saberhagen book)
I see no one has added anything about the new Sherlock Holmes movie staring Robert Downey Jr. & Jude Law, even though the last edit was September of 2010. :-) Also, I'd like to mention something maybe some didn't know...a use of the character in a book by a very popular author, Fred Saberhagen.  He wrote "The Holmes-Dracula File" and the detective was in the book quite a lot.  I'm a Dracula fan, not a Holmes fan, so I have no idea if the depiction is any good, but a couple friends of mine say it's quite good; very within character.  And it makes HUGE reference to this "Giant Rat of Sumatra" and a 'vampire' (obvious from the title, I know).  I know nothing about Wiki editing (procedure or etiquette) so I'll leave that to you more experienced chaps.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.70.142 (talk) 08:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The Guy Ritchie Movie is already mentioned here, but the Saberhagen book might be worth looking into though as I understand it (haven't read the book), this book is part of Saberhagen's Dracula novels and Holmes has just a minor role in it. --Six words (talk) 08:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Move over all adaptations

 * I suggest we take all the adaptations over to Adaptations of Sherlock Holmes. At the moment it is split and the section on the Holmes page has become a sprawl. It seems very easy for adaptations sections to become an unmaintained, unreferenced trivia list that takes up more page space than prose content. Best wishes Spanglej (talk)

...So when I move over all adaptations and derivative works to the adaptations article nobody will offer an opinion. Span (talk) 00:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Derived Works
If someone wouldn't mind researching this, I read a short story by Stephen King regarding Holmes, in the collection Nightmares and Dreamscapes. 58.166.125.16 (talk) 10:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The story in question is called "Watson's Case," if I recall correctly; it has also appeared in at least a couple of other collections of Holmes stories penned by authors other than Doyle.  Quite a lot of authors have tried their hands at writing Holmes tributes; I suspect that the focus on longer works in the article is mainly to keep the size of the section manageable.  --BRPierce (talk) 16:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect Date Of Anthony Horowitz's Holmes Novel Announcement
Anthony Horowitz's Holmes novel was announced January 17, 2011 -- not 2010. Check the source of the information for verification. (This was probably just a typo.) Techgonzo (talk) 06:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅   with these edits. Thanks for pointing out the error. When your new account becomes autoconfirmed, you will be able to make such edits to semi-protecteded articles yourself. Thanks again! —  Spike  Toronto  08:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Theorizing about origin of name
The credibility of some journalist's speculation that the origin of the name "Sherlock" comes from combining the names of two cricketers, is rather demolished by the fact that it was and is a common surname, especially in Doyle's family's country, Ireland. Straw Cat (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Genius
So seeing as he came up with alot of crime scene techniques isnt he a bit of a genius? Or did he research new techniques before writing the book?


 * Do you mean Arthur Conan Doyle? Because Sherlock Holmes wasn't a real person and he certainly didn't write his own books! And as for Doyle, he wasn't really a genius- it's like word association. It's easy to make a little deductive reasoning chain when you're just writing a story and not actually solving a crime! Raccooneyes55 (talk) 21:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Raccooneyes55, with all respect, the assertion that Holmes was a fiction is debatable; There are many good arguments made both for Holmes as a real person poorly hidden, and for Holmes as a fiction. His existence as a fictional character ONLY is far from provable. My response to the inquirer you responded to is thus: Many of the techniques Doyle wrote about were developed around that time, so it was natural he use them in his stories - much as a show such as or similar to CSI (horrible reference, I know, only one that comes to mind right now.) would feature recent forensic advancements. 96.54.72.207 (talk) 02:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Holmes's Parents
are there any notes ot hints in the books or shoort stories as to who (or what) Holme's pareants were. The only reference to his relations is his brother Mycroft who lives out un the country.


 * 'The Adventure of the Greek Interpreter' features this conversation- Watson: "In your own case, from all that you have told me it seems obvious that your faculty of observation and your peculiar facility for deduction are due to your own systematic training." Holmes: "To some extent. My ancestors were country squires, who appear to have led much the same life as is natural to their class. But, none the less, my turn that way is in my veins, and may have come with my grandmother, who was the sister of Vernet, the French artist. Art in the blood is liable to take the strangest forms."  That's as close as we ever come to information about Sherlock's parents, though that can't be used in the article for a theory about Sherlock's parents, because it would be original research. It's a shame Doyle never elaborated on Sherlock and Mycroft's backgrounds. Raccooneyes55 (talk) 21:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

a missing point
This article misses the point that the canonical Holmes stories are usually (but not always) at least as interested in the criminal and his or her motivations as Holmes' detective skills. Many (if not most) of the Holmes pastiches (Solar Pons, Professor Van Dusen, etc) concentrate largely on the detection process and are inferior as a result. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Copyright
Regarding the statement in the adaptations section that "All works published in the United States prior to 1923 are in the public domain", this is either untrue, or at least in dispute. According to a NY Times article, Doyle's family renewed the US copyright under the Copyright Act of 1976, and the American literary agent for the Arthur Conan Doyle estate maintains that Holmes won't enter the US public domain until 2023. But as there is apparently a distinction between the copyright on literary works and the copyright on characters in those works, I don't know exactly what that agent means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.239.250.209 (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Could it mean that you could publish the work whose copyright has expired after redacting all copyrighted character's names? Actually, I'm hoping someone knows and will tell me I'm wrong! &mdash; John Harvey, Wizened Web Wizard Wannabe , Talk to me! 00:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Too long!
This is a hugely long article and one that seems to lose its way part way through (Wiki recommends a page size of 30 to 50KB and this page is 95KB). Has anyone thought of splitting it into "Sherlock Holmes (character)"—dealing just with his character—and "Overview of Sherlock Holmes"—dealing with the basis, history and legacy side? We've been working on the same sort of thing with James Bond and have James Bond (character) and James Bond—both of which have recently gone up to GA level based on the re-writes. Would this splitting of a topic into two pages find favour for Holmes? - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 09:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 December 2011
I would like to propose a short addition to the section of this entry that covers The Great Hiatus, as I feel that the present text does not give adequate weight to a period that is of great interest to Sherlockians, in that it does not cover some of the more interesting explanations that have been put forward for Holmes' absence after he went over the Reichenbach Falls.

I propose the following text, which could be added at the end of the paragraph starting, "Some writers have...."

"In The Siam Question (1999) Australian author Timothy Francis Sheil explained that Sherlock had been despatched by his brother Mycroft, head of Queen Victoria's intelligence service, on a secret mission travelling to Egypt, Tibet and Siam to carry out certain sensitive tasks for the Queen."

As a Sherlock fan myself I think Mr Sheil's work is the best explanation of what happened during the great hiatus and the most consistent with the original canon. For verification purposes, The Siam Question has ISBN 0-9538160-0-1 and was reviewed inter alia in The Strand Magazine issue 36 (2000).

VPPartner (talk) 12:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I would be against this. Firstly, the article is not for speculation as to what a fictional character might or might not have done in the fictional world while the author wasn't looking (if you see what I mean).  It is for what reliable sources say about Sherlock Holmes in the world.  So it's about the character, its development, treatment by the author and others in various media.  Secondly, The Siam Question is a novel, and so should be discussed at Non-canonical Sherlock Holmes works.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As a Sherlockian myself, I must admit that I too would be against this, for the same reasons that Cusop Dingle cites. The fact of the matter is that the events of the Great Hiatus will always be a mystery, which is obviously how the great Sir Doyle wished it to be. Had he wanted to explain it, he could have. As it is, to be honest, I would shorten the section considerably. I would delete the Meyer's Seven-Per-Cent Solution reference on the same grounds that it is non-canonical, and I would also delete the amusing, but ultimately completely irrelevant, theory of Mark Bourne's that seems to have been inserted at the end of the section.
 * Conan Doyle gave us all the information we would get (as far as I can recall at the moment) in The Adventure of the Empty House, yet surprisingly that stories information (that Holmes was the Norwegian Sigerson who made "remarkable explorations") is not mentioned in the section. Vyselink (talk) 05:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 December 2011
There is a misspelling of the word Artifact in the Sherlock Holmes Article regarding his habits and personality. I hope I am doing this right, I just made my account.

TeaSippinJoe (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ❌ Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Sherlock Holmes use British spellings See American and British English spelling differences. Dru of Id (talk) 20:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 January 2012
The paragraph about forensic photography has a clause (", murders in 1888") hanging at the end. Probably this was meant to be a reference to the Whitechapel murders of 1888, where forensic photography was used. I could edit this myself but I will defer to the judgment of the regular contributors to this page.

I would change it to: "Even before Holmes's time, high quality photography was used to record accident scenes, as in the Tay Bridge disaster of 1879 and the Whitechapel murders of 1888.

Josh Thompson (talk) 12:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The Whitechapel murders article specifically says no forensic techniques were used. Is there a source saying photography was used? — Bility (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Reference not mentioned on this page
The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time is a 2003 novel by British writer Mark Haddon. It won the 2003 Whitbread Book of the Year[1] and the 2004 Commonwealth Writers' Prize for Best First Book.[2] Its title is a quotation of a remark made by the fictional detective Sherlock Holmes in Arthur Conan Doyle's 1892 short story "Silver Blaze". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.68.97 (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

A new derivative - pop culture reference
Please consider adding a reference to the following new derivative - pop culture reference:

Science Fiction author Stephanie Osborn has authored two books (with more on the way) which feature bringing Sherlock Holmes to the present day. The stories: The Case of the Displaced Detective: The Arrival and The Case of the Displaced Detective: At Speed (Twilight Times Books, Dec. 2011) describe the results of a physics experiment looking at an alternate reality in which the fictional Homes was in fact a real historical figure. While watching Holmes & Moriarity's fatal fight at Reichenback Falls, the lead scientist steps through the machine, resulting in Moriarity's fall, but Holmes survival. The experiment is shut down, Holmes ends up transported to the new, present day reality. The stories are then based on Holmes' adaptation to 21st century America and his role in solving a crime involving his own transfer to the dimension. These are fun books and very respectful of the Holmes canon, well worth mention in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.111.110.6 (talk) 06:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Drug usage
The drug usage section is lacking references, they should point to the first chapter (The Science of Deduction) of the novel "The Sign of the Four" for reference of cocaine and morphine usage, and to the short story "The Man with the Twisted Lip" as reference to opium disapproval.

Also, the article affirms that Sherlock Holmes is occasional user of morphine, while it can not be ascertained. It is only implied in the first chapter of "The Sign of the Four" by Dr. Watson, in an ironic disapproval for the cocaine usage, what can be pretty much interpreted as a mockery, and not that Sherlock Holmes is an occasional user.

Change the phrase: "Holmes is also an occasional user of morphine but expressed strong disapproval on visiting an opium den."

to something like: "While it may be implied that Holmes is also an occasional user of morphine[ref], he also expressed strong disapproval on visiting an opium den[ref]."

Lvella (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: You are nearly auto-confirmed, so it would be better if you made this change yourself. You just need two more edits somewhere and you will be auto-confirmed. The references you suggest may be a bit problematic, though. Ideally, you want to reference someone drawing the conclusion rather than the raw data from which the conclusion can be drawn. Welcome and happy editing, Celestra (talk) 03:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 February 2012
Finally, Didierjean and Gobet (2008) → Finally, Didierjean and Gobet (2008)

Thedeepblue4 (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done  elektrik SHOOS  (talk) 05:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 March 2012
I think it would be more pertinent for "Sensational Literature" (from "Knowledge of Sensational Literature – Immense.") to link to Sensation Novel rather than Sensationalism Sensationalism.

24.61.233.55 (talk) 04:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Celestra (talk) 05:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph
What is the description, 'The fantastic London-based "consulting detective"... ' saying? It seems to imply at least that SH must be already well known to the reader, or more weirdly, that anyone can be assumed to have heard of such a detective, without necessarily knowing his name. "A" rather than "The" would solve much of this; even so, "fantastic" is a word too vague and broad in meaning to be informative here. Johncurrandavis (talk) 09:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Holmes' age
I'm sorry, I don't understand your editing instructions. I just wanted to clarify the question of Holmes' age:

"An estimate of Holmes's age in the story "His Last Bow" places his birth in 1854; the story is set in August 1914 and he is described as being 60 years of age. Commonly, the date is cited as 6 January.[4] However, an argument for a later birthdate is posited by author Laurie R. King, based on two of Conan Doyle's stories: A Study in Scarlet and "The Gloria Scott" Adventure. Certain details in "The Gloria Scott" Adventure indicate Holmes finished his second and final year at university in either 1880 or 1885. Watson's own account of his wounding in the Second Afghan War and subsequent return to England in A Study in Scarlet place his moving in with Holmes in either early 1881 or 1882. Together, these suggest Holmes left university in 1880; if he began university at the age of 17, his birth year would likely be 1861.[5]… According to Holmes, it was an encounter with the father of one of his classmates that led him to take up detection as a profession,[8] and he spent the six years following university working as a consulting detective, before financial difficulties led him to take Watson as a roommate, at which point the narrative of the stories begins."

If Holmes spent six years as a detective following university before Watson moved in in 1881 or 1882, that means he left around 1875, not 1880 or 1885. Assuming he started at 17 and spent two years there, that would put his birth year at 1854, which is the first date given in the article, not 1861 as King suggests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.247.122.47 (talk) 20:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

King's principal interest is in trying to make him marrying her much, much younger author self-insert just slightly less deeply creepy, so I think we can discount her opinion. Doyle says he's 60 in 1914. Ergo born 1854, no need to change it.86.174.55.102 (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

intro para cont.
I didn't give any instructions; I just made an observation. Sorry if it was not comprehensible. I have changed 'The fantastic London-based "consulting detective"...' to 'A London-based "consulting detective" whose abilities border on the fantastic...'. The former is unsuitable as it assumes the reader's prior knowledge, asserts the ontological necessity of the existence of such a detective (sorry, but it really does!), and is wrong, at least too vague, in its use of 'fantastic'. I believe the latter to be better in the last instance as SH's abilities have the appearance of the supernatural or the superhuman until their explanation is revealed. Johncurrandavis (talk) 09:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Criticism
A small point due to the literary insignificance of the Sherlock Holmes stories but there's not a single word of criticism in the entire fawning article. How ironic that the hero of deduction's page should be without a hint of one of the cornerstones of reason, criticism. Are we to believe that Doyle's books are the only in history above criticism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F140:400:1036:2440:CA4B:7B80:CE7E (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No, but since the SH stories make no pretense to being serious literature and are simply delightful popular entertainments, you would not expect to find find much if any serious literary criticism about them any more than you would about stories by Agatha Christie or Raymond Chandler or the like. If you can find any reviews contemporary to the publication of the stories, they might be of some value- but to what end? You'd end up with reviews as lightweight as the stories, and that would add nothing of significance to the article any more than a critique of, say, Stephen King's stuff would be in and article about him. Sensei48 (talk) 21:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe that there is now a fair body of literary criticism about Raymond Chandler at least. The notion that there are "great writers" who are suitable subjects for literary criticism and lesser ones who are not is regarded in many quarters as almost heretical. Some while back I heard on the TV someone who was writing her doctorate on Agatha Christie and had done a lot of statistical analysis on her prose which showed that she used a lot of very ordinary words - for which the would-be PhD praised her as it was very democratic! I would guess that a trawl of the American PhD listings would show many on Conan Doyle/Holmes.


 * The real problem is the presence of a large number of people who wish to treat the character of Sherlock Holmes as a real person, and the writings as genuine accounts. I'm all in favour of a large and fanatical following (it keeps book-reading alive and readers passionate), but it makes the creation of Wikipedia articles very difficult. You can neither evaluate the creation, status and influence of the author and the fiction nor describe the methods, life and achievements of the "man" without either the Baker Street Irregulars or the professional critics being offended, or immediately wanting the text changed.


 * It also leads to a plethora of entirely superfluous detail. We really don't need the full list of Holmes's "interests" as listed in "A Study in Scarlet" - especially as such a list can be completely disregarded when Conan Doyle wanted to have Holmes know something else for the benefit of the story. The prime example is the sudden appearance of a skill in "baritsu" when Conan Doyle needed to get Holmes out a position which had previously had to be certain death above the Reichenbach Falls. This example is one where the interests of the "real man" school of contributors makes it difficult to point out that Holmes changes not just with "age" or "experience" but according the needs of the author trying to write a plausible story.


 * I can see no way that discussion of a fictional character with a strong "in-universe" following can be made to work in a balanced or objective way within the Wikipedia format, unless there is a "this is fiction, guys" rule, strongly enforced - and I'm not sure it would be worth the trouble. Jorvikian (talk) 23:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

In-Universe
I didn't want to tag it in case I was wrong, but a lot of this seems to be written In-Universe: "...according to Watson..." etc. Would editing be beneficial? Lithium (talk) 20:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

RV Of Television Edits, 11/02/12
The reversion of a section entitled "Characters inspired by Sherlock Holmes" is for the following reasons as suggested in the edit summary.

1. It is completely unsourced. According to whom do any of these characters have anything to do with Sherlock Holmes?

2. It is WP:OR, original research/material.

3. Without sources, it is an editor's POV, not NPOV as required by Wiki rules.

4. It is unvetted - a major change to the article that should have been discussed here with a rationale for its inclusion.

5. It is grossly incomplete, even by the standards of its own section title. Hundreds of characters, plots, books, stories, and films could be said to be "inspired by Sherlock Holmes." There is no rationale for creating a separate section that details speculative influence on a few TV characters in an article about a literary character.

6.There is already a section in the article called "Related and derivative works," where sourced material of this nature is appropriate. Sensei48 (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Further - there is a Wikipedia article called Non-canonical Sherlock Holmes works and within it a section | Holmes-inspired characters. This rv'd material belongs there if anywhere - though it absolutely requires sourcing or it's just POV WP:OR.


 * Another possible home for this material is Popular culture references to Sherlock Holmes. Sensei48 (talk) 21:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Holmes' alleged use of phrenology
This allegation is simply not true. It is a classic example of a POV not supported by the inline citation, in this instance the Wikipedia article about phrenology. Phrenology, as the Wikipedia article makes abundantly clear, was not concerned per se with the size or volume or circumference of the human skull but rather with the bumps and lumps found on the human skull. Further, by the time Doyle, a trained medical doctor, was writing the Holmes stories, phrenology had been largely debunked and was accepted by the medical establishments of Scotland, England and Wales to be a pseudoscience. Read Phrenology to learn this. For example:

Is the external volume of the skull related to brain volume? Is brain volume related to intelligence? Is the ratio of brain mass to overall body mass related to intelligence? These remain bonafide scientific questions in comparative anatomy, a branch of zoology, that have nothing to do with the discredited pseudo-science of phrenology.

This slur on the medical knowledge and medical competence of Doyle, and on his creation, is currently unsupported by any cited evidence and therefore I am amending it to read as follows:

Anyone who wants to put it back in needs to read phrenology beforehand and then include at least one citation, from a reliable source, to support their POV.124.186.221.219 (talk) 05:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I think, then, that the best course is to remove it entirely, which I have done, rather than temper what was there with a kind of inference, which your edit had done. I agree with your main point that a real RS would be needed to include it at all. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 06:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Sherlock
I'm a little confused as to why "Sherlock" and, for that matter, Elementary, are listed under 'Related and Derivative Works' rather than 'Stage and Screen adaptations'. I suggest moving them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A bright cold day in april (talk • contribs) 23:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I suppose it is because both shows you mention are transposed to modern day rather than being set in the late 19th century as the canonical works are. Looking through those sections I can see that there are some listed as adaptions that should probably be listed as derivatives and vice versa. A thorough reorganization of those sections may well be in order.

Sherlock and Elementary are not adaptations. Span (talk) 00:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Sherlock's age
I don't understand why this continues to be allowed in the article:

Author Laurie R. King has speculated about Holmes's birth date, based on two of Conan Doyle's stories: A Study in Scarlet and "The Gloria Scott" Adventure. Certain details in "The Gloria Scott" Adventure indicate Holmes finished his second and final year at university in either 1880 or 1885. Watson's own account of his wounding in the Second Afghan War and subsequent return to England in A Study in Scarlet place his moving in with Holmes in either early 1881 or 1882. Together, these suggest Holmes left university in 1880; if he began university at the age of 17, his birth year would likely be 1861.[46]

This makes no sense. Earlier in the article, it states that Holmes worked for six years as a private consultant after leaving university before meeting Watson. The math here is (roughly)six years off.Even if you call this fan fiction, why would you continue to allow it to have anything to say about Holmes' age? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.247.122.47 (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Adler Edits, 12/12
I have restored a corrected version of an earlier edit to the Irene Adler section. Corrections include removing grammatical and logical inconsistencies (Adler is "the only one" "with three other men" makes no sense; which king comes to Holmes is unintentionally ambiguous), correcting the verb tense ("had had" is past perfect/pluperfect and is required grammatically) and pruning the length.

Adler is one character in one story out of 60 tales. A subsection devoted to a single character is way out of proportion to the character's importance, and this subsection should be edited into the "relationship with women" section.

The extensive plot summary of the reverted edit would in any event be inappropriate for this article (again, it is just one story), though it might be appropriate in A Scandal In Bohemia. Likewise, the pop-culture inflation of the "importance" of Adler belongs in an article on Irene Adler or in the pop-culture/adaptations section at the end of this one. Sensei48 (talk) 07:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am going to revert your edit, the previous section you have restored contains errors; Adler does not blackmail the King, she makes no demands, nor does Holmes succeed in obtaining the photograph in question. If you want to tighten or summarise the information more, that's one thing, but please do not unilaterally restore it with such glaring errors. Nor is the fact that there is a subsection relevant to the edit as it already existed. As such any section dealing with his relationship with Adler, or indeed even with his relationship with women, requires something about the unique significance Adler has in canon and the particular esteem she is held in by the character. Being "The Woman", and with the quote "In his eyes she eclipses and predominates the whole of her sex", it is not exagerating her importance to mention this significance, especially given that her roll is often expanded in adaptions as a romantic interest. (The grammatical issues are to do with the previous version also).121.73.221.187 (talk) 08:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I would suggest a better edit along the lines you suggest, which address the issues you raise, would be to remove the (actually rather brief) summary of the story and simply link to the main article of Irene Adler or A Scandal in Bohemia, with a 'see main article' link, leaving only a description of her significance and the esteem Holmes holds her in.121.73.221.187 (talk) 09:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * OK to a degree, but allow me to point out that your edit was completely unilateral and grossly expanded a subsection that was questionable to begin with. That point - whether or not this single character deserves a subsection to herself when no other significant single character (Moriarity comes to mind) has one - is one that can be discussed by editors already active. The fact that "Relationships with women" is the broader category of which Adler is a component, albeit an important one, suggests the advisability of a merger.
 * The romantic interest, however, absolutely has to go, and I will revert that. The body of the article is about and properly presents the canonical Holmes, not the pop culture riffs and pastiches. There is a section for that and an entirely separate article as well. The extensive quotation, much of which is irrelevant even to the point you want to make, also should go. I looked at both the Adler and "Scandal" articles before I rv'd and note that you included much of what you added here in those articles, and I think those are the proper places to expand the relationship idea.
 * I'll follow up on your last sentence above. I must disagree politely that your summary, however accurate, is brief. No other story alluded to in the article contains anything so detailed, and again, the wikilinked article on "Scandal" is the best place for the summary.. As far as merging sections, let's see what other editors think. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 09:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree with you regarding merging the sections, presumably whoever seperated it thought her significance justified it, I agree with your reasoning on that though, I was just editing the section as it was already present. The summary could've been tightened a bit I'll concede, though I still think it was quite brief, but as my suggestion of linking to the main article deals with that issue it's a bit moot I suppose. As relevant to the relationship aspect of either section, as long as the point of her significance is retained and the esteem she is held in I have no problems aside from the errors the previous section contained (also describing her as an opera singer/actress when in the story she is retired, with incorrect tense of 'was' -she 'is' a character in the story (was sounds a bit in-universe to me in, very minor point though)). Perhaps just that section of the quote I mentioned above then, in regards to her being 'the Woman', and eclipsing the whole of her sex for him. I apologise if the tone of my request with 'unilateral' sounded impolite, was not intended. Oh I don't see the particular harm in mentioning in the context of her significance in canon that her roll is often expanded in adaptions though, it's more a fact about her roll in canon not being as great as it's often presented, than about the adaptions per se. I'm open on that though.Number36 (talk) 10:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please excuse my confusion - but Numbers, are you the same person as 123 above? Looks like it. Anyway, ditto your comment - I don't want to seem impolite either, and I would add that this is one of my favorite stories and I like the additions you made to the actual article. Compromise is always a good thing here o Wiki. I thought your plot summary was too long, and mine now may strike you as too brief. Maybe we can meet somewhere in the middle. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 10:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh yes sorry, I didn't notice that, having trouble with my computer, keeps logging out of sites while I'm using them. So yes to the merge then? I'll leave it to you.Number36 (talk) 10:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh actually, what you've done there is perfect, not too brief at all. It is better than what I had, wish I'd thought of it in the first place would've saved me some time :) Number36 (talk) 10:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Original Research in Holmesian Deduction
A large portion of this section reads like it is a Wikipedia editor's analysis of Holmes' powers of deduction. It is rather lengthy, well-written, and logical; however, it does not cite a source for that analysis. As such it is original research and I have tagged the section accordingly. Primogen (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 January 2013
Paragraph "retirement" [at contents 2.3], please change the misleading:

'In "His Last Bow", Holmes has retired to a small farm on the Sussex Downs in 1903–1904, as chronicled by Watson in his preface to the series of stories entitled "His Last Bow."'

to:

'In "His Last Bow", Holmes has retired to a small farm on the Sussex Downs. The move is nowhere dated precisely, but can be presumed to predate 1904, since it is referred to retrospectively in "The Second Stain", first published that year.'

The link below is to the relevant page of a facsimile of the book, showing that Watson's preface gives no dates at all, and nor does the story or any other in this collection.

http://sherlock-holm.es/stories/html/lstb.html#Preface-1

Clive Lyons (talk) 01:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Vaca  tion  9  23:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Looks like someone else already did it -- marked edit request as done. Banaticus (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Detective Conan
i feel like the huge Holmes refferences in Aoyama Gosho's popular manga, Detective Conan (a.k.a Case Closed) should be mentioned here. I myself am a huge fan of the series so i don't have a problem with sitting and doing the writing myself. Plus I do know more than average about the setting and plot of the story.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.6.159.200 (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The only place it would fit would be "Related and Derivative Works," and you would need a solid and reliable secondary source that establishes the connection between SH and the manga. Sensei48 (talk) 19:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Detective Conan is already mentioned in the relevant article, ie. Non-canonical Sherlock Holmes works (in the Holmes-inspired characters section). ISTM that the Related and derivative works section in the main article is far too long now as people keep adding more bits to it instead of using the side article. Really the section here should be just a stub summarising the non-canon article, and all the detail should be moved out to that article (indeed quite a bit of it is already there). Samatarou (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 March 2013
Under the section 4 Methods of detection 4.2 Disguise

it might be useful to add this to the very end:

In "A Scandal in Bohemia" Watson remarks that "The stage lost a fine actor..., when [Holmes] became a specialist in crime" in means of describing how perfect he was in the art of disguises, and how often Watson himself fell for them.

119.12.67.84 (talk) 06:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — Bility (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Sidney Paget: Sherlock Holmes image
Isn't this very old image a remarkable likeness of Clive Merrison? Surely this amazing resemblance deserves a mention? The coincidence of the actor playing the part makes it so. PeterM88 (talk) 00:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

grammatical error
The final sentence of the introduction contains the wording "to either..." instead of the proper "either to...". To whoever has the ability to edit this page, please make the appropriate correction. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BC58:5910:F9BE:C68F:BF49:3799 (talk) 12:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit "Elementary, my dear Watson"
Under "Legacy" it says that "The catchphrase "Elementary, my dear Watson" is never actually uttered by Holmes...". Must be added the following:

The phrase "Elementary, my dear Watson", appears in a Sherlock Holmes story, wich name is "The Adventure of the Red Widow" Link, written by the son of Arthut Conan Doyle, Adrian Conan Doyle and John Dickson Carr, in the book "The Exploits Of Sherlock Holmes": -"Well, I must confess that you folowed my thoughts with extraordinary accuracy," I admitted. " A remarkable piece of reasoning, Holmes." -"Elementary, my dear Watson." The Adventures of the Red Widow


 * ) I fund it!!!

181.168.104.67 (talk) 05:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC) Nati


 * That story is not by Arthur Conan Doyle and is therefore not part of the "canon," about which this article is written.Sensei48 (talk) 06:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done. @Sensei48, the whole second paragraph of the section is about things written by people other tha Conan Doyle, and many of them don't even use the exact phrase. Moreover, this is the Legacy section, so how can it be about the canon? The IP has at least provided us with the first cited statement of the section. I've added it and tagged refimprove. Good catch, 181.168... --Stfg (talk) 12:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

adding a pistol in weapons section
Hi,

In the 'The Adventure of the Speckled Band' story, Holmes has mentioned one more pistol that Watson has with him. Holmes says 'I should be very much obliged if you would slip your revolver into your pocket. An Eley's No. 2 is an excellent argument with gentlemen who can twist steel pokers into knots.'

Please include the Eley's No 2 revolver in the weapons and martial arts section.

Hrushi99 (talk) 05:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Personally I think the whole weapons section is trivia and was disappointed that it got resurrected from the footnote it had been relegated to. The defining thing about Sherlock Holmes is that he solves crimes deductively rather than by brute force as used to be the fashion in stories, so listing all the times weapons are used in the stories is a really anal pastime IMHO Samatarou (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I would agree in part, it's the caption on a gun photo explaining how a Mark III differs from a Mark II which brought me to the Talk page. In one respect, there's nothing profound in Holmes' choice of pistol any more than "It's a thing that can be stuck in a pocket that goes boom". However we must have some sympathy for the modern reader, distanced from the late 1800s. There's quite a difference between the guns of Holmes' day, and the high-tech monsters a young reader might carry from associations with Dirty Harry or James Bond. In particular, it might strike one as peculiar that in one story Holmes fired inside, at a wall. If his gun had been a modern and high powered, it could easily have passed through the wall and killed someone outside. The article pictures suggest these may not have been exceptionally high powered weapons. It might be more useful in the article to briefly mention the social meaning of the guns, in the way that James Bond carrying a Beretta was a statement of his individuality, his self-confidence, and defiance of his boss. Was anything at all intended by Doyle in his gun selection? That might be interesting. Leptus Froggi (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Books written by Sherlock
I think this article would be improved by a list of works written by the character. The only one we can remember around the pub table is the different types of cigar ash. We know there's more! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.181.18.170 (talk) 03:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyright news
Here are some links for people to use to update the article. If you use these links, then delete this section. • Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 11:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * http://www.theverge.com/2013/12/27/5248252/sherlock-holmes-and-john-watson-are-in-us-public-domain
 * http://freesherlock.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/klinger-order-on-motion-for-summary-judgment-c.pdf

Image Error?
I have to ask this question here, because I cannot find a way to contact the source page's editor: Is the picture of Sidney Edward Paget printed in reverse? As shown on the subject page, and in the source pages, his jacket buttons the wrong way around. Notice also that his jacket pocket is on the wrong side for a man. If anyone knows where to check for this error, and to insert a corrected version of the original photograph, then it would be appreciated. Thank-you. g0mrb 02:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Try this:User talk.Lobo, who uploaded the picture, or the pictures talk page. Hafspajen (talk) 13:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)